A Pondering of the Peculiar (4)

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Yes, but as I said in my response (post #81), the fact that something is a machine isn't enough to conclude it couldn't have arisen naturally.

Darwin's great insight is that complex machines like organisms can change and adapt over time, if they reproduce. A population of replicators will adapt via evolution by natural selection. Cars, by contrast, are not capable of replication, so do not undergo evolution.

Both are machines, but only one is a machine that can evolve. Therefore, to compare the two as you're doing is apples and oranges, it's the fallacy of association.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because he is, is not reliable evidence. You can believe that on faith, that is fine, but there is no objective evidence to support the eternal claim. And, the bible, is not objective evidence.

Of course it is. If someone asks for evidence that Ginny Weasly once possessed Tom Riddle's diary, it's fine to point to the second Harry Potter book.

Similarly, to answer the question "Is the Biblical God eternal?", it is perfectly reasonable to go to the Bible and find out. As lesliedown said, this has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, but what the Bible says about God. And one of the recurring ideas is that he is eternal.

EDIT: This isn't the General Theology forum (which the mods removed for a reason). Let's not get this thread closed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, but as I said in my response (post #81), the fact that something is a machine isn't enough to conclude it couldn't have arisen naturally.

Darwin's great insight is that complex machines like organisms can change and adapt over time, if they reproduce. A population of replicators will adapt via evolution by natural selection. Cars, by contrast, are not capable of replication, so do not undergo evolution.

Both are machines, but only one is a machine that can evolve. Therefore, to compare the two as you're doing is apples and oranges, it's the fallacy of association.

We can also find non-biological examples of machines in nature. For example, there is a hydrolic lift that is increasing the height of Mt. Everest. As old crust subducts under the Asian plate, it melts. Due to its makeup, it is lighter than the surrounding mantle which causes it to rise. As it rises, it jacks up the Himilayas, including Mt. Everest. It is a machine, and a naturally occuring one.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We can also find non-biological examples of machines in nature. For example, there is a hydrolic lift that is increasing the height of Mt. Everest. As old crust subducts under the Asian plate, it melts. Due to its makeup, it is lighter than the surrounding mantle which causes it to rise. As it rises, it jacks up the Himilayas, including Mt. Everest. It is a machine, and a naturally occuring one.

The idea of calling a non-biological, naturally occurring physical mechanism a 'machine' makes my skin crawl

 

[Loudmouth]

The idea of calling a non-biological, naturally occurring physical mechanism a 'machine' makes my skin crawl

If we are going to use the definition of machine that ID/creationists use, then we have no choice. Anything that produces a change in nature through a repeatable mechanism is a machine, according to them.

 

[GenemZ]

You can believe a soul exists, but you have no objective evidence for the same.

What happens to the soul, in the person who is brain dead in a coma?

Coma ... the soul is still in the body. Certain medical procedures induce a coma to keep a person alive.

Brain dead.. Only in the absolute sense.... The soul has departed. For the soul's throne is in the brain.

 

[GenemZ]

Who created your designer?

His life is outside of time and space. Beyond comprehension. No time= no beginning. Time is merely an invention of creation. One that we are acclimated to from birth and can know nothing else.

God alone is beyond human comprehension. He is as a foreign language to us. That is why God took on the form of Jesus Christ, so that men could have a point of reference. One that a men can relate to towards God. In Jesus God provided something concrete for us to see, touch and hear. Even smell. In contrast to God's people, pagans who seek gods often time worship inanimate statues/idols. They will have given to them occasional nebulous signs as to indicate something invisible is having an effect on their life.

To create is what the Creator does. Just like you think, He creates. But, his ability goes beyond human comprehension. I learned to accept that fact by faith. I can not deny what I have been shown and given internally. I accept it by faith, and have met others who shared the same sort of encounter in their lives, though the circumstances will greatly vary. Its not something you look for, nor can you ask for. God hides his face from arrogance. Arrogance is an evil form of pride.

 

[GenemZ]

If we are going to use the definition of machine that ID/creationists use, then we have no choice. Anything that produces a change in nature through a repeatable mechanism is a machine, according to them.

Lose an organ? Medicine has been replacing them with machines to do the job, though not as well as the original could.

1. Heart valve replacements.

2. Middle ear implants.

3. Artificial Corneas are being developed.

4. Brain controlled prosthetic arm

5. Artificial lungs are also in the works.

We are a very advanced machine that the spare parts for are always inferior to the original.

 

[dad]

We can also find non-biological examples of machines in nature. For example, there is a hydrolic lift that is increasing the height of Mt. Everest. As old crust subducts under the Asian plate, it melts. Due to its makeup, it is lighter than the surrounding mantle which causes it to rise. As it rises, it jacks up the Himilayas, including Mt. Everest. It is a machine, and a naturally occuring one.

Right and we can have a damaged house being supported by jacks and being jacked up also! The issue is how long the Jacks were there and doing what they do.

 

[GenemZ]

.

Are you all done yet?

How come you claim to be so smart? Yet, so easily miss that point?

A. Do you miss it intentionally? If you do.. it shows you are bankrupt and have no answer.

B. If you do not? I reveals you are not really as intelligent as you claim to be. So, why should I listen to you?

Well, which one is it?

 

[EternalDragon]

Through evolution, not random chance.

Evolution does not construct anything. It only works on information already there. Unless evolution has suddenly become some sort of intelligent force.

 

[GenemZ]

Its filled with errors.

8.5 min Youtube presentation of my opinion Click here

It contains many misconceptions.
​

 

[GenemZ]

Evolution does not construct anything. It only works on information already there. Unless evolution has suddenly become some sort of intelligent force.

Evolution does not construct anything. TRUE! The premise conveniently begins with something that was first constructed, and then evolved over time.

 

[GenemZ]

Yes, but as I said in my response (post #81), the fact that something is a machine isn't enough to conclude it couldn't have arisen naturally.

Darwin's great insight is that complex machines like organisms can change and adapt over time, if they reproduce. A population of replicators will adapt via evolution by natural selection. Cars, by contrast, are not capable of replication, so do not undergo evolution.

YES!

Problem is... Your theory begins with a LIVING car! You just don't get it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggtH05LFF3k​

 

[GenemZ]

Some claim the following just came into being by chance...

(I have been studying nutrition and health for over thirty years)



GAPS and Multiple Sclerosis

Interestingly, when your body is unable to clear a particular toxin on its own, it will invite and employ microbes from the environment to help clear these toxins.

“The microbes in the environment are not our enemies at all. They’re actually our allies. They’re our helpers. Your body employs them when it needs them,” Dr. McBride explains.
“If you have accumulated certain amount of mercury in your brain and in your nerves... your body might employ a virus... If you got a cold, that virus (many viruses target your nervous system) will go directly to those toxic patches in your brain and your nervous system and attack them. It will start gobbling it up... Of course, your immune system then joins in, trying to attack the virus. It joins in with inflammation, and you [begin to experience] symptoms of multiple sclerosis. You will get tingling. You will get numbness in your face or in your extremities. You might start wetting your bed, or you might get peripheral loss of vision for a while... That’s one of the first symptoms in multiple sclerosis.
in this situation, if you would just feed your immune system properly and leave the work for the immune system to complete, then these symptoms would last for a month or two, and then they would disappear, because... the virus will gobble up the [toxins] and your immune system will clear out the virus. Your nerves will recover naturally.”
​

Unfortunately, this is not what happens nowadays. Typically, as soon as people get tingling, numbness, and other symptoms, they rush to the doctor, who will immediately put them on some form of medication, which will typically have a dampening effect on the immune system. As a result, the viruses spread and become even more established, and the disease becomes chronic and permanent.



There's more: An Interview with Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride
​

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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.

So I understand that you think God started life, but I'm still not sure to what extent you accept evolution. I think you may have forgotten to reply to my post in the flurry of comments, so I'll repost it here for your convenience.

So you accept evolution in general but not when it comes to humans? You think tetrapods arose from fish and birds arose from dinosaurs but humans did not arise from any progenitor? Is that correct? If so, you're being very inconsistent. Why do you accept the lines of evidence showing birds evolved from dinosaurs or that mammals evolved reptiles but refuse to accept the fact that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors when we use the exact same lines of evidence you consider sufficient to indicate evolution among other taxa? What is your justification for considering the methods valid to infer evolution among other organisms but not among humans? Do you have an actual justification for this methodological inconsistency or is it just a knee-jerk reaction? I suspect the latter, but feel free to actual provide some reasoning.

It is not, as you seem to imagine, some conspiracy or agenda scientists are carrying out; it is merely the application of the theory. The evidence is strong and characterizing it as a guess is very dishonest even if you don't agree with it. There is a vast difference between a guess and an evidence-based inference.

 

[dad]

Its filled with errors.

It contains many misconceptions.
​

So you say, yet I doubt you can name one. False allegations.

 

[GenemZ]

So you accept evolution in general but not when it comes to humans? You think tetrapods arose from fish and birds arose from dinosaurs but humans did not arise from any progenitor? Is that correct?

My honest opinion? That is merely exciting science fiction. I realize that your data points in that direction. But, what you either chose to ignore, or skipped what I had posted earlier.. The Bible reveals that what we see now is not the first created world to grace the surface of this earth.

The Bible had been stating this reality long before scholars could understand how what it says could be. They simply accepted it by faith because the Bible said so. They could only speculate as to what it indicated.

The big problem serious Bible students have is not with the evolutionist so much. For we can understand how they are not equipped to properly approach the Bible. The biggest problem is with the stubborn closed minded Young Earth Creationists. They may readily make fun of Catholics for their worship of Mary. But, they fail to see their own brand of tradition worship. One that they equally and stubbornly cling to.

The Bible does not state that we live on a young earth. It also teaches that what we see at present will once again have a new creation to replace what we now see.

There were scholars that have seen in the Hebrew text, about we are not the first creation, long before Darwin was even born. So, its not some recent invention that certain Christians devised in order to counter Darwin's Origin of the species. Young earthers shout that it was made up after Darwin appeared on the scene. They are misinformed. Its a much older understanding than they realize.

Ancient scholars saw this perplexing aspect about creation in the Hebrew text. They were seeing this many centuries before the controversy began. So, if anything? What science did by assembling the fossil skeletons? Was to finally explain why the Bible had been saying what it had all along.

There's the rub. And, the irony. The attack on the Bible by scientific atheism actually verified the validity of the Bible. Unfortunately, not many Christians are disciplined in their study. They get emotional and tend to suffer from tradition worship. So, young earth creationism continues to muddy the waters.

 

[GenemZ]

So you say, yet I doubt you can name one. False allegations.

If you want, I will point to a time on your video, and show you how what you assumed is not correct. It may take quite a few posts to do... But? I am willing.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

My honest opinion? That is merely exciting science fiction. I realize that your data points in that direction. But, what you either chose to ignore, or skipped what I had posted earlier.. The Bible reveals that what we see now is not the first created world to grace the surface of this earth.

Now I'm confused. Do you accept evolution or not? You said "I accept the fact that evolution takes place", now you call it science fiction. Which is it?