A Pondering of the Peculiar (4)

[AV1611VET]

Wrong, I checked it out and even found your source. The fact that even you seem to think your idea is false is shown by your avoidance of the definition of your term in that articel:

"
Ontological reductionism is the belief that reality is composed of a minimum number of kinds of entities or substances. This claim is usually metaphysical, and is most commonly a form of monism, in effect claiming that all objects, properties and events are reducible to a single substance. "

Ontological reductionism ≠ Monism

But if you're trying this hard not to understand why we deny common ancestry in favor of common designing, then don't let me get in your way.

I can only explain it so far.

Then at some point your analytic mind has to take it from there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ontological reductionism ≠ Monism

But if you're trying this hard not to understand why we deny common ancestry in favor of common designing, then don't let me get in your way.

I can only explain it so far.

Then at some point your analytic mind has to take it from there.

Yet your own source, the one you linked to, says that it very often is a form of monism. It seems that it is a term that you cannot defend yourself.

And your faulty beliefs have nothing to do with why others deny common ancestry. You can only answer for yourself.

We all know that you have no answer to actual science, logic or history. You believe the myths of the Bible because they make you feel good, and that is about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet your own source, the one you linked to, says that it very often is a form of monism.

So? there's enough information in that article to at least acquaint you with what I'm saying.

Or should.

If not, and you truly cannot connect what I'm saying with your analytic talents, then I submit something is blocking the connection site.

Like ... oh ... maybe your unbelief?

It seems that it is a term that you cannot defend yourself.

I didn't use it so I could defend it.

I used it to educate you on how some can make a distinction between common ancestry and common designing.

IOW, what you see as common ancestry, we see as common designing; and ontological reduction is the catalyst.

And your faulty beliefs have nothing to do with why others deny common ancestry.

It's clear to me you think my beliefs are "faulty" because you don't understand the catalyst ... and you don't understand the catalyst because you don't want to.

You can only answer for yourself.

Something I do very well, in my opinion.

YMMV though.

We all know that you have no answer to actual science, logic or history.

Oh ... I think I can come up with something in a pinch.

If I couldn't, you wouldn't be here making yourself look ... well ... sciency.

You believe the myths of the Bible because they make you feel good, and that is about it.

What makes me feel good is you wasting your time with me.

The more court jesting you do, the more doctrine you get from me.

Whether it sinks in or not.

As Paul so aptly put it:

1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a sure sign that someone knows they are wrong when they have to "blow up" a reply to a ridiculous extent.

I can see that even AV knows that he is pushing a load of dung that no one is buying. I don't think even he believes it anymore.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a sure sign that someone knows they are wrong when they have to "blow up" a reply to a ridiculous extent.

I can see that even AV knows that he is pushing a load of dung that no one is buying. I don't think even he believes it anymore.

You're welcome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're welcome.

AV, one honest question:

Why lie to yourself?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The car was not meant to be a comparison with a living thing. The question was? Which one is more complex in its construction? Remember, when the kidneys go bad, they get replaced by a machine to do the work. Kidney dialysis.

We are machines... our bodies are. Biological machines. When that soul leaves the body the ignition gets turned off.

This does not mean that a car is comparable to biological life in terms of evolution. Cars don't have cells that divide, they don't reproduce, and as it happens, a dialysis machine is no where near equal to having a functioning kidney; no current artificial parts are as good as healthy biological ones.

Additionally, machines aren't alive, they can be turned on and off without consequence; humans cannot. The fact that machines don't evolve (not in the way evolutionary theory presents for biological life, anyways) doesn't matter, you wouldn't expect them to.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How did all this ultra complexity become "constructed?" Random chance? You have to have more faith than a Muslim fanatic flying a plane into a building to believe biological life could have started without someone controlling the design. The car is primitive in comparison and you can see that much. The body is a biological machine. What it is made out of is inconsequential. Computers can repair themselves when they get a virus, or a bug. They had to be programmed. So did your DNA.

Hardly, why would metal and wires have to be able to randomly assemble in order for proteins and nucleic acids to do so? Your position makes as much sense as assuming that since carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide both consist of the same elements that both must have the same properties, while in reality they don't. It doesn't matter that a machine won't evolve, because machines aren't alive.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because, in case you hadn't noticed, humans have a tendency to die.

Whilst the existence of the Christian God requires an assessment of how likely his existence is, if he does exist, he is eternal by definition.

God might be immortal, but to assume that god needs no beginning is to admit that things can exist without beginnings and without a creator, and if your god can exist without a creator, so can anything else, for wouldn't a deity such as that in the bible be the most complex entity in existence?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Micro evolution... not macro. Macro is an invention used to explain away past creations. This creation did not descend from the dinosaur. Nor, was the dinosaur ever a part of this creation. Nor, were the mammals of the ice age ever a part of the Jurassic period. There were a series of prehistoric creations that God set up as progressing graduating class levels in the school God had set up for the previous ones who had dominion over the earth. Before God created man in his image to have dominion over the earth, previous agents had been angels.

Take it, or leave it. The Bible spoke of previous creations. No one long ago knew with certainty as to why. Then, one day scientific atheism supplied us with the reason why. The Bible always stated what man later discovered to be true. And, you claim it was only written by men.

I'll leave it, thanks. So in reality you don't believe in evolution. You can't decouple macro from micro evolution. You wish to ignore the evidence of the fossil record on the basis that it is only evidence of past creations. I'm curious, how many past creations? And where do you draw the lines? Why do the different creations present a pattern of relationships? That shouldn't happen, which would mean that hundreds of millions of years worth of fossils arranged themselves by chance into a pattern that looks exactly like evolution, transitional fossils and all. That's not very parsimonious.

And, you did not watch the video. And, you accuse me of not studying evolution. Good start.

The difference is that you really don't understand the fundamentals of evolution whereas I am completely familiar with Dad's argument. Let me guess; the entire video is some variation on "Everything used to be different in whatever way necessary to explain away the evidence. Scientists are fools and have no evidence that current physics existed in the past". You watched it; tell me how close I am. And of course even if I weren't already familiar with Dad's nonsense it wouldn't lessen your ignorance of evolution fundamentals.

 

[EternalDragon]

Hardly, why would metal and wires have to be able to randomly assemble in order for proteins and nucleic acids to do so? Your position makes as much sense as assuming that since carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide both consist of the same elements that both must have the same properties, while in reality they don't. It doesn't matter that a machine won't evolve, because machines aren't alive.

I would disagree. Our bodies are made up of many genetic machines and coded information that can be read and understood. We can self repair...the body can function while we are asleep...fight off colds, viruses and infections....blood can clot....

So if Darwinian Evolution theory and all it entails is true then nature can build machines and machines can evolve. Which is going to have to include more intelligence than what the theory explains.

 

[lasthero]

I would disagree. Our bodies are made up of many genetic machines

A machine is, by definition, something that is designed. You're begging the question.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I would disagree. Our bodies are made up of many genetic machines and coded information that can be read and understood. We can self repair...the body can function while we are asleep...fight off colds, viruses and infections....blood can clot....

So if Darwinian Evolution theory and all it entails is true then nature can build machines and machines can evolve. Which is going to have to include more intelligence than what the theory explains.

No, it doesn't. Does your car grow bigger all on its own? Can your car have babies? Reproduction is key to evolution; entities that do not reproduce cannot evolve.

 

[bhsmte]

AV, one honest question:

Why lie to yourself?

Likely, it is less painful than accepting reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution does not construct anything.

Evidence please.

It only works on information already there.

Need evidence for this claim, too.

If all you have is empty assertions, why bother?

 

[GenemZ]

Science does not cover Eden or creation or the future. So it is.

Science confirmed something the Bible has been saying all along, but the ancient scholars could not figure out how it was. That there had been other creations to grace the surface the earth before this one was created to replace them.

All the water that was covering the earth in Genesis 1:2 was just before we read about it, was a frozen ice pack. For it says (in the Hebrew) that the Spirit of God was hovering over the earth as a chicken incubates her eggs as to warm them.

Much of that water got sucked underground as it cleared off the debris of the prior creation. That is why so many times when oil is found below the surface it has a surface a layer of water on top. How did the water get down there with all the organic matter?

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep,
and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)




​

The word “moved” is rachaph and literally means “to incubate.” Birds are said “to brood” over their eggs: when warmth from the mother’s body incubates the eg, out pops a baby whatever it is - sparrow, swan or buzzard! In Deuteronomy 32:11, rachaph is the verb used for a bird brooding over her young to warm them and to give them vitality. What this word really implies is this: remember, darkness covered the earth - no light, no heat! God the Holy Spirit didn’t “move,” but He “provided heat.” The best translation is: “He incubated the ice pack.” The Spirit of God radiated heat, producing melted water.” When the Spirit applied heat, the ice pack melted.

 

[GenemZ]

No, it doesn't. Does your car grow bigger all on its own? Can your car have babies? Reproduction is key to evolution; entities that do not reproduce cannot evolve.

Your sleep away camp keeps avoiding the real point. A car is a machine. A mechanical machine. No life. On the other hand.. A living machine is infinitely more complex and involved in its design than a mere car.

Yet, you admit that a car can not spontaneously appear nor replicate itself. Its not alive.

But? If you accept that a car can not be manufactured spontaneously? In the same breath, you are wiling to accept that a highly complex single cell organism more complex than a car could have spontaneously formed.

The essential living aspect you mentioned can only be relevant to evolution *after* something is existing... Being alive was not being manifested in the process of coming into existence into a state able to live.

For life an organism must be able to be sustained. That requires an instant food supply and the ability for digestion in order to exist from the very start... Also from the start, having a means for eliminating waste. Even an embryo is excreting waste via the umbilical cord.

You are assuming that as the first organism while it was forming was already alive before it could sustain its own life! That is an impossibility. Not unless some outside influence was manufacturing it by design, and then after complete, launched it into being alive.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Your sleep away camp keeps avoiding the real point. A car is a machine. A mechanical machine. No life. On the other hand.. A living machine is infinitely more complex and involved in its design than a mere car.

Yet, you admit that a car can not spontaneously appear nor replicate itself. Its not alive.

But? If you accept that a car can not be manufactured spontaneously? In the same breath, you are wiling to accept that a highly complex single cell organism, much more complex than a car, coulkd have been spontaneously formed.

The living aspect you mentioned is only relevant to evolution *after* it became existing... Living was not in the process of coming into existence. To live an organism must be able to be sustained. Instant food supply and digestion must exist from the very start... Also, from the start a means for eliminating waste. Even an embryo is excreting waste via the umbilical cord.

You are assuming that as the first organism was forming that it was already alive before it could sustain life! That is an impossibility. Not unless some outside influence was manufacturing its design, and then launched it into being alive.

What makes you assume I think that the first life form had to be as complex as a modern cell? It could have just been a strand or ring of nucleic acids that had some primitive mechanism for reproducing itself.

 

[GenemZ]

What makes you assume I think that the first life form had to be as complex as a modern cell? It could have just been a strand or ring of nucleic acids that had some primitive mechanism for reproducing itself.

Sounds far fetched. One should not equate a simple chemical reaction to being the same as being alive. I could have a pound of all the chemicals of an organism on a plate and it will not spontaneously become alive. Having the raw materials for life does not form spontaneously into a living organism.


Here is an interesting note. The ancients had no understanding of nutrition.


Look here:

​

Then the LordGod formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
​

Just a coincidence?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Coincidentally, most of our bodies are water. And bacterial cells, your body contains 9 bacterial cells for every 1 human cell.