Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Posted on 02/21/2006 9:53:32 AM PST by presidio9
LOL!
Spoken like a true believer. Keep the faith brother!
> what distinguishes you from - say - a rock?
You're asking what distinguishes life from non-life. This has wrapped philosphers brains into knots for millenia. But in short, if you can reproduce, require energy input, perform chemical reactions, produce waste (solid, liquid, gaseous, Democratic) that needs to be disposed of, grow and/or develop, respond in some way not only to you environment but also to changes in your engvironment, and if you can *die*, you're probably alive.
This pretty much covers it. However, "fire" also fits this definition pretty well, and robots probably will soon enough and some computer programs are pretty close.
What relevance this has to some mystical "life force" has yet to be explained.
Hmmmm... "regard the most important part of our existence as not existing."
>>Oh, do tell: what is "the most important part of our existence?"
>Our emotional well being.
So... you actually believe that I think "our emotional well being" doesn't exist?
How odd.
> Keep the faith brother!
You keep "faith." I'll keep facts. I do not want to *believe,* I want to *know.*
Well and good, but to be a *force* is to posess the ability to effect change - granted some have less *force* than others and some haven't affected their environments any more than a rock has its own, but *life* is a *force* because - unlike the rock - the living moves, grows, has those qualities of the living and aren't dependant upon outside *forces* to effect a change, ie. wind, gravity, etc..
But what do I know - I'm a couch 'tater....
May the *force* be with you...
> *life* is a *force* because - unlike the rock - the living moves, grows...
Life does so due largely to the electromagnetic force. Nothing life does is inexplicable to basic physics. Again, *fire* moves and grows.
So, nothing gravity does is inexplicable to basic physics - would you deny it is a *force*?
Trees reproduce, fall, catch on fire, and do many things other than just stand there. Was there not a famous evolutionist who said a monkey would eventually type the 23rd Psalm if given a typewriter, paper, and enough time?
The same principle applies here. So here's how the article conclusion might read in relation to cabins...
The heat generated by an impact produces local tree falling. These start off hot, thus favouring fires and the formation of many different structures. They then cool over the centuries to the point where these individual trees, branches, and limbs can fall in more complex formations. And they also have lots of microscopic nooks and crannies with space for animals to burrow, and interesting chemicals in them, enticing for bugs to excavate and for birds to nest in. Eventually, given enough time and chance...viola! Log cabin!
I have pointed out that gravity is a force.
> Trees reproduce, fall, catch on fire, and do many things other than just stand there.
They do not, however, do the things that are required to make a log cabin. And once more, where are the self-reproducing log cabins?
But you deny life is a *force*?
Strange...
Life is a *result* of forces.Life *utilizes* forces. But life itself is *not* a force.
Perhaps it explains your fascination with the Flying Spagetti Monster, psychological sublimnation and substitution or something?
How often do you wash your hands? Maybe every ten minutes? Are all your socks folded carefully in color-order?
What are you? Some kind of creationist/ID nut? Haven't you seen the log cabins all over the place? And you just assume that they are all intelligently designed? Do you have scientific proof that no cabin has been produced by "time and chance"? Remember, if you weren't there to observe the beginning, you CAN'T assume intelligent design! Of course, I'm assuming you are being consistent. After all, it would be beyond laughable to suggest that the universe and everything in it came about by pure chance, but that a simple log cabin couldn't.
Our New Age Sage doesn't understand that we don't mean force in his New Age, "force be with you" way, nor do we mean the scientifically-accepted definition of force.
All we mean is force: an exertion of power.
Nothing newage about science. I am using the terms force, and life for specific self-evident reasons.
Life exists because there are number (t.b.d) of natural forces (known or unknown) that act together to create a complex stable system of chemical interactions.
Random creations based on the fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromafnetic, gravity) must still have some directional vector applied to the primitive chemicals that drive creative interactions to form more complex systems that eventually become adaptive to the environment (forcing itself to remain the same) and reproductive (forcing itself to create a copy of the same system).
Why should a system adapt to the environment? Why is it important or necessary that it "survive" unchanged at all?
Simply existing and surviving a round of life/death "decision-making" (to simplify the model of evolution for sake of discussion) does not explain the origination of the system in the first place. Simply assuming that a system is the offspring of a random set of system components from the prior round of life/death decision-making is wholly inadequate because the parents and offspring are still products of a very limited and finite set of components.
All evolutionary models that exist today assume a priori the existence of a set of compenents that are capable of evolving. The components all begin their evolution having already achieved a tremendous complexity from non-evolutinary processes, that are unexplained, as yet.
"There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance." -- Albert Einstein.
Most scientific breakthroughs are products of error or products of a mind that questions the popular science.
I am a scientist and engineer. Have been for over 23 years. I am currently studying under a physicist and cosmologist who is applying theories of magnetohydrodynamics to early universe formation.
You are telling me I do not understand what the word "forces" means? That is a scientific term, not a newage term.
I have done research on genetic algorithms, evolutionary algorithms, neural networks and field theory. I have designed systems that perform automatic recognition and designed stabilized sensor platforms. I have designed aircraft based anti-tank weapon systems, night vision sensors, solid-state lasers, missile guidance systems...
When your only response to my arguments are to give them a label, like Newageish, then it is clear you are not up to the debate. Frankly, i am not prepared to spend much more time on this thread since I am falling behind in my work in electrodynamics already (due to illness), so do not expect for me to educate you from the ground up.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
The first thing you need to understand - or know - is yourself - specifically your biases.
Like every other human, to the extent that you don't know you adopt beliefs.
You believe that the origins of life are explained by evolution - and you may be right. But since neither you nor I know - we adopt a belief system.
And unless you understand your biases (whether they be held rightly or wrongly), you run the risk shutting out the truth.
You (appear to) vehemently oppose any idea of ID - certainly your choice. But do not pretend that your opposition is based on knowledge - because obviously it is not (having an opinion is not the same as having the answer). Evolution just happens to conform to your belief system or "world view".
I know my biases - do you understand yours?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.