Creation vs Evolution

Started by DigiMark007221 pages

Originally posted by Alliance
I didn't read any claims that he was a fundamentalist. I simply object to his lack of response to other people, especially when he invokes the language of the intelligent design movement.

Then there is a problem.

I agree with you in terms of the ID/evolution thing, and also that there isn't any adequate evidence for anything other than evolution. Bada has appealed to faith more than once, and also expressed doubt that evolution explains that which is "life", rather than a strictly scientific argument. My response to the idea of faith is above, though I certainly don't direct at anyone in particular. I can't say I agree with bada, but in my experience doing any more than respectfully expressing dissent doesn't work on this forum...except in particular asinine cases where more vehement language is required (usually for trolls or idiots of some sort).

Well, the difference in this thread, which I'm going to try to contain myself too, is that science is involved. Faith is obviously a matter of personal preference, but science is not.

Anyway, I'm going to try and do more than the express dissent in this thread. I'll show people to the best of my ability where their science is wrong. How they reconcile their faith with that is up to them and dependant solely on logical viability, which I might also pick on, but would be a secondary goal for me.

Fair enough. I grow tired of trying to chop trees with fish (not with everyone, of course...but if they're not evolutionists, we probably won't make them such) so I can admire your tenacity and adherence to scientific fact, if not your exact methods of delivery.

Hehe. I get tired too, but with the proper fish, it can work. Unfortunately, I experiance all too firsthad the societal damage that ID can cause. Until recently the scientific community has adopted at sit back approach. This approach was a good idea, because scientists shouldn't involve themselves in such nonscientific-public debates. However, détnte brought us the wrong results. Thus, many are deciding that there does need to be some sort of public response to ID from the scientific community.

This thread is my version.

There is no such thing as "evolutionism." Thats another term made up. It implies that if you accept scientific fact, that you somehow are entering a dogmatic system. Unfortunately, that system doesn't exist.

Instead, we should be worrying about gravitists and fluid dynamicists. These are the real threats to a faithful society.

How did life start on the Earth?

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070822_gm_life_origins.html

The thickest basis of life is simply conciousness. Self awareness and awareness in general.

Life began when conciouness began. Conciousness is the result of a series of complex functions. Conciousness must be maintained through a series of means (consumption for example)

Early life was obviously simpler than the Life which came later. Hence evolution.

Think of it this way: Was there any life involved when the stars formed, when the worlds cooled, and when the worlds took shape ? There were processes already occuring before life was there to witness it.

If the sun is not alive, then how did it form ? If the Earth is not alive, then how did it cool, how does it always change ? What's forcing it to rotate, and revolve around the sun ?

It's clear that there are processes in nature that occur, that do not involve conciousness. Trees are alive, but are they self aware ? If they are not self aware, then who are we to say they aren't alive ? Trees grow and consume and die, so they clearly are alive.

The point is, before "Life began" there have been active processes in this universe already occuring.

Simple processes lead to more complex processes. Simple Life lead to more complicated life.

Organic bodies are composed of inorganic molecules, the same inorganic molecules which rocks, water, and soil are composed of.

Simple processes of atoms and molecules lead to cellular structures, which began to form thier own processes as well. Active processes have already existed before cellular life began.

Cellular Life, simply as it is, lead to multi-cellular life, which in turn lead to more complex life forms.

If you take apart a life form, you will find that each peice of what the life form is composed of, is not alive. Life is the result of the union of these factors, processes, and conditions.

LIFE CAN COME AND HAS COME FROM NON LIFE

Life is sustained through conditions (consumption, respitory exchange, procreation)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How did life start on the Earth?

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/070822_gm_life_origins.html

Posting links is unhelpful. If someone has a question, they will ask it. Especially because you did not tell us how life started on Earth, but how science generally thinks life started on Earth.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Life began when conciouness began. Conciousness is the result of a series of complex functions. Conciousness must be maintained through a series of means (consumption for example)

Consciousness did not debut (to our knowledge) until humans. And sicnce consciousness, as you said, is likely the result of complex functions that were also likely not around at the "simple" as you say origin of life. Its rather silly to say consciousness defines life.

Because logically and experimentally, thats not the case.

Originally posted by Alliance
Consciousness did not debut (to our knowledge) until humans.

depends on the meaning of the word. Philosophical consciousness, sure, I'll give that it is uniquely human, but anything that could be objectively investigated as a part of human consciousness is clearly seen in the animal kingdom to varying degrees (language being the only possible exception that I can think of, though marine mammals have very sophisticated communication based on sounds, and some prarie dogs have audio symbols for different types of preadators).

I would agree that life is not in any way defined by consciosness.

Originally posted by Alliance
Posting links is unhelpful. If someone has a question, they will ask it. Especially because you did not tell us how life started on Earth, but how science generally thinks life started on Earth.

...

I'm not trying to be helpful.

Originally posted by inimalist
depends on the meaning of the word. Philosophical consciousness, sure, I'll give that it is uniquely human, but anything that could be objectively investigated as a part of human consciousness is clearly seen in the animal kingdom to varying degrees (language being the only possible exception that I can think of, though marine mammals have very sophisticated communication based on sounds, and some prarie dogs have audio symbols for different types of preadators).

I would agree that life is not in any way defined by consciosness.

Great. But life probably didn't begin as animals.

Originally posted by Alliance
Great. But life probably didn't begin as animals.

thats fine

animals are conscious

I'd say aware more than conscious. And if they're conscious...what are humans?

Originally posted by Alliance
Consciousness did not debut (to our knowledge) until humans. And sicnce consciousness, as you said, is likely the result of complex functions that were also likely not around at the "simple" as you say origin of life. Its rather silly to say consciousness defines life.

Because logically and experimentally, thats not the case.

You are right.

What I meant to say was that conciousness defines complex life. Basic life, such as bacteria and whatnot, doesn't necessarily possess our kind of conciousness.

I put my tree example to prove that point.

However, simplest forms of life possess the life processes, and the point is when you break down life forms, they are formed of non-life.

Life comes from non-life, and non-life comes from life. That's the point.

Originally posted by Alliance
I'd say aware more than conscious. And if they're conscious...what are humans?

animals?

lol, I'll leave that up to the taxonomists 😉

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You are right.

What I meant to say was that Consciousness defines complex life. Basic life, such as bacteria and whatnot, doesn't necessarily possess our kind of Consciousness.

I put my tree example to prove that point.

However, simplest forms of life possess the life processes, and the point is when you break down life forms, they are formed of non-life.

Life comes from non-life, and non-life comes from life. That's the point.

Consciousness is an illusion.

Originally posted by inimalist
animals?

lol, I'll leave that up to the taxonomists 😉

I meant that humans are probably in a class of their own when it comes to consciousness. (which is not taxonomy)

(besides...taxonomy is dead)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Consciousness is an illusion.

Explain.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Explain.

Consciousness is a byproduct of a complex interaction of trillions of neurons. An image of the world is constructed in your mind, and the interaction with that imaginary world is what we call consciousness. We never interact directly with the true nature of reality; we interact with an illusion. The closer we can get that illusion to reality, the less delusional we are.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Explain.

It's more pagan psychobabble, that and it sounds like something cool to say.

Originally posted by Alliance
I meant that humans are probably in a class of their own when it comes to consciousness. (which is not taxonomy)

(besides...taxonomy is dead)

we have a lot of unique things in our consciousness, but I think a lot of what we call "human uniqueness" comes from the way our brain constructs reality into a cohereant picture for us.

that "class of their own" might be "complex language", imho