Re: The Great Darwinist/ID Debate Thread

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 21:29:41 GMT, Ash <ash.amanic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Not really, it's just pointing out that saying some systems are IC is
not an argument against evolution unless you can also show they couldn't
have got that way by natural processes

It should be obvious from what we know about natural causes (according
to common scieintific definitions of material causes) that they can't.
Anyone who claims otherwise haven't thought it all over.

A human being can physically be reduced to at heap of simple
chemicals. Take this heap pf chemicals and place a human being beside
it, and then describe how these simple chemicals would self-assemble
into this extremelt complex and advanced human being, all by
themselves. A human being is not just a fixed structure, it also
functional, conscious, and acts out of intention - in other words,
it's alive. Where in these simple, inanimate chemicals do all those
human properties hide?

A computer is a much simpler and far less sophisticated device to
produce than a human body. Why don't we see self-assembled computers
and all kinds of other functional devices evolve spontaneously in
nature? You can't even find the most simple non-living object that
resembles anything we would call a functional device. Why is that? Why
does evolution jump from a very simple level directly up to a very
sophisticated one, completely skipping the level between these two
levels?

It's very simple. Matter is nothing but building blocks, raw material
for MIND's creative activities in this physical dimension. Matter
cannot self-organize into anything complex and functional. It takes
something of a higher order, that is, MIND, to think out and build
anything functional and useful from matter. As for the manufaturing of
computers, we are that higher level of MIND, inhabiting and working
through these physical bodies. As for the manufaturing of our bodies
and those of other living beings, The Creator, or God, is that higher
level of MIND. And all manifestations of MIND are non-physical. They
MUST be, for were they physical themselves, they would not be able to
control and manipulate the physical. Matter cannot control matter,
only MIND can.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Great Darwinist/ID Debate Thread
    ... Take this heap pf chemicals and place a human being beside ... We _do_ see _humans_ self-assemble within wombs, drawing sustenance from a female in a parasitic relationship, until a while after they are born. ... anything functional and useful from matter. ... computers, we are that higher level of MIND, inhabiting and working ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: There are NO intellligent Xtians, if we use Dimwit Dave, Pastor...
    ... how they had the mind, will, and desire to bring about: ... As for your imaginary unchanging 133 parameters, you used to profess ... Why bother explaining evolution and chemical synthesis to an idiot who ... I can synthesize C2H5OH from other chemicals (or even just sugar, ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... extrapolation in the theory of evolution is a fact? ... Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... extrapolation in the theory of evolution is a fact? ... If you're asking me if I've seen individual electrons, ... Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is a fact something that has been proven?
    ... Evolution has been observed. ... If facts are observations, then ... Did mind come before matter in the universe or matter come before mind? ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading