Evolutions' fatal flaw.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A theory always has limitations. Evolution is a nice example. Its limitations?
It only works if life already exists.
So, it fails to explain the origin of life you cry.
Of course it does. That's beyond its limits.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It wasn't ALWAYS THAT WAY BABY !!

When they realized that it ...[text shortened]... ordal soup bit kicking off Evolution.

Shhhhhhh! Let's not talk about that anymore.[/b]

My generation.
Yeah, good one.

What planet did you evolve on?
I evolved on planet Earth, where scientific theories have ALWAYS been recognised to have limitations.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
How does the theory of evolution say that God does not exist?

god created man, not one celled organisms that became man, thanks for quoting my post that i changed, i thought it was a little mean 😕 lol

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A theory always has limitations. Evolution is a nice example. Its limitations?
It only works if life already exists.
So, it fails to explain the origin of life you cry.
Of course it does. That's beyond its limits.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It wasn't ALWAYS THAT WAY BABY !!

When they realized that it ...[text shortened]... ordal soup bit kicking off Evolution.

Shhhhhhh! Let's not talk about that anymore.[/b]

When they realized that it couldn't exlpain the Origin of the First Species then they cried "LIMITATIONS!".

Actually, Charles Darwin said it in "Origin".


Although, the currently accepted hypothesis is that life evolved from non life. You see, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection doesn't actually stipulate or require life, only something which has heredity, exists within a finite pool of resources, and mutation of some type.

Life is nothing special, it's just the fulfilment of a bunch of rather arbitrary criteria.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
god created man, not one celled organisms that became man, thanks for quoting my post that i changed, i thought it was a little mean 😕 lol

The Greek word poieo (create) can be widely translated as either to contruct, form, fashion, prepare, make, produce, or create. In light of that, in the book of Genesis when it says that God created man, this does not necessarily point to an instantaneous creation event. After all, to contruct, fashion, and prepare something takes time. It is never stipulated anywhere in the creation story how exactly God constructed man (i.e. how long it took, what processes were involved, etc.), just that God willed it and it was so. We must keep in mind that we are talking about an eternal God, to whom a thousand years is as one hour, and vice versa. On the 'seventh day' he rested from all his works; that is, after the 'seventh day' God was done with his creation (speaking in terms of past, present and future). Clearly, God's poieo of man, therefore, cannot be pinned down to a specific point in time (a creation event), since not even what is presently apparent is finished evolving, i.e. time and space. The universe is still evolving, yet God's "works were finished from the foundation of the world" (Hebrews 4:3), therefore the creation story is obviously conveying an eternal perspective; while the observational aspect of his creatures perceive evolution.

Anyway, this is how the evolution/creationism debate resolves itself in my mind. I hope it's half-way comprehensible...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]When they realized that it couldn't exlpain the Origin of the First Species then they cried "LIMITATIONS!".

Actually, Charles Darwin said it in "Origin".


Although, the currently accepted hypothesis is that life evolved from non life. You see, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection doesn't actually stipulate or require life, ...[text shortened]... ife is nothing special, it's just the fulfilment of a bunch of rather arbitrary criteria.[/b]

As a non-scientist, I want to take a simplistic stab at this—

I’m wondering if there isn’t some confusion because we use the noun “life” as if it were a substance, rather than a process that can occur given, at some point, the necessary combination of physical elements with the requisite energy input?

And that such combination is simply plausible (not certain) given (1) the available elements + energy in the cosmos, and (2) time?

And that such energized combination—a living (verb) organism—will, or will not, survive and evolve given local conditions that support it or not? That is, that the environment will continually select for or against certain traits in such developing organisms?

Originally posted by vistesd
As a non-scientist, I want to take a simplistic stab at this—

I’m wondering if there isn’t some confusion because we use the noun “life” as if it were a substance, rather than a process that can occur given, at some point, the necessary combination of physical elements with the requisite energy input?

And that such combination is simply plausible (no ...[text shortened]... environment will continually select for or against certain traits in such developing organisms?

Yes, I think there is a great deal of confusion surrounding "life". Mainly because people seem to think that it's some magical substance. It's not. The same ones seem to think it's only magical when it comes to humans though, strangely, they don't think the same when they get their can of "Raid" out!


Life (taken from wiki)

Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, I think there is a great deal of confusion surrounding "life". Mainly because people seem to think that it's some magical substance. It's not. The same ones seem to think it's only magical when it comes to humans though, strangely, they don't think the same when they get their can of "Raid" out!


Life (taken from wiki)

Conventional defin ...[text shortened]... rictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

And some magic substance—soul, spirit, elan vital, chi—is simply unnecessary given that our “organization” consists of elements and the basic (four) forces occurring naturally in the cosmos.

Note: Sometimes, I think that concepts such as chi (or ki for you karate people) are simply a useful tag for a complex of natural processes, and their effects, in a certain context. Just because I say, “Wow, I can feel the chi flow,” does not mean that I am referring in reality to anything more than the effects of certain neuro-physiological processes. Nevertheless, you may well understand the sensations I refer to, and the effects—in terms of energy level, ease of movement, etc.—that are present with those sensations and the neuro-physiological processes that underlie them.

When an athlete says she is “in the zone,” that does not mean that their exists in the universe a “zone” to be in...

Does that make sense?

Originally posted by vistesd
And some magic substance—soul, spirit, elan vital, chi—is simply unnecessary given that our “organization” consists of elements and the basic (four) forces occurring naturally in the cosmos.

Note: Sometimes, I think that concepts such as chi (or ki for you karate people) are simply a useful tag for a complex of natural processes, and their ...[text shortened]... at does not mean that their exists in the universe a “zone” to be in...

Does that make sense?

It certainly does make sense. Especially the part about "ki".

You'd get on with a karate guy Rob Redmond. Rob is a great demystifier (de-mister?) of karate. No magical "ki energy" for Rob, just biophysics and lots of training, and this from a man who competed at "All Japan Championship" level!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, I think there is a great deal of confusion surrounding "life". Mainly because people seem to think that it's some magical substance. It's not. The same ones seem to think it's only magical when it comes to humans though, strangely, they don't think the same when they get their can of "Raid" out!


Life (taken from wiki)

Conventional defin rictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

I wanted to do an example for "life", using a vending machine as an example.

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

Many vending machines regulate their internal temperatures, cooling for cold drinks, and heating for coffee and the like. Tick

2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

Whilst vending machines are not composed of cells, their body design in some ways represents a "cell". Cross

3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Yes. Energy is used in the manufacture of vending machines, and they then require an energy "metabolism" to continue functioning. Tick

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

No. Vending machines do not grow. Cross

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

Yes. Vending machine design can, and has changed through time.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.

Yes. You put money in, you get fizzy juice out.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

No. Vending machines don't reproduce.

So, as we can see, whilst vending machines do fulfil some of the requirements for life, they are not alive themselves.

If we look at viruses, they fulfil 6 of 7 criteria.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It certainly does make sense. Especially the part about "ki".

You'd get on with a karate guy Rob Redmond. Rob is a great demystifier (de-mister?) of karate. No magical "ki energy" for Rob, just biophysics and lots of training, and this from a man who competed at "All Japan Championship" level!

Tai Chi is billed as an “internal” art. It reminds me of a study I once read about: three groups prepared for a contest shooting foul shots. One group practiced for a given time each day; the second group did nothing but sit and visualize shooting foul shots for the same amount of time each day; the third group spent half the time visualizing, and half the time practicing. Their scores were in reverse order from my listing here—that is, the group that just practiced did the worst (with statistical significance, I presume).

Tai Chi actually seems to work like the third group. Our master (who was pretty traditional) talked about Chi, and there was still meditation as well as doing the form as moving meditation—but he had developed legs like tree-trunks, and he could crank with great power that muscle-mass around the belly that the Chinese call “the waist.”

I’m a “schlock” by the way. I had about two-three years in the school, then moved away. I let the practice fall away, and then re-injured my back (doing simple shoveling) as a result. When I started to practice again, I had lost so much—things I couldn’t recall, and movements that I knew that I was not doing correctly, but couldn’t figure out myself what was wrong. I put together a small form based on what I actually did retain, and I have reinstituted my daily practice with that, and some chi gung exercises. My small form is “authentic” in its movements, but it’s not complete.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Good point. Why then isn't evolution supposed to be compatible with the creation story in the bible? As long as I've been a believer I've never understood the friction between the two.

Well, as long as the creation story is seen as just that, there is no conflict. Even better, if we take an alternative translation we see 'period of time' instead of day, which means that there is now Absolutely No Conflict. Darwin himself, and many evolutionists after him have been Christians with absolutely no conflict.
The difficulty arises when people read the bible literally as the facts. "Evolution cannot have occurred as you say, because the Universe, including all life on Earth was created in a week" If that statement is taken as true, then evolution of course faced with (a very unscientific) challenge which some respond to, but most left alone until Intelligent Design came along portraying itself as a scientific theory (though as of yet, has no testable hypothesis, and cannot explain certain things without invoking more and more unproveable hypothesese ), which may lead to confusion amongst the public who may not see the subtlety between a theory and a hypothesis. Hence the big debate.

Originally posted by josephw
Gen. 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Evolution. Billions of years of hopeless death.

Consider the contrast. Eternal life from a loving creator, or non-existence from a man made contrivance.

Well we know for sure about the years of hopeless death. Its happening now and even you can see it for yourself. So if as you claim that contradicts the Bible then we can only conclude that it is the Bible that is wrong.

I don't really know what you mean by "non-existence from a man made contrivance."

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]When they realized that it couldn't exlpain the Origin of the First Species then they cried "LIMITATIONS!".

Actually, Charles Darwin said it in "Origin".


Although, the currently accepted hypothesis is that life evolved from non life. You see, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection doesn't actually stipulate or require life, ...[text shortened]... ife is nothing special, it's just the fulfilment of a bunch of rather arbitrary criteria.[/b]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Life is nothing special, it's just the fulfilment of a bunch of rather arbitrary criteria.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For not being special it sure is rather scarce given to full size of the known universe.

Okay, Okay, the known Solar System. Not too much of life around for being nothing particulary special.

You can't make it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well we know for sure about the years of hopeless death. Its happening now and even you can see it for yourself. So if as you claim that contradicts the Bible then we can only conclude that it is the Bible that is wrong.

I don't really know what you mean by "non-existence from a man made contrivance."

I think Joseph and I could have had a interesting exchange on Old Earth verses Young Earth theology.

Unfortunately the thread got highjacked into talking about the Canon of the Bible and textural criticism.

Scottis informs us that life is nothing special.

And brilliant theorist Stephen Hawking suggested that a computer virus was a life form.

How many of you out there think that a Computer Virus is a life form ?