@ACB,
ACB;86535 wrote:Suppose a person is instantly vaporised in a nuclear explosion. Now, you believe there is a main power switch that needs to be thrown into the 'off' position before death can occur. So it is logically possible for it still to be in the 'on' position. But how could that be, if the person had been vaporised? Where would the switch be, and how could it be turned off? I don't think your analogy works.
But even if you were correct about the life force, I am still struggling to understand how this undermines the theory of evolution. I have read your posts carefully on this point, but I really can't see what relevance your argument has to evolution. Can you try to clarify the connection, please?
---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 02:59 PM ----------
Rich - Let me repeat:
Let me be clear ACB,
I am not trying to undermine evolution, never have.
My argument with Oden from the start has been that evolution is not a proven fact as he likes to declare it.
I think evolution could be possible, but until it is proven I give it as much creedence as any other working hypothesis.
I have also made it clear that the juncture between life and death is a cxrucial point in understanding evolution because to promote evolution one must consider that instant that life emerges as they are saying and what happens to it at that precsie miilisecond that causes it to evolve differently from its host. Hense there is an emergence involved that borders this fine line between NOT alive and alive that is the balancing act of the entire hypothesis.
And on that borderline between life and Non life is also the other extreme, which is death.
I see the whole process as exoisitng between two fine lines. The first being the fine line between non life and instantaneous emergence of life, the spark or inttiation of the process that follows. The second fine line being the end of that process which mimics the first by being suddenly and instantaeously sudden loss of that life.
The analogy of the switch was not presuming that the switch was some sort of body part or compomnent that would be interacted with biologically. In an instance of immediate vap[orization that life would be instantly taken. Is it as instant as the millisecond that life leaves the body in any other way? I dont know, has that instant of life leaving the body ecer been measured, I think not.
---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 09:41 AM ----------
KaseiJin;86544 wrote:Most obviously, Pathfinder, you are certain of almost nothing that I, at least, say, and I have no idea why that is other than that it's either due to lingusitical concerns, or presuppositional concern. I have never said anything of the likes that you have been attempting to put in my mouth due to your own misreading (or spin).
And you are asking a question which is based on imagination, are you not?! Or are you asking a real question? Whatever the biological program, because there are seveal, as we have mentioned to you, it is exactly biological, and as far as the inquiry should go, that should be it. Why in the world are you pushing for an understanding here? It is because you have no idea and wish to learn? or is it because you wish to try to implement an old Hebrewish idea?
KJ I do not deliberately attempt to put words in anyones mouth or try to spin anything they say. Why would I? I am not going to win some prize for establishing dominance in this discussion.
You spoke of a process that lies beneath the working of life in a cell. I addressed that by asking you what you meant by this underlying process. But you have already said that was not what you meant and I am not going to call you a liar, so I let it go out of respect for you without so much as a thank you, now why dont you let that go yourself as you asked me to do. I have not been rude or impolite to you in any way have I? I do not come across the way that Oden does here and I should be acknowledge for that.
I will hwoever continue to try to make my point if that is alright with you and if you want to avoid my questioins thats fine I will not pursue you, but I will discuss these with anyone that wants to discuss them with me.
I cannot help that you SEEm to keep making refernces to a 'process' that you choose not to define any further than that.
It is this 'process' that I am saying is the secret behind the whole idea of consciousness, so why do you continue to expect me to ignore it. I do not expect you to ignore what you know about cell structure do I.
Now let us continue, First of all, old hebrewish idea???? cmon KJ, I am in no way trying to push any sort of theism here , i do not believe in any hebrew god if that is what is bothering you. I also do not believe in any god of evolution. I dont believe in anything bevause nothing is proven and everything remains a mystery.
But am I just wanting to believe in my imagination?
I dont know, are you a figment of my imagination? U seem real ewnough. if you exist then you have that life givjgn force that I am talking about, and that 'process' that you are talking about. We are talking about the same thing, I am just looking harder at it than you are because you are being distracted by your desire to believe in your scientific biological stance whereas I am not distracted by anything. I have no bias. You do!
it is not my imgaination that life emerges instantaneously into a form and brings it to life where a milisecond before that it was not alive.
I again ask you,,,,emerges from where?
To have evolution life must emerge from seomwehere. It cannot be simnply bioplogical when there was no biology prior to it being alive, the biology all comes after the fact does it not. What is the bioligical process of an unalive thing before it is alive? There is NO bioligiocal process there UNTIL it becomes alive. What is the process that brings that life into your world of biology? Where is that switch of life BEFORE the biological componenst begin?
Youi guys simply refuse to look back far enough, or ahead far enough, which is the way that all biological and cosmological science acts, because they have no answers for the opposite sides of that fine line. It is as much a mystery to you as it is to me, only I can admit it, and you refuse to look at it.
This is why science is not able to use their great minds to look outside of the microscope at the real world the little glass square actually resides in. And this is why many of the things that spiritual philosophers can entertain and ponder, are beyomnd your ability to even consider. it is the difference between looking at what is under the microscopes ability to detect, and what is beyond the magnification ability of the scope. You can see no further because you dont ewven want to try. We can see further because we are more curious aboyt the unanswered questions that you do want to ask.
