Re: Scrappy "natural mechanism"

In article <52ele3hc95i4ojg15dhgtop0hcll4fvrdr@xxxxxxx>,
Numerous <numerous@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:02:20 -0000, "Steven J."
<steven_j@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 14, 1:17 am, mc...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Consider how the DNA is created by the use of proteins. By
replication. This is the way the body does it. All this mechanism is
there now, but wasn't available in the beginning. There was no
mechanism.

Since there was no mechanism Tweedy falsified his faith in
abiogenesis.

I'm sorry to hear that you disbelieve in chemistry. You ought to
consider that many theologians, even quite conservative ones, think
that chemistry is perfectly compatible with Christian faith.

While quite a few scientists thinks differently. E.g. Louis de
Broglie, the father of wave mechanics:

"It is premature to suppose that we can reduce vital processes to
the inadequate conceptions of physico-chemistry of the 19th and even
the 20th century".

Would you like to list some of the characteristics or processes of
life that have been found to rely on something other than physics
and chemistry?


8<


The problem with evolutionary theory is that it does not take the
properties of consciousness into consideration.

The vast majority of evolution has taken place without impinging on
consciousness.


Instead it ascribes everything in nature's processes, even the
emegence of mind and consciousness, to chemistry, which is plain
wrong.

So you say. Is there any reason we should believe you?


Chemistry works on one level, mind/consciousness on another,

Flying also works "on another level", but no one has ever shown any
reason to believe that birds rely on anything other than chemistry
and physics to fly.


and together they create the processes called life. Chemistry alone
is unable to do this.

So you say. Is there any reason we should believe you?


It can create order and complexity, but not function.

Is flying "function"? Digestion? Metabolism?

Would you like to define "function", so that your claim has some
non-arbitrary meaning?


And understanding the difference between the mechanisms of chemistry
and the mechanisms of consciousness, and how they interact with each
other, is the key to understanding ID.

WTF does that have to do with ID?

ID is easily understood as a political scam to justify brainwashing
schoolkiddies into believing that God exists because there are various
things that evolution (purportedly) could not have done.

--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada

Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Evil) rules is that the reason for the presentation is that it is a ... physics and chemistry, rules about how you will experience the physical ... causes our consciousness, or if you are unable to do that, could you be ... different neurons are not known to conscious experience. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... should assume that the robot really is experiencing consciousness, ... the human organism that I experience being appropriately. ... then given our understanding of physics and ... The whole reason we have developed such ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... should assume that the robot really is experiencing consciousness, ... the human organism that I experience being appropriately. ... then given our understanding of physics and ... The whole reason we have developed such ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Evil) rules is that the reason for the presentation is that it is ... physics and chemistry, rules about how you will experience the physical ... causes our consciousness, or if you are unable to do that, could you ... If a robot were to exhibit such behaviours, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary question concerning God.
    ... Experimental results are explainable in terms of physics and chemistry, ... refer to consciousness and in experimentation it has *not been shown to ... explained in terms of the intracell activity of the cells that make ...
    (talk.origins)