1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI wasn't trying to say that an ecosystem is a living thing, although a great deal of its sub-components are living things. It was just an example of a complex system with multiple sub-systems included in it, without a designer at the helm.
If you are saying that preexisting life can move into an area and start
an ecosystem I agree with you; however, if you are saying that life
will start from non-life, and in time arise to the point of having an
ecosystem form I disagree.
Kelly
Now, you just made the statement that non-life can never give rise to life. Why is that the case?
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6I think that is again a question of if this can occur without a designer
I wasn't trying to say that an ecosystem is a living thing, although a great deal of its sub-components are living things. It was just an example of a complex system with multiple sub-systems included in it, without a designer at the helm.
Now, you just made the statement that non-life can never give rise to life. Why is that the case?
at the helm. We can see the difficulties that occur in getting one life
form to come into existence, what you are suggesting is that is not a
big deal, and getting all of them to work together after a fashion is
a seamless process too that should just happen. Which also I might
add flies in the face of struggle of the fittest as well, since an
ecosystem is a balance of life in an environment where one life form
complements others.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI never said it wasn't a big deal. But you said "if you are saying that life will start from non-life, and in time arise to the point of having an
I think that is again a question of if this can occur without a designer
at the helm. We can see the difficulties that occur in getting one life
form to come into existence, what you are suggesting is that is not a
big deal, and getting all of them to work together after a fashion is
a seamless process too that should just happen. Which also I might
ad ...[text shortened]... ecosystem is a balance of life in an environment where one life form
complements others.
Kelly
ecosystem form I disagree", which I took to mean that you are of the following opinion:
Life can never spring from non-life.
If that is not what you meant, please clarify. But if you do believe that statement, what is the reason why life can never spring from non-life?
Originally posted by PBE6Pretty that is the theme of evolutionary beliefs that by a process that
I never said it wasn't a big deal. But you said [b]"if you are saying that life will start from non-life, and in time arise to the point of having an
ecosystem form I disagree", which I took to mean that you are of the following opinion:
Life can never spring from non-life.
If that is not what you meant, please clarify. But if you do believe that statement, what is the reason why life can never spring from non-life?[/b]
has no intent, plan, desire to see anything live or die, without an
interest in any outcome, without any motivation to see any
inprovements at all, life in all of its variety arose to the diversty of life
we see today. You seemed to suggest that an ecosystem is proof
that life could do such a thing spring up like that. Which as far as I'm
concern basically is just another example of why life does not fit some
of the core beliefs about evolution, since life does seem to flow in a
balance in what we call ecosystems instead of a struggle of the fittest.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo do you now admit that your claim as stated is false?
You are out to lunch. I'm not carefully avoiding squate.
You talked about a program once did you not, that isn't something
that just arose, that was a designed product. You have a natural
process that is one thing, but an active complex system with very
active sub-systems and sub-systems and so on, is not something you
see spring up like your crystals?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou asked for an example of a complex system that arises spontaneously from less complex components. Ecosystems are a great example. What's the problem?
Pretty that is the theme of evolutionary beliefs that by a process that
has no intent, plan, desire to see anything live or die, without an
interest in any outcome, without any motivation to see any
inprovements at all, life in all of its variety arose to the diversty of life
we see today. You seemed to suggest that an ecosystem is proof
that life coul ...[text shortened]... m to flow in a
balance in what we call ecosystems instead of a struggle of the fittest.
Kelly
Now, I just want to know if you agree with this statement or not:
I, KellyJay, believe that life can never arise from non-living things.
You can answer "yes" or "no" and I will know exactly what you mean.
Originally posted by PBE6How long have you been on this forum? KellyJay doesn't answer most questions directly.
You can answer "yes" or "no" and I will know exactly what you mean.
For example, I've asked him why he would believe that an Intelligent Designer would give
humans an eye with a blind spot. He has on the one hand claimed that the ID didn't, but
the eye 'degraded' to have one, but he has failed to explained why he believes this (what
reasons he has, not to mention that the eye we have and the eye we could have are equally
complex, so the notion of 'degrading' is unintelligible). On the other hand, he has posited
that maybe the ID gave us this eye because if we had a blind-spotless eye, that eye would
serve us less well, but he has failed to explain why he believes this (what reasons he has).
The concept of scientific process is anathema to KellyJay: the notion of having confidence
in that which is most plausible runs contrary to how he constructs his world view. When
you ask questions like this, it presumes a world view that plausibility has currency. He
simply never gets to 'why;' he just blindly accepts 'what' and insists that all other people
are equally blind, so all decisions are equally good.
Nemesio
Originally posted by PBE6Not on its own, no.
You asked for an example of a complex system that arises spontaneously from less complex components. Ecosystems are a great example. What's the problem?
Now, I just want to know if you agree with this statement or not:
I, KellyJay, believe that life can [b]never arise from non-living things.
You can answer "yes" or "no" and I will know exactly what you mean.[/b]
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioI told you a couple of things I guess all went over your head.
How long have you been on this forum? KellyJay doesn't answer most questions directly.
For example, I've asked him why he would believe that an Intelligent Designer would give
humans an eye with a blind spot. He has on the one hand claimed that the ID didn't, but
the eye 'degraded' to have one, but he has failed to explained why he believes this (wha ...[text shortened]... at all other people
are equally blind, so all decisions are equally good.
Nemesio
1. I don't know if the blind spot is a bad thing since I don't know what
would occur if we didn't have it.
2. I believe we were given better bodies than we have now by design,
those bodies have started to break down evolving into less than what
we were. This means errors could have evolved into our design over
time. Which means that the blind spot may not have been there at
the time of our orgin. Looking at the age of most people at our
creation should show you that we were better designed than we are
now.
3. Your comparing our eyes to a creature that lives in water is not
wise since we live out of the water and the Octopus lives in it. Even if
we started with equally good eyes over time due to the conditions we
are being put in could cause the degrading of our systems to break
down differently.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6The answer is that he believes “god” made life, thus he disbelieves life can ever arise from non-life on its own simply because that belief that life can ever arise from non-life would conflict with his religious beliefs -and that is really what all this is about.
If no life can ever arise from non-life on its own, what else is required for something to be imbued with life?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonPossibly, but I'd like to hear what he has to say.
The answer is that he believes “god” made life, thus he disbelieves life can ever arise from non-life on its own simply because that belief that life can ever arise from non-life would conflict with his religious beliefs -and that is really what all this is about.