10 Mar 15
Originally posted by stellspalfieDoes not matter his conditions, I told you all the chemicals he had were
what was the reason for his death? did he have any medical conditions? did your grandfather have the body of a 20 year old athlete?
still there and his body stopped. No machine came in and took any of
the chemicals out of his body removing anything required. If you have
everything needed with respect to chemicals you can still die, which means
that life is more than chemicals. If the system *life* requires more than
just chemicals like a properly functioning independent system than again
life is more than chemicals.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWas there a "cause of death" listed on the death certificate? Was there an autopsy? What year was it? Your anecdotal "evidence" seems flimsy. People do have aneurisms and die in their sleep. Autopsy can detect it.
Does not matter his conditions, I told you all the chemicals he had were
still there and his body stopped. No machine came in and took any of
the chemicals out of his body removing anything required. If you have
everything needed with respect to chemicals you can still die, which means
that life is more than chemicals. If the system *life* requires more ...[text shortened]... hemicals like a properly functioning independent system than again
life is more than chemicals.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
10 Mar 15
Originally posted by KellyJayFirst... How can you possibly know that his chemical make-up was still correct?
Does not matter his conditions, I told you all the chemicals he had were
still there and his body stopped. No machine came in and took any of
the chemicals out of his body removing anything required. If you have
everything needed with respect to chemicals you can still die, which means
that life is more than chemicals. If the system *life* requires more ...[text shortened]... hemicals like a properly functioning independent system than again
life is more than chemicals.
Can you see all the ~1E28 atoms in his body and tell that they are all arranged
correctly into the right structures?
Second... having all the right elements [atoms] doesn't mean that they are all
arranged correctly. If you take all the cogs and gears needed to make a clock
and dump them into a box you would be foolish to expect that box to be able
to tell you the time.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI believe that is one of the arguments we creationists have made against evolution and abiogenesis, but you don't seem to see any problem in that case. 😏
First... How can you possibly know that his chemical make-up was still correct?
Can you see all the ~1E28 atoms in his body and tell that they are all arranged
correctly into the right structures?
Second... having all the right elements [atoms] doesn't mean that they are all
arranged correctly. If you take all the cogs and gears needed to make a ...[text shortened]... dump them into a box you would be foolish to expect that box to be able
to tell you the time.
Originally posted by JS357I don't believe they did one, he died a week or two after my grandmother
Was there a "cause of death" listed on the death certificate? Was there an autopsy? What year was it? Your anecdotal "evidence" seems flimsy. People do have aneurisms and die in their sleep. Autopsy can detect it.
who he was married to for over 75 years. Besides, as I pointed out to you
the chemicals were all there, even if something occurred within his body
that would still be true.
11 Mar 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeCorrect then went incorrect? You want to assume something went from
First... How can you possibly know that his chemical make-up was still correct?
Can you see all the ~1E28 atoms in his body and tell that they are all arranged
correctly into the right structures?
Second... having all the right elements [atoms] doesn't mean that they are all
arranged correctly. If you take all the cogs and gears needed to make a ...[text shortened]... dump them into a box you would be foolish to expect that box to be able
to tell you the time.
being right handed to left handed, what? I said he was there, all the
chemicals that made up his body was there and he died. You want to worry
about the all the ~1E28 atoms in his body to know if they were all arranged
correctly into the right structures? Oh my, if you would only apply that type
of skepticism towards evolution you'd more than likely dismiss it out of hand.
11 Mar 15
Originally posted by KellyJayIt sounds like you are trying to make the argument that since he died in his sleep there was no cause of death but instead his soul left the body.
Correct then went incorrect? You want to assume something went from
being right handed to left handed, what? I said he was there, all the
chemicals that made up his body was there and he died. You want to worry
about the all the ~1E28 atoms in his body to know if they were all arranged
correctly into the right structures? Oh my, if you would only apply that type
of skepticism towards evolution you'd more than likely dismiss it out of hand.
The counter to that is nobody EVER has proved anything like a soul exists.
This is, in my opinion, nothing but a fundamentally deep seeded need for humans to have something that puts them above all the OTHER animals on the planet. A deep seated wish is not reality, only a wish.
And you cannot EVER prove the existence of this 'soul'.
He died for some cause and that cause would have been some imbalance in his chemical makeup and the fact he did not have an autopsy just allows you to speculate without knowing the cause. You look at a dead body and I for one am sorry for your loss, but you look at a dead body like that and all you see is the skin.
You have ZERO understanding of what actually took place in his body to cause his death.
It is just your opinion there was nothing wrong with his chemicals.
11 Mar 15
Originally posted by FMFDidn't say it was meaningless speculation as to what the soul might be. We know what the soul is because the Bible tells us so.
Seeing as the OP's thought exercise asks a question about whether a laboratory created human body would have a soul, then what we are doing here is discussing what the "soul" might be exactly. I do not think discussing what the "soul" might be exactly can be described as "meaningless speculation"
I said it was meaningless to speculate whether a laboratory generated human body would have a soul.
You're obfuscating again whether you know it or not.
11 Mar 15
Originally posted by FMFYour post above is an example. You're deflecting from the topic. Not an honest thing to do, but I wasn't referring to you specifically anyway, and I made an honest personal reference to myself with that comment, which I won't discuss any further with you here, and not because I have something to hide, which I don't, but because it's not on topic.
Which part of my contribution to this discussion do you feel has not been "open and honest"? And are you saying that you yourself are "too damn proud to have an open and honest discussion"?
The question raised in the OP is whether or not a laboratory, evolutionary generated human body would have a soul. What a soul is isn't the question raised in the OP as you tried to assert.
11 Mar 15
The really big error Kelly is making in this thread is to ignore multicellularity. A human being is a multicellular life form and does not have a well defined property of being 'alive' or 'dead'. For most animals, one can often call a multicelluar organism 'alive' or 'dead' based on the state of the majority of the cells, but even with animals it is far from simple.
But lets start with plants. The majority of plants can be broken into pieces and each piece can be grown into a new plant. So, when is a plant dead? When every single one of the cells that make it up dies? If you break off a leaf and store it, then wait a week and kill all the remaining cells, then grow the leaf into a new plant. Is the original plant dead or alive?
Now lets look at animals. Some animals have properties similar to plants in that a whole living animal can be grown from a part. In fact, with human intervention, we can clone virtually any animal from a single cell. If one does so, then kills the 'parent' animal, is the 'parent' animal alive or dead?
Many animals have no single essential body part. So you can kill off any particular part without killing the whole animal. Even the brain is not always essential for at least temporary survival. So when an animal is in the process of dying, when is it dead? When half its cells are dead? When 90% are dead? When 100% are dead? Or when so many are dead that one cannot reasonably hope to revived the animal?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Mar 15
Originally posted by KellyJayAneurisms pop in the brain and the chemicals are still there.
I don't believe they did one, he died a week or two after my grandmother
who he was married to for over 75 years. Besides, as I pointed out to you
the chemicals were all there, even if something occurred within his body
that would still be true.
What is the "more to it" that you are talking about?
11 Mar 15
Originally posted by JS357I'm aware of what an aneurism is one of my best friends nearly died of one.
Aneurisms pop in the brain and the chemicals are still there.
What is the "more to it" that you are talking about?
Drove his car into a building, he was lucky he was just pulling out into the
street instead of driving on highway.
11 Mar 15
Originally posted by josephwOne needs to talk about what the "soul" is if one is to tackle the OP's thought exercise.
The question raised in the OP is whether or not a laboratory, evolutionary generated human body would have a soul. What a soul is isn't the question raised in the OP as you tried to assert.
11 Mar 15
Originally posted by josephwI was merely responding to what you said in a post you addressed to me.
Your post above is an example. You're deflecting from the topic. Not an honest thing to do, but I wasn't referring to you specifically anyway, and I made an honest personal reference to myself with that comment, which I won't discuss any further with you here, and not because I have something to hide, which I don't, but because it's not on topic.
11 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, I don't know why he died outside of grief.
It sounds like you are trying to make the argument that since he died in his sleep there was no cause of death but instead his soul left the body.
The counter to that is nobody EVER has proved anything like a soul exists.
This is, in my opinion, nothing but a fundamentally deep seeded need for humans to have something that puts them above all the OTHE ...[text shortened]... body to cause his death.
It is just your opinion there was nothing wrong with his chemicals.
My point is that all the parts he had were with him when he laid down and
then he died in his sleep. His bodies makeup had all the chemicals while
he slept, now did something happen to him? I'm sure it did, but with him his
body stopped even though all the sugars, acids, proteins, and so on were
there. He was there then he wasn't.
You guys are all over trying to come with a cause, and I've asked you to
think about all the causes of life early on in how you view the process. You
have a much easier time thinking about how he died than how life avoided
going through something that could have ended it all early on. For some
reason, that life must have just flourished, why, because you want it to
believe it did!
We live in bodes in my opinion, we are not just bodies. We can lose limbs
and all types of our bodies functions and that does not make us less than
being who we are. We are more than just flesh and blood.