Functionally complex

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you should present that out of what I have said, and I would
prefer you not as some have done, take one small bit of what I said
out of context and run with it.
Kelly

"Have you seen anything on its own accord without any preprogramming,
become more and more complex while performing more and more
various and sundry functions that were not being done before?"

That was what you said. It boils down to an increase in complexity of a system only by natural processes. The sun is a good example, the path of a river, the basal material it crosses and the path it takes is another, primary succession of sand dunes is another excellent example.

I think we can pretty unequivocally say "yes, we have seen that". So Kelly, again, you were wrong.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
"Have you seen anything on its own accord without any preprogramming,
become more and more complex while performing more and more
various and sundry functions that were not being done before?"

That was what you said. It boils down to an increase in complexity of a system only by natural processes. The sun is a good example, the path of a river, t ...[text shortened]... we can pretty unequivocally say "yes, we have seen that". So Kelly, again, you were wrong.

So you are putting words in my mouth and disagreeing with them,
because if you look at my words your example didn't apply.
We see chemical reactions all the time, they are here now, they
have always been here. What I've been talking about is that some
thing that supposedly according to your beliefs was never here
before and now is, which is life as we see it today. Your beliefs and
faith in that the process of evolution has life turning into things that
were not here at the beginning of time, again according to your
beliefs and faith. What you are arguing for with regard to evolution
is like saying we know that clear square shaped plastic is a natural
occurring substance because we see it all over the place today.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you are putting words in my mouth and disagreeing with them,
because if you look at my words your example didn't apply.
We see chemical reactions all the time, they are here now, they
have always been here. What I've been talking about is that some
thing that supposedly according to your beliefs was never here
before and now is, which is life as we ...[text shortened]... d plastic is a natural
occurring substance because we see it all over the place today.
Kelly

No, if you cannot present your arguments in a clear, concise fashion that's your problem not mine. I did not "force words into your mouth", they were your words. A copy and paste from one of your posts earlier in the thread. You were unambiguous (for once), and I rebutted you. As for your 'clear plastic' comment, that's clearly ridiculous, and you simply trying to move the goalposts once again.

The difference between evolution and clear plastic is that we have observed (many times) all the natural processes for evolution (and indeed speciation itself), whilst no natural processes can possibly explain clear plastic.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, if you cannot present your arguments in a clear, concise fashion that's your problem not mine. I did not "force words into your mouth", they were your words. A copy and paste from one of your posts earlier in the thread. You were unambiguous (for once), and I rebutted you. As for your 'clear plastic' comment, that's clearly ridiculous, and you s ...[text shortened]... indeed speciation itself), whilst no natural processes can possibly explain clear plastic.

Sure they can. There's this organism on Earth, something like a beaver naturally making a dam, that naturally makes plastic. They call themselves humans.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We see chemical reactions all the time, they are here now, they
have always been here. What I've been talking about is that some
thing that supposedly according to your beliefs was never here
before and now is, which is life as we see it today. Your beliefs and
faith in that the process of evolution has life turning into things that
were not here at th ...[text shortened]... ed plastic is a natural
occurring substance because we see it all over the place today.
Kelly

First off, life is a chemical reaction, so whats new?
You can use the most advanced electron microscope you like and you will not find one single atom in the human body (or any other life form for that matter) that is in some way different from atoms that did not exist before life began. However new atoms have been created by processes other than life contradicting your claims of 'nothing new'.
If what you are refering to is actually the particular configuration of atoms and chemicals then the same applies to every rock, river, cloud etc. Each is unique and has never been there before.
The real problem appears to be that you are not quite sure what your claim is so you cant really describe it properly.
It seems to be along the lines of "I've never seen that type of stone before, it therefore must have a creator because its not natural".

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, if you cannot present your arguments in a clear, concise fashion that's your problem not mine. I did not "force words into your mouth", they were your words. A copy and paste from one of your posts earlier in the thread. You were unambiguous (for once), and I rebutted you. As for your 'clear plastic' comment, that's clearly ridiculous, and you s ...[text shortened]... indeed speciation itself), whilst no natural processes can possibly explain clear plastic.

You seem to have left off the "...that were not being done before."
part of my argument and focus completely on the first part, which is
in deed taking it out of context. If you can read, and copy and paste
and still not see it, I doubt anything I can do will make you grasp it
any better. You have your mind made up and that is that.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
First off, life is a chemical reaction, so whats new?
You can use the most advanced electron microscope you like and you will not find one single atom in the human body (or any other life form for that matter) that is in some way different from atoms that did not exist before life began. However new atoms have been created by processes other than life co ...[text shortened]... seen that type of stone before, it therefore must have a creator because its not natural".

No, my point is that you there are reactions they will run their course.
The outcome occurs as it occurs, nothing special required there, we
can monitor, record, and so on. What I'm talking about is life coming
up out of the universe of non-life and having it get more and more
functionally complex as time goes on. Where a single cell if we start
there mutates through time and with each new advantage becomes
greater than it was before in size and scope. It goes from basic starting
point and now we have life that has eyes, brains, ears, and so on. This
advantage must come through the DNA process, and only there will
any change manifest itself. So what the believers in DNA are claiming
is that, that code of life changes over time and it will turn life into new
creatures that were never before existed. These changes are supposedly
taking place at such a slow rate they cannot be seen to that degree, only
believed. The changes within bacteria are simply that, changes within
bacteria, where you start with bacteria and you end with it.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
First off, life is a chemical reaction, so whats new?
You can use the most advanced electron microscope you like and you will not find one single atom in the human body (or any other life form for that matter) that is in some way different from atoms that did not exist before life began. However new atoms have been created by processes other than life co ...[text shortened]... seen that type of stone before, it therefore must have a creator because its not natural".

I'm not claiming that anything I have not seen before must prove
a creator. You think life is just a chemical reaction, I disagree if
that were true than why would any life die? All the chemicals are
still in place. There is more to life than just the parts we can see
and touch, those atoms within the human body are not there
in some haphazard placement.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You think life is just a chemical reaction, I disagree if
that were true than why would any life die? All the chemicals are
still in place. There is more to life than just the parts we can see
and touch, those atoms within the human body are not there
in some haphazard placement.
Kelly

Actually that is exactly what happens in cell death. The reaction stops happening. Usually due to a lack of one of the chemicals neccesary for life, or a change in the environment in which the reaction takes place.

So life is just chemistry, without this chemistry, it stops. We know exactly why things die and there is no mystical force neccesary.

Maybe there is a God who can create and end life, maybe there isn't but regardless of that, there is no magical life force, life is just chemistry.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Actually that is exactly what happens in cell death. The reaction stops happening. Usually due to a lack of one of the chemicals neccesary for life, or a change in the environment in which the reaction takes place.

So life is just chemistry, without this chemistry, it stops. We know exactly why things die and there is no mystical force neccesary ...[text shortened]... re isn't but regardless of that, there is no magical life force, life is just chemistry.

The reactions stop happening? If all the parts are still there, than
why would life stop, again all the parts are there? If life is just
chemicals why would that be?

The reactions if that is all life is, is just the proper mixing of chemicals
why would it ever stop?

If life is more than just the proper mix of chemicals, why would it ever
start?

If there is more to it than the sum of the parts, than I suggest you
are not looking at the big picture.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The reactions stop happening? If all the parts are still there, than
why would life stop, again all the parts are there? If life is just
chemicals why would that be?

The reactions if that is all life is, is just the proper mixing of chemicals
why would it ever stop?

If life is more than just the proper mix of chemicals, why would it ever
start?
...[text shortened]... to it than the sum of the parts, than I suggest you
are not looking at the big picture.
Kelly

It depends on the cause of death. The point is that all the parts are NOT there.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It depends on the cause of death. The point is that all the parts are NOT there.

All the parts are NOT there, explain please?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
All the parts are NOT there, explain please?
Kelly

You stab someone and cut open their aorta. Now they don't have a functioning aorta. That's a broken part right there.

Whatever the cause of death, it breaks one or more "parts". That's why people die.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You seem to have left off the "...that were not being done before."
part of my argument and focus completely on the first part, which is
in deed taking it out of context. If you can read, and copy and paste
and still not see it, I doubt anything I can do will make you grasp it
any better. You have your mind made up and that is that.
Kelly

The river did create an environment which wasn't there before. The sun created Helium, which can be used in the manufacture of heavier elements, which weren't there before. The only difference between this and evolution is between YOUR ears.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You stab someone and cut open their aorta. Now they don't have a functioning aorta. That's a broken part right there.

Whatever the cause of death, it breaks one or more "parts". That's why people die.

Fine, so life is more than just chemicals correct, even if we leave for
a moment things like spirit and souls out of the discussion?
Kelly