What is ID?

[Gene Parmesan]

No, that's incorrect. Inertia being a natural state of matter, demonstrates that the evolution of life without cause is counterintuitive. To say that mind and the multiplicity of complexity of life, immerged from matter as a phenomenon explains nothing, it's a form of faith in an endless happenstance.

"all these living things defy the law of inertia in seeking higher and more complex life forms for no particular reason."
That's what you said (emphasis mine). It seems to me that you are saying the law of inertia is somehow a detractor to a natural explanation of evolution. If you can demonstrate this you are in for some serious accolades, my friend.

 

[Colter]

"all these living things defy the law of inertia in seeking higher and more complex life forms for no particular reason."
That's what you said (emphasis mine). It seems to me that you are saying the law of inertia is somehow a detractor to a natural explanation of evolution. If you can demonstrate this you are in for some serious accolades, my friend.

Its just common sense to me, why should one even need to demonstrate that? There is matter and there is life comprised of matter. Living plasma weighs the same when it's dead, but a value conscious mind realizes that they aren't the same. None of the matter that comprises the dead plasma is conscious of anything. Life having departed from the plasma, leaves the constituent molecular parts of the plasma to follow the path of least resistance to its previous inert state. Some living energy system may happen by and reenlist such matter into it's service but the mater is still just the matter.

Will let the people at the Nobel foundation know where they can send me the award.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Its just common sense to me, why should one even need to demonstrate that? There is matter and there is life comprised of matter. Living plasma weighs the same when it's dead, but a value conscious mind realizes that they aren't the same. None of the matter that comprises the dead plasma is conscious of anything. Life having departed from the plasma, leaves the constituent molecular parts of the plasma to follow the path of least resistance to its previous inert state. Some living energy system may happen by and reenlist such matter into it's service but the mater is still just the matter.

Will let the people at the Nobel foundation know where they can send me the award.

It's common sense that Newton's First Law of Motion should prevent evolution from occurring naturally? I just can't make that connection, I do apologize. I don't mean to exasperate you at all and appreciate you taking the time to try to clarify.

And are you saying that since consciousness stops at death, that proves there is a supernatural aspect? This is also a new argument to me. Again, here I do not follow you to such a conclusion.

 

[Colter]

It's common sense that Newton's First Law of Motion should prevent evolution from occurring naturally? I just can't make that connection, I do apologize. I don't mean to exasperate you at all and appreciate you taking the time to try to clarify.

And are you saying that since consciousness stops at death, that proves there is a supernatural aspect? This is also a new argument to me. Again, here I do not follow you to such a conclusion.

How does inert matter naturally evolve away from its inert state into life? It doesn't, that's the point. The theory that it does is a kind of faith.

Consciousness is supermaterial already before death of the host matter/energy system interrupts it.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

How does inert matter naturally evolve away from its inert state into life? It doesn't, that's the point. The theory that it does is a kind of faith.

Consciousness is supermaterial already before death or the host matter/energy system interrupts it.

It seems interesting to appeal to a law of motion here but even if we were to view it through that lens a change in the state of motion can occur when acted upon by another force.

I normally see your argument as the version appealing to the second law of thermodynamics. Which also fails because there are external sources of energy. Neither version of the argument work because they never consider the larger picture.

 

[Colter]

It seems interesting to appeal to a law of motion here but even if we were to view it through that lens a change in the state of motion can occur when acted upon by another force.

I normally see your argument as the version appealing to the second law of thermodynamics. Which also fails because there are external sources of energy. Neither version of the argument work because they never consider the larger picture.

What's the larger picture? What energy naturally converted inert matter into living patterns with the purposive potential to seek higher quality of being wherein 2 products could escape mater into consciousness and debate origins?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

What's the larger picture? What energy naturally converted inert matter into living patterns with the purposive potential to seek higher quality of being wherein 2 products could escape mater into consciousness and debate origins?

I feel I need to say this. Your profile picture reminds me of Brendan Fraser (don't worry, Mummy era) so I sort of imagine I'm talking to Brendan Fraser when we chat. Just putting that out there.

Well, depends on which step you want to answer. It's not just "this is the thing that makes matter conscious." It was a rather long and arduous process. I think I remember you saying you subscribe to a sort of theistic evolution? So I'll assume your main beef is simply "the problem of consciousness," am I right? Do you find this is an issue with all of consciousness or just with ours, the version that allows origin debates?

 

[Colter]

I feel I need to say this. Your profile picture reminds me of Brendan Fraser (don't worry, Mummy era) so I sort of imagine I'm talking to Brendan Fraser when we chat. Just putting that out there.

Well, depends on which step you want to answer. It's not just "this is the thing that makes matter conscious." It was a rather long and arduous process. I think I remember you saying you subscribe to a sort of theistic evolution? So I'll assume your main beef is simply "the problem of consciousness," am I right? Do you find this is an issue with all of consciousness or just with ours, the version that allows origin debates?

Yes, I believe that first, matter is an unpersonified byproduct of deity, of eternal paradise, the incubator of reality. Matter is energy projected. Using matter as the foundation, life is, let's say, breathed upon it. In our case life evolved from a primitive implantation which then naturally developed/evolved by way of the inherent qualities of the creator mentioned by other on the thread. Living organisms can be seen as machine-like, but man differs as he is will conscious. Animal minds benifit from various spirits emanating from the cosmic mind which we have in common, but they are not advanced enough to recognize consciousness. That is my belief. I don't believe in uncaused evolution or evolution without a plan.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That organisms complement each other motivated to survive by natural selection doesn't explain how matter acquired such patterns and attributes apart from creative mind.

But the observable proces of evolution, does explain exactly that.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

That is the faith of material-ism.

No faith required, there is evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How does inert matter naturally evolve away from its inert state into life?

What, exactly, do you mean by that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's the larger picture? What energy naturally converted inert matter into living patterns with the purposive potential to seek higher quality of being wherein 2 products could escape mater into consciousness and debate origins?

The same energy that makes plants grow.

 

[xianghua]

What de-novo creation? The very first single celled proto-life or zebras popping out of the air?

the second one.

 

[xianghua]

There is no intelligence or order in the formation of flagella.

there is no intelligence also in an automatic facotry that produce cars. but a car is still evidence for design.

And proteins DO form naturally. We've proven it. Same deal, the right chemicals in the right order.

where? reference please. and remember that this is only the first step.

 

[Jimmy D]

the second one.

Thanks.

So if we somehow got evidence that a God exists why wouldn't theistic evolution be the best explanation for the diversity of life? There is clear evidence for evolution and none for animals popping into existence.

 

[xianghua]

Ken Miller even mocked this claim by wearing this in court

by his own intelligent.

 

[xianghua]

Thanks.

So if we somehow got evidence that a God exists why wouldn't theistic evolution be the best explanantion for the diversity of life? There is clear evidence for evolution and none for animals popping into existence.

because we have no scientific evidence for evolution, and secondly: its a very odd creation in this case. its like making a car step by step where every step is used for other function then a car. very odd.

 

[Jimmy D]

because we have no scientific evidence for evolution, and secondly: its a very odd creation in this case. its like making a car step by step where every step is used for other function then a car. very odd.

Is there any reason I should accept a layman's assertion that there is no scientific evidence for evolution? I have seen evidence with my own eyes and almost every professional biologist in the world would disagree with you.

Cars are irrelevant.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The "law of inertia," as you call it, disproves evolution? Oh please do go on. And might I request a mention for encouraging you when you win the Nobel Prize?

Apparently the law of inertia now says that, on a spinning planet, animals just keep popping into existence out of nowhere, without increasing the net mass, energy, and inertia of the planet, or at least that is the way it is taught in home school.

 

[Colter]

But the observable proces of evolution, does explain exactly that.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.



No faith required, there is evidence.

No, you are talking about the evidence of life AFTER inert matter became life. You have no evidence of how life came into existence.

 

[Colter]

The same energy that makes plants grow.

How does energy convert lifeless matter into living beings?