Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the source of life
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 89 of 211 (495966)
01-25-2009 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by homunculus
01-25-2009 11:20 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
Homes,
So you believe a tired eyed, chin scratcher with a 6 year degree of thinking too much, can dictate our world view?
Starting with an ad hominem is not generally the best policy, here or elsewhere. It is especially not prudent when linked to a straw man. Evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology, and the other disciplines you seek to conflate are descriptions of various aspects the physical world. They are not world views.
I believe If you have a theory, you test it. Then until your theory is observed and proved, you can't call it science, truth or authority, Even if it is held dear in your hearts.
The problem seems to be that even after all the effort that has been put into attempts to educate you, you are still unable to grasp even the most basic definition of "theory". You don't start with a theory, you end up with one after prediction and testing. Rather than wasting time trying to bafflegab words like evolution and theory as you have been doing, perhaps it would be better if you explored the usage of the word "observed" as used in science. (hint: it is related to "prediction", not eyesight.) And, as mentioned many times before, "proved" does not enter into the picture. Nor do "truth" or "authority" as you seem to interpret them.
I suspect that this post is a waste of time, since your thinking on the subject is betrayed by your phrase "...held dear in your hearts." You are projecting your own emotions onto others. That sort of emotional commitment to an idea has had no place in the arguments presented to you. It has, however, characterized your own flopping about on the deck, attempting to untangle yourself from a net of ideas by redefining the words used to express them instead of considering the reality of the string. A reality that has, I'm sad to say, led to your claims residing on a pile of fried potatoes, battered and doused in malt vinegar.
I found that Semantics 101 was helpful in my own science education. It helped me to recognize when I was thinking about (or arguing about) words themselves, rather than the ideas or things which they are attempting to represent. It served me well as a BS detector as I examined my own creationist beliefs. You could stand to use this kind of careful introspection to clarify what you really mean by words like "life" and "world view", and why they are important to you. You might find that by defining words more carefully you could separate out your relationship with whatever deity you seem intent on worshiping from the physical reality of the universe in which he caused you to exist.
To reiterate: attempting to argue a technical subject by redefining well understood professional language simply makes you look like a fool.
Capt.
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : edit code typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by homunculus, posted 01-25-2009 11:20 AM homunculus has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 107 of 211 (496103)
01-26-2009 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by homunculus
01-26-2009 12:11 AM


Re: definition(s) of evolution
I have taken the liberty of assuming most Evolutionists (again someone that believes in Evolution), conveniently, regularly rearrange the terms and definitions to reason and worm their way into a infallible standpoint. First, understand that most people, myself, no matter how regular and "laymen", view evolution as the union of known theoretical principles (abiogenesis, big bang, etc.).
Still trapped in your efforts to manipulate reality by changing the words you use to describe it, I see.
Also consider the name of the forum "Creation vs. Evolution". If you insist on dividing "Evolution" from theoretical origins like abiogenesis,the "big bang", old age theory, "chemical evolution" (term in itself) and limiting it to speciation, macro and micro evolution, only micro being proven, then we will have to create a name to suggest that the package deal is a big pile. Not only does Evolution systematically outlaw the supernatural (which is the agenda, I assume), but it presumes strict naturalistic conjoining factors, like above theories (I.E. since the supernatural did not participate in the origin of the universe or life, we have to cook up some theories that gratify our, then subjective, interests.)
Finally, if we did that (and we won't), or rather I will satisfy that demand by naming the package deal, "Evilution", (lol, It's just a joke, don't flood me with replies.) but then we would have to retrace our steps and pick out the theories, and sometimes lies, yes lies, from the actual facts. In short, to avoid monotonous "trailing" with you people, we, Creationists, I, will continue to call the whole thing Evolution, despite Evolution Scientists protests, sorry. We just can't get caught up in this endless chase.
So to sum up then: "Creationism, because science is hard."
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by homunculus, posted 01-26-2009 12:11 AM homunculus has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 146 of 211 (496337)
01-27-2009 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ICANT
01-27-2009 6:47 PM


Re: Re Life
God breathed into him the breath of life.
Life had to exist for God to transfer life to the man He had formed.
So what exactly was transferred to the physical form? 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. What were all those cells lacking before they came alive? Was he adding electrons? Atoms? What exactly?
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?
I'm assuming it must go away, because if it just stopped, it wouldn't be something that had to be added in the first place, now would it?
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 6:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-27-2009 8:19 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied
 Message 155 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 9:44 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 149 of 211 (496346)
01-27-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Rahvin
01-27-2009 7:30 PM


Re: Re Life
God is alive.
He has a Mind, Spirit and Body.
God has a body? Who knew!
Where is it? What's it made out of?
Did it need the breath of life too?
Does he eat? Does he crap?
And yes, I think we all know that Kansas is the answer to that question ;o).
Or are you using the word "body" to mean something completely different from, ummm..., body.
Capt.
edit: sorry Rahvin, accidentally responded to your response to ICANT.
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2009 7:30 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 156 of 211 (496371)
01-27-2009 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by ICANT
01-27-2009 9:44 PM


Re: Re Life
I am a organ donor.
Yes if they have a host they can survive.
But can they surive on their own?
That depends what you mean by "on their own". In a sense, they have a "host" in the lab too. That is, they have an arrangement of material things that deliver the chemistry required to carry on the various physiologic processes that we define as being alive. What human or other living tissue assuredly does not need is to be associated with an entity that has the breath of life as I think you would define it. Or more correctly, I guess, demure from defining it.
Do you have any information to offer on the nature of the life that you believe God breathed into the hardware portion of the first man? Was it molecular in nature? If not, why weren't the workings working already? What is in those cells now that wasn't then? What did they lack that an umpteenth generation clone of human tissue in a test tube has?
Doesn't seem like it could be a soul or spirit, unless you think bacteria have souls.
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?
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by ICANT, posted 01-27-2009 9:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2009 11:39 PM Capt Stormfield has replied
 Message 169 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2009 4:40 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 163 of 211 (496435)
01-28-2009 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by New Cat's Eye
01-27-2009 11:39 PM


Re: Re Life
Whoa... You're weird.
Welcome to EvC. I like your avatar picture!
I'll be reading your posts.
I'll take that as a compliment.
The avatar shot was taken heading up Malaspina Strait off the east coast of Texada Island on a breezy day.
I hope you don't come to regret that last sentence, although since my life does not revolve around a computer there will probably not be too much to read.
I won't respond in detail to your post, since I think we are pretty much on the same page. My questions were clearly rhetorical, tossed out in the hope that ICANT will attempt to address the question of physiology and consciousness. I see no need for a ghost to be injected into the machine, and think that those who claim there is one should be able to explain how it fits into the body as we understand it - with due regard to the sliding scale of sentience we see in different organisms. What, for example, do we see in the life of a chimp or a slug that would lead us to conclude they don't have a soul?
It is my understanding that there is a great deal of evidence linking the brain and consciousness. Since the brain operates using the same kind of physiology/biochemistry/chemistry/physics as the rest of the body, and since that p/b/c/p doesn't appear to need a crank start to make it work in or out of a body, I see no reason to accept that "something" was added to the machine to make it alive.
I should say that I have no problem with religious faith, properly identified as such, and kept in a dank, heavily barred room.
My late and much lamented friend Barry Beyerstein did a brief review of the literature on the subject of the brain and consciousness a few years back which might be an interesting read for someone like ICANT. It is easily Googled.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2009 11:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2009 9:53 AM Capt Stormfield has replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 166 of 211 (496485)
01-28-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by NosyNed
01-28-2009 9:53 AM


Re: Barry
NosyNed,
Not as well as I would have liked either. I met him at a CSICOP conference at Stanford and ended up being one of the less active (= lazy)founding board members of the B.C. skeptics along with him and Lee and Jim and others.
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2009 9:53 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2009 1:38 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 168 of 211 (496506)
01-28-2009 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by NosyNed
01-28-2009 1:38 PM


Re: Barry
Then we may have met.
Almost certainly. But hey, enough of Old Home Week, I can smell the sulfurous stench of moderation approaching....
Capt. KP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2009 1:38 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 173 of 211 (496532)
01-28-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by ICANT
01-28-2009 4:40 PM


Re: Re Life
Like not attached to a living human body.
OR,
A machine designed to keep them alive.
In other words if you cut the heart out of a living human being and laid it on a table how long would the cells be alive?
Not very long. That's because it is only a portion of the whole machine. An engine removed from its fuel supply will not run long either. That does not imply that the car it came from has a special spiritual essence of some kind, only that it is missing some parts that are integral to its mechanical function.
The central processing unit called the mind.
To expand a bit on Straggler's question, is it fair to say that you are suggesting that only humans have a mind? If this is the case, what do you call the property of the chimp brain that has emotions, makes plans, and so on? How about dogs? Trained rats? I see a continuum of species that use the same basic hardware, and that show a demonstrable connection between the physical brain and their consciousness. What is your evidence that the human brain has something extra that is not a property of the chemical activity taking place. Remember, please, that there is a great deal of research showing the connection between physical stimulation of the brain and the creation of experience - ie. smells, tastes, emotions, memories, etc.
But you can't.
But it does not matter what body the mind and the spirit occupy they stay the same.
The body including your brain and all the plumbing in the body will die and decompose.
The mind and the Spirit are eternal and will never die.
The can't part is just a matter of us developing a bit better technology in the plumbing and electrical department, isn't it? Or do you assign a special role to the brain vis the heart or liver? You can take away any part of the body (pending the right surgical techniques) and the same person is still there, right? But do you think something special happens if you ashcan the brain and keep the body alive without it? Or put someone else's in? If yes, then what do you think it is that's special about the brain that makes it the home of the mind or spirit?
Capt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2009 4:40 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2009 10:43 PM Capt Stormfield has replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 455 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 177 of 211 (496604)
01-29-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by ICANT
01-28-2009 10:43 PM


Re: Re Life
Interesting.
So if we transplanted a different brain into a body we could get a congregation consisting of one person's brain and someone else's mind and spirit? What would they think? Do thoughts reside in the brain or in the mind? If they are in the mind, how do the two interface? And why would you need a brain in the first place?
I gather you are suggesting that other animals do have a mind, if not a spirit. Is it something that had to added to the "dust" (ie. the brain) to make it work in the same way that man required "breath"? When did that happen?
What exactly was man's brain doing before God added these invisible components? If they were taken away, would it still work? Could it function at the level of reflex (like tapping the front of your knee) but not at the level of thinking? I'm still a tiny bit unclear as to just what the brain was doing before the invisible stuff was added.
Also, could you draw me a map of Narnia?
Capt.
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2009 10:43 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by ICANT, posted 01-30-2009 9:11 PM Capt Stormfield 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