Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,802 Year: 4,059/9,624 Month: 930/974 Week: 257/286 Day: 18/46 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the source of life
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 211 (495562)
01-23-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by homunculus
01-22-2009 1:57 AM


Have you ever heard of the Fine Tuned Universe argument or the Anthropic Principle?
You post sounds like a long winded combination of those.
You can read up on the criticisms in those links.
I think your error is best exeplified by this analogy:
You are looking at a puddle and concluding that the pothole must have been designed to perfectly fit around the water.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see message 13

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by homunculus, posted 01-22-2009 1:57 AM homunculus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Huntard, posted 01-23-2009 12:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 211 (495576)
01-23-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Huntard
01-23-2009 12:17 PM


Hey CS shouldn't this:
Catholic Scientist writes:
You are looking at a puddle and concluding that the water in it must have been designed to perfectly fit the pothole.
Be: "You are looking at a puddle and concluding that the pothole must have been designed to perfectly fit the water in it"?
Yeah, I fucked that one up.
Thanks for pointing it out. I edited my post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Huntard, posted 01-23-2009 12:17 PM Huntard has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 211 (495618)
01-23-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by homunculus
01-23-2009 4:41 PM


Re: -Law of Providence-
Keep in mind that I am not asserting this as a variable. I claim that provision is required. Because in 6,000 years, the only thing that has been observed is life producing life (I.E. mating), sources for all happenings and effects being caused.
Spontaneous Generation has never happened. Look the universe over for life self generating. It never happens. Our universe does not suggest the supernatural, it guarantees it.
Bullshit.
A long long long time ago, there were not even atoms in the Universe so it was physically impossible for life to exist. Life exists today. Therefore, at some point life had to spontaneously generate from non-life.
The only way that is wrong is if life has existed forever. But we know that isn't true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by homunculus, posted 01-23-2009 4:41 PM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 6:14 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 211 (496305)
01-27-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by homunculus
01-27-2009 12:47 PM


Since my original stance, saying
quote:
It has only been observed that life produces life.
That is the observation, that is the obvious, it does not fall on me to provide evidence for that. We just haven't seen the contrary happen.
But we know that the claim "Life only comes from life" (aka Law of Biogenesis) is wrong even though we haven't observed the contradiction.
The logical extension of this is that life has always existed. But we know that is impossible because in the distant past, not even atoms existed. And yet, life exists today. That means that there had to be a first lifeform and that it did not come from a previous lifeform.
It doesn't matter that we haven't observed it yet. We know that it had to have happened.
Simply put that I believe in creation, because that's where the observations take me. I have studied Evolutionary science and simply have no reason to believe it.
You need to stop reading what creationsts think is evolutionary science and start learning about actual evolutionary science.
There's plenty of reasons to believe it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by homunculus, posted 01-27-2009 12:47 PM homunculus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2009 3:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 211 (496309)
01-27-2009 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Rahvin
01-27-2009 3:42 PM


The disagreement is over the plausibility of abiogenesis through natural processes versus divine intervention.
Maybe I misunderstood him...
Even Creationists have to accept that abiogenesis happened on principle.
He seemed to be supporting the Law of Biogenesis without even realizing that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2009 3:42 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2009 4:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 211 (496386)
01-27-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Capt Stormfield
01-27-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Re Life
Say you could do a brain transplant. The recipient heart is ticking and the body's cells are cellulatin' the whole time. The donor brain is from a real bad sinner who has rejected the entreaties of the Holy Spirit. Do the sins come with the brain? Then what about the rest of the body? If the life, the person, the sinner resides in the incoming brain, was the recipient body alive during the period of time the old brain was gone and before the new one went in? If yes, who was it during that brain-free time? Is the resulting composite a sinner? How did the sinner spread from the brain into the rest of the body?
Whoa... You're weird.
Welcome to EvC. I like your avatar picture!
I'll be reading your posts.
Do the sins come with the brain?
I'd speculate that they do, in that they come along with the sentience and consciousness.
Then what about the rest of the body? If the life, the person, the sinner resides in the incoming brain, was the recipient body alive during the period of time the old brain was gone and before the new one went in?
My position is that without a sentient and conscious ability, an entity cannot sin.
But I think your main point was in Message 146:
So what exactly was transferred to the physical form?
ICANT must be talking about an eternal life that presumably requires God to exist.
Assuming that, I'd speculate that the transferred requirement is sentience and consciousness (the "breath of life")
All the chemistry going on in our bodies (and in the bodies of newts, monkeys, bacteria, etc.) seems to work pretty much along the same lines as chemistry does outside those bodies.
I get someone seeing sentience and consciousness as something unique to humans that requires that 'something else going on' (the transferred requirement) that doesn't happen outside our bodies (including newts, monkeys, bacteria, etc.). Not that it has been thoroughly established, but that I get someone seeing that.
Was he adding electrons? Atoms? What exactly?
Obviously I'm going with the whole sentience and consciousness thing here.....
I have noticed that some chunks of body stay alive when they are moved to a different body, even to a body of a different species in many cases. Hell, some living parts keep on living in lab environments. What is it that moves around with that chunk of liver that keeps it alive, and if you pull the plug in the lab, how does the life know to go away?
We've gotten back around again so I'll stop for now.
My short answer:
The logical outcome is that the soul relies on the body for existence here.

Wow, after a re-read, I think I've missed something.
You threw me off with the whole 'where did sin enter the equation' question because I don't think that "newts, monkeys, bacteria, etc." can sin.
But they're alive...right?
Oh yeah, God didn't give them the "breath of life".
I looked it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-27-2009 10:21 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-28-2009 9:37 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024