Spark of life

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yeah, go for it, why not?

Thanks robbie!

When I first saw this thread the first thing that came to mind was that Jesus is the "spark of life". After all, it was Jesus that created life in the first place.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Originally posted by josephw
Thanks robbie!

When I first saw this thread the first thing that came to mind was that Jesus is the "spark of life". After all, it was Jesus that created life in the first place.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

…After all, it was Jesus that created life in the first place..…

?
What?

-I am just curious, that is all 🙂 ;

Is that a misprint?

Do you mean that in some kind of metaphoric sense?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
If something is superstition, you don’t need an “argument” to demonstrate that it is superstition, you just need to point out that it is a belief about reality which is not based on reason nor evidence -that is all.

If you think it's unnecessary to explain why it isn't based on reason nor evidence, then you are the one being unreasonable. Any proposition A can be reformulated as ~(~A).

Originally posted by Palynka
If you think it's unnecessary to explain why it isn't based on reason nor evidence, then you are the one being unreasonable. Any proposition A can be reformulated as ~(~A).

…If you think it's unnecessary to explain why it isn't based on reason nor evidence, then you are the one being unreasonable..…

"why it isn’t based on reason nor evidence"?
-I am not sure what you mean:
-If something is NOT based on reason nor evidence, why would it be “necessary” for me to explain “why” it is not based on reason nor evidence?

If somebody X makes up a belief about reality that is NOT based on reason nor evidence then the reason “why” that somebody X has failed to base that belief on reason/evidence may be only known to that somebody X and not me because I may not know his motives for making up such a belief.

If that somebody X then claims to base that belief on reason/evidence when I deny that, then it is up to him to demonstrate that such reason/evidence exists and it is not up to me to demonstrate that such reason/evidence does not exist because it wouldn’t be me who is making such an existential claim (I am not sure if you are implying this, but I go on in case you are; ).

If somebody claims that there exists reason/evidence that there is a Santa and you claim that that is false, would it be up to him to point out what that reason/evidence that supports the hypothesis that there is a Santa is or would it be up to you to prove that there does NOT exist any such reason/evidence that supports the hypothesis that there is a Santa?
(-or would you say neither/both is the case in which case we should be 50% certain that there exists a Santa until if or when there is evidence that supports/refutes the hypothesis?)

…Any proposition A can be reformulated as ~(~A)..…

How does that fact relate to what you said before?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
If science was wrong then our technology wouldn’t work -isn’t that a good enough “measure” of the track record of science?

Our technology works because it isn't left of up to guess work to
fill in the blanks, unlike many things you'd credit science for.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Our technology works because it isn't left of up to guess work to
fill in the blanks, unlike many things you'd credit science for.
Kelly

-and what “fills in the blanks” is usually scientific knowledge gained through scientific method. Therefore, science is correctly credited for the fact that our technology generally works.

For example, if it wasn’t for quantum mechanics, one of the “blanks” would be that we wouldn’t have a clue of how semiconductors work. But quantum mechanics allows us to understand how semiconductors work and that understanding is used to design transistors in computers. If quantum mechanics was wrong then the transistors in computers wouldn’t work (amongst many other technologies) and that would mean computers wouldn’t work -but they do work, which is a vindication of quantum mechanics.
-but obviously you already know all this! -so why you are trying to rubbish science? (that is an Rhetorical question).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
-and what “fills in the blanks” is usually scientific knowledge gained through scientific method. Therefore, science is correctly credited for the fact that our technology generally works.

For example, if it wasn’t for quantum mechanics, one of the “blanks” would be that we wouldn’t have a clue of how semiconductors work. But quantum mechanics all ...[text shortened]... eady know all this! -so why you are trying to rubbish science? (that is an Rhetorical question).

Like I said, it works, it isn't something we have to guess at like looking
at some light and than claiming to know how old the universe is.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like I said, it works, it isn't something we have to guess at like looking
at some light and than claiming to know how old the universe is.
Kelly

…Like I said, it works, ..…

Yes -and it works because science is correct.

…it isn't something we have to guess at like looking at some light and than claiming to know how old the universe is. ..…

-now you are obviously referring to the Doppler-shift and the way it can be used to calculate a good approximation of the age of the universe -no “guess work” involved in that calculation, just the application of scientific knowledge (specifically, relativity).

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Palynka started up a very interesting thread, Thread 104839, in Science Forum. joe shmo was very quick to try to bring this thread off-topic by introducing spiritual aspects. I wouldn't want to go off-topic and I said so, which leaded to accusations about hipocracy and his line of discussion went further off-topic.

Therefore I start this agical, of is it real?

Well, engage yourself in the question of 'spark of life'!

It is indeed fascinating that science cannot answer the basic question, what is life?

The Bible has at least ten words for "life", each with its own particular significance. There is the psuche - the animal sentient principle; pneuma - the rational immortal soul; and zoe - roughly translated "life" or "vitality" but in the NT it is exclusively used in reference to either life in God's kingdom, eternal life in heaven, or the life that is in Christ (never used as a reference to that which is delineated by psuche (flesh) or pneuma (soul)).

Biblically, therefore, we have the life of the flesh (psuche), the life of the soul (pneuma), and the life of the spirit (the spirit is the "apex mentis" of a human being; that aspect which could be called the "spark of life" - the "vitality" of a sentient being; that which is capable of experiencing the eternal realm of the spirit, i.e., God's eternal kingdom, the life in Christ, etc. Biblically speaking, all men and women are created with a spirit (in the likeness of God).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Like I said, it works, ..…

Yes -and it works because science is correct.

…it isn't something we have to guess at like looking at some light and than claiming to know how old the universe is. ..…

-now you are obviously referring to the Doppler-shift and the way it can be used to calculate a good approximation of the age of the ...[text shortened]... d in that calculation, just the application of scientific knowledge (specifically, relativity).[/b]

Not saying that science doesn't get some things right, never did, but
because we (people) are correct in our uses of science in some areas
does not translate into we are always right. With respect to calculating
the age of the universe, it is pure guess work, filled with assumptions.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not saying that science doesn't get some things right, never did, but
because we (people) are correct in our uses of science in some areas
does not translate into we are always right. With respect to calculating
the age of the universe, it is pure guess work, filled with assumptions.
Kelly

…Not saying that science doesn't get some things right, never did, but
because we (people) are correct in our uses of science in some areas
does not translate into we are always right. ..…

Who said or implied that “we are always right”?

…With respect to calculating the age of the universe, it is pure guess work, filled with assumptions...…

Nope -try again:

Those “assumptions” are so well qualified as to be in most cases scientific facts.
For example, the Doppler shift is a scientific fact because it is supported by good evidence:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Doppler+shift+evidence&btnG=Search

You probably have directly observe the Doppler shift in sound when something like a train or motorbike comes speeding towards you and then passes you -you must have noticed how the frequency of the sound goes from high-pitch to low-pitch as it passes -that is the Doppler shift. So if you accept that it exists for sound then there should be no reason why you shouldn't accept it for light.

So no “pure guess work” there -just good science.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Not saying that science doesn't get some things right, never did, but
because we (people) are correct in our uses of science in some areas
does not translate into we are always right. ..…

Who said or implied that “we are always right”?

…With respect to calculating the age of the universe, it is pure guess work, filled with assump ...[text shortened]... on why you shouldn't accept it for light.

So no “pure guess work” there -just good science.

[/b]Apples and oranges, again.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Apples and oranges, again.
Kelly[/b]

Does this mean you deny the scientific fact of the existence of the Doppler shift?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

The Doppler shift in the Spectrum of light from star light has been directly observed -but, of course, you must already know this fact.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Does this mean you deny the scientific fact of the existence of the Doppler shift?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

The Doppler shift in the Spectrum of light from star light has been directly observed -but, of course, you must already know this fact.

He denies everything that even has remotely to do with science.
He belives anything that even has remotely to do with creationism.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Does this mean you deny the scientific fact of the existence of the Doppler shift?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

The Doppler shift in the Spectrum of light from star light has been directly observed -but, of course, you must already know this fact.

Why would I deny it?
Kelly