Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 12:27 PM
181 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle, Taq, vimesey (8 members, 173 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,760 Year: 18,583/29,783 Month: 528/2,043 Week: 80/386 Day: 30/50 Hour: 9/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
13Next
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 191 (533196)
10-29-2009 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Modulous
10-29-2009 5:18 AM


Strawman?
Modulous writes:

I've never said that people can be brought back everytime.

Hi Modulous. I regard your point relative to dead people resuscitated as a strawman in that this resuscitation process is by intelligent work, not applicable to abiogenesis.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 5:18 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 11:43 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Meldinoor, posted 10-29-2009 3:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 47 of 191 (533199)
10-29-2009 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cedre
10-29-2009 5:28 AM


Hi Cedre

You say: "the only way for parts to fade from a corpse is through decay and like the Wikipedia article said decay can take a few days even years."

That is not correct. Parts can "fade" from a corpse instantly by being eaten or damaged in any number of different ways.

Even if the body is not obviously decayed or damaged, as a layman I don't have any difficulty in understanding why a life cannot normally be resuscitated. Forgive the lack of technical terminology, but the blood "dries up" very quickly and will no longer be oxygenated. The brain suffers irreversible damage when it is deprived of oxygen. And very often, the cause of death will be the reason why the body cannot be resuscitated: for example, organs become damaged through age or disease. How would you be able to "kick-start" a life again, if the heart is seriously faulty and the brain is irreversibly damaged?

Surely you can see that the processes required to repair and kick-start a fully-formed organism that has died are totally different from the gradual series of processes that would have led from a situation where no life had ever existed to the formation of the very first simple lifeform (abiogenesis).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 5:28 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:06 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 672 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 48 of 191 (533200)
10-29-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
10-28-2009 11:16 PM


Re: The difference between "dead" and "not living"
Hi, Buzsaw.

Buzsaw writes:

Interesting; Lifeforms having no life.

Still going for the rhetorical points, I see.

I didn't say that, although, admittedly, the syntax of my sentence made it a bit ambiguous.

-----

Buzsaw writes:

It would seem that the less complex a compound of chemicals is, the more subject to entropy it would be...

And yet, every winter, huge quantities of water (a three-atom molecule) freeze into an organized crystalline structure that we call "ice."

Seems that the thesis of your argument is entirely refuted by one of the most basic observations available in the natural world.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 10-28-2009 11:16 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 12:27 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 49 of 191 (533205)
10-29-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
10-29-2009 10:22 AM


That is not correct. Parts can "fade" from a corpse instantly by being eaten or damaged in any number of different ways.

lol, I appreciate your enlightenment here.

Even if the body is not obviously decayed or damaged, as a layman I don't have any difficulty in understanding why a life cannot normally be resuscitated. Forgive the lack of technical terminology, but the blood "dries up" very quickly and will no longer be oxygenated. The brain suffers irreversible damage when it is deprived of oxygen. And very often, the cause of death will be the reason why the body cannot be resuscitated: for example, organs become damaged through age or disease. How would you be able to "kick-start" a life again, if the heart is seriously faulty and the brain is irreversibly damaged?

The fact that dead organisms are not alive despite being in one piece, a dead human being for example still has all the required carbon-compounds for life, and these carbon compounds are still in the right positions, yet the person is lifeless, this reveals that there's more to life than mere parts . And as I showed repeatedly the damage you allude to doesn't take place extremely fast as muscle cells can survive on for hours after death, and as for brain damage, resulting from brain cell deterioration victims of brain damage can be resuscitated and may even be nursed back to health in severe cases this person may enter a long-lived coma etc. My point is a great deal of detrimental change doesn't happen right after death, all the parts are still in place, that is why certain people have been resuscitated after even what is considered to be a very long time.

The obvious question in light of the foregoing paragraph is why do organisms die while having all the necessary parts in place if having parts is all that's required for life?

Surely you can see that the processes required to repair and kick-start a fully-formed organism that has died are totally different from the gradual series of processes that would have led from a situation where no life had ever existed to the formation of the very first simple lifeform (abiogenesis).

The very first life form arose from an assembly of life-giving components yet I have showed that having life-giving components even having them in the right places isn't all that's needed for life, there's something else.

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-29-2009 10:22 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-29-2009 11:27 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 62 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2009 1:23 PM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Blue Jay, posted 10-30-2009 10:57 AM Cedre has responded

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 50 of 191 (533208)
10-29-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Modulous
10-29-2009 7:59 AM


It seems to me that your position is that doctors don't reverse the damage caused by whatever and that they don't simply restart bodily processes that were somehow interrupted, but instead they re-insert the 'spirit'.

Yes to be sure that is what happens, doctors bring the person back to life that is to say re-insert the "spirit". It just wasn't his/her time to go.

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 7:59 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2009 11:14 AM Cedre has responded
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 11:45 AM Cedre has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 51 of 191 (533210)
10-29-2009 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Cedre
10-29-2009 11:08 AM


All we need is magic
Yes to be sure that is what happens, doctors bring the person back to life that is to say re-insert the "spirit"

Then why should doctors bother with medical school? For that matter why don't we just eliminated doctors all together. Prayer should be plenty sufficient for everything.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:08 AM Cedre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:19 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Cedre
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 52 of 191 (533212)
10-29-2009 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Theodoric
10-29-2009 11:14 AM


Re: All we need is magic
Then why should doctors bother with medical school? For that matter why don't we just eliminated doctors all together. Prayer should be plenty sufficient for everything.

Prayer should be plenty sufficient for everything, but the success of prayer depends on faith and not many folks have that so I guess doctor's are greatly needed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2009 11:14 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2009 11:46 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Coragyps, posted 10-29-2009 11:52 AM Cedre has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Drosophilla, posted 10-29-2009 3:24 PM Cedre has responded

    
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 53 of 191 (533214)
10-29-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Cedre
10-29-2009 11:06 AM


Hi Cedre

Well, I will leave it to someone with better medical knowledge than me to explain what happens to a body to make it impossible for life to be resuscitated more than a few minutes after death.

However, you ignored the point I made that a life often ends because of a failure of some part, such as the heart. So even though it might appear that you have everything in place for a body to live, if the heart won't work, life is impossible.

You still seem to be confused about how the first life emerged. You may term it as "an assembly of life-giving components" but obviously it wasn't an assembly of life-giving components in anything like the same way that a human body may be described as an assembly of life-giving components.

Again, the process that led from a situation where there was no life to one where the first simple life emerged, is totally different to the process that would be necessary to get a once living body back from the dead!

I suppose in theory it is possible that decomposed materials that were once part of a body might be used in a new process of abiogenesis. Just don't expect to see it happening before your eyes!

Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : No reason given.

Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : Typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:06 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 54 of 191 (533218)
10-29-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 9:48 AM


Re: Strawman?
Hi Modulous. I regard your point relative to dead people resuscitated as a strawman in that this resuscitation process is by intelligent work, not applicable to abiogenesis.

You should read the full argument,then. The argument is that there is reason to believe there is some 'essential force' a 'spark of life' or 'spirit' that animates life and that without it - the body is dead. This is meant to prove abiogenesis wrong because this spirit is needed for life to exist and that for some reason this 'spark of life' cannot conjoin with certain arrangements of chemicals without some intervention.

The support for this is that a dead body is physically identical in every way to a living one. My argument is that this is not so, so the support fails on these grounds.

So how have I constructed a strawman?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 9:48 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 55 of 191 (533220)
10-29-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Cedre
10-29-2009 11:08 AM


It seems to me that your position is that doctors don't reverse the damage caused by whatever and that they don't simply restart bodily processes that were somehow interrupted, but instead they re-insert the 'spirit'.

Yes to be sure that is what happens, doctors bring the person back to life that is to say re-insert the "spirit". It just wasn't his/her time to go.

But...why should doctors need to intervene? If the dead body is identical to the living one - why do doctors need to make changes to the dead body in order that it come back to life?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:08 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 56 of 191 (533221)
10-29-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Cedre
10-29-2009 11:19 AM


Re: All we need is magic
Prayer should be plenty sufficient for everything, but the success of prayer depends on faith and not many folks have that so I guess doctor's are greatly needed.

Wow.
So you are willing to fore go all medical treatment and solely rely on prayer?

BTW, studies would show you wrong.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:19 AM Cedre has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1161 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 57 of 191 (533222)
10-29-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Cedre
10-29-2009 2:56 AM


The entire problem with your argument exists within this single statement:

The conclusion is obvious having all the requirements in place is not all that is needed for life.

Your basic premise, that once-living deceased entities have all of the requirements for life in place,is simply false, ergo your conclusion is false.

Once-living organisms die because the requirements for life are no longer in place.

For example: when a person is shot in the head, one of the requirements for the continued life of the organism (a functioning brain to regulate the other organs of the body) is no longer "in place."

Death obviously happens for innumerable reasons, but they all boil down to the same thing: the set of necessary factors to allow an organism to continue to regulate its own metabolism are no longer in place to one degree or another. This is true whether the result of an injury that damages an organ that regulates other organs or produces a chemical required for the rest of the organism, or the simple result of aggregate destabilization in chemical processes due to any number of other factors.

All forms of life have specific ranges of tolerance for the availability of energy, replacement compounds for self-repair or reproduction, and basic environmental tolerances such as heat or the absence of a predator ripping it apart. Death occurs when those tolerances are either not met or are exceeded beyond their maximum.

Death, basically by definition, means that the requirements for life are no longer present.

Your premise states that, when an organism dies, all of the requirements for life are still present. This is false. Therefore your conclusion that the extant prerequisites of life should then live again if abiogenesis is possible is false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 2:56 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5363
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 191 (533223)
10-29-2009 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Cedre
10-29-2009 11:19 AM


Re: All we need is magic
Prayer should be plenty sufficient for everything....

Yeah, it restores the limbs of amputees all the time.

Prayer is as "effective" as farting, but gives you less relief.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:19 AM Cedre has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 191 (533225)
10-29-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
10-29-2009 6:09 AM


Modulous writes:

While there is nothing 'missing', the parts are not arranged in the same way. Agreed? The brain hasn't vanished - but the cells are no longer the same as a living brain - even after a mere few minutes. Agreed?

True, but it would seem that the body, moments after death, would be in a state far less impacted by the pressure of entropy than lifeless chemicals which allegedly once emerged into abiogenesis.

Of the billions of known deaths, aside from intelligent work, we know that life just doesn't regenerate. Perhaps this not only weakens the argument for abiogenesis but supports the argument for a living soul. Why? Because though the cohesion of elements for life exist, the body, apart from the invisible living soul remains dead.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 6:09 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 12:02 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 60 of 191 (533226)
10-29-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 11:57 AM


True, but it would seem that the body, moments after death, would be in a state far less impacted by the pressure of entropy than lifeless chemicals which allegedly once emerged into abiogenesis.

Yes - but it requires intelligent intervention to bring it back to life. The reason is because something has stopped working properly not because everything is the same but for a missing soul.

Of the billions of known deaths, aside from intelligent work, we know that life just doesn't regenerate. Perhaps this not only weakens the argument for abiogenesis but supports the argument for a living soul. Why? Because though the cohesion of elements for life exist, the body, apart from the invisible living soul remains dead.

My body remains alive without a soul. If bodies often spontaneously came back to life - that would be an argument for the soul. The fact that whatever is wrong with the body has to be fixed and processes started up again before life returns is not evidence for a requirement for a soul for life to start at all.

Besides - this only weakens theories that propose that if you put the right chemicals in vague proximity to one another life will immediately form. Of course - nobody has ever seriously proposed that this is the case except for creationists. But I started discussing that and Cedre warned that it was a strawman of his argument so I turned to focus on his argument for the existence of a spark of life.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 11:57 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 3:52 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev123
4
56
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018