Why do people laugh at creationists? -only creationists don’t know why

Originally posted by Agerg
but surely you see that if you consider only the position of the atoms that we are composed of you are throwing away information, ie...that they move! I would hope physicists, chemists, biologists, etc forgive my ignorance here but I assert (in laymans terms) that they are in a state of flux because of external and internal inputs. What makes us who we are is the actual dynamics between them. When our brain ceases to function, the internal inputs stop.

You are saying that we are more than chemicals?
Kelly

Originally posted by Badwater
Still waiting on your explanation of why an intelligent design would provide a turkey vulture with a superior digestive system.

Because it required it.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, their chemicals are not in the right place - that is why they die.

[b]All the parts are there, something else is going on, it isn't just chemicals!
But not in the right places. It is 'just chemicals'. Also I doubt you would dispute the fact that putting the chemicals in the wrong places causes death - thats how most poisons work.

What you ...[text shortened]... e cells of a human being long after the person has died - that is how organ transplants work.[/b]

I do not disput just putting chemicals in the wrong place can cause
death, I'm wondering how you know just putting chemicals in the
right place is enough for life? They are not equal, they are two different
statements, so each requires justification.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No response needed...

If he was asking me, and it turns out he was, who are you to say no
responce is needed?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not disput just putting chemicals in the wrong place can cause
death, I'm wondering how you know just putting chemicals in the
right place is enough for life? They are not equal, they are two different
statements, so each requires justification.
Kelly

I did not say that just putting chemicals in the right place was sufficient for life. I do however think it is a reasonable assumption in the absence of any contradictory evidence.

You on the other hand did make a false assertion ie that life is known to fail even when the chemicals are in the right place.

I have no doubt that the particular patterns involved in life do make it somewhat more than the sum of its parts, but this applies to all configurations that give rise to larger patterns and processes - even evolution, but at no point is that equivalent to saying that the individual parts are not sufficient.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are saying that we are more than chemicals?
Kelly

depends how simplistic a view of "we are made of chemicals" you espouse. If you think that all that is important is their number, and that all the right kinds are in the right place then you're oversimplifying.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If he was asking me, and it turns out he was, who are you to say no
responce is needed?
Kelly

Would you understand better if I said, "I rest my case"? I cought you when you was wrong, nothing was needed to say about it.

But I like when you admit that you were wrong. I don't have to say anything more about it. No response necessary.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Because it required it.
Kelly

why? -i.e. why is it "required" for turkey vultures but not for us?

Originally posted by Agerg
depends how simplistic a view of "we are made of chemicals" you espouse. If you think that all that is important is their number, and that all the right kinds are in the right place then you're oversimplifying.

You believe we can get the wrong chemicals, in the wrong place, at the
wrong times, and make life?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
why? -i.e. why is it "required" for turkey vultures but not for us?

More than likely the same reason a bird can fly on its own and we
cannot, the bird was designed to fly on its own and we cannot.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Would you understand better if I said, "I rest my case"? I cought you when you was wrong, nothing was needed to say about it.

But I like when you admit that you were wrong. I don't have to say anything more about it. No response necessary.

Well unless your some kind of stocker why would you need to respond
to any of my posts? Are you a stocker, do you feel compelled to look
for my posts and respond to them?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did not say that just putting chemicals in the right place was sufficient for life. I do however think it is a reasonable assumption in the absence of any contradictory evidence.

You on the other hand did make a false assertion ie that life is known to fail even when the chemicals are in the right place.

I have no doubt that the particular patter ...[text shortened]... tion, but at no point is that equivalent to saying that the individual parts are not sufficient.

I don't think it is reasonable at all, why should that be given a pass
and other things not? Is it because you find it easier to just say you
see no reason to doubt so you don't look for a reason to believe it?
That is sort of a lazy approach to the subject if you ask me.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did not say that just putting chemicals in the right place was sufficient for life. I do however think it is a reasonable assumption in the absence of any contradictory evidence.

You on the other hand did make a false assertion ie that life is known to fail even when the chemicals are in the right place.

I have no doubt that the particular patter ...[text shortened]... tion, but at no point is that equivalent to saying that the individual parts are not sufficient.

"You on the other hand did make a false assertion ie that life is known to fail even when the chemicals are in the right place. "


People don't die of old age, they don't die in some cases where others
live? I don't believe I made a false assertion, life is full of examples
where some people died and others lived under the same conditions,
others just died, the chemicals were there, they died...the body didn't
just vaporize all the parts were present. What do you think I was being
false about, you think that people die due to some chemical change
only? Some chemical some where alters itself and life goes away,
what is it you think goes on at death?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I did not say that just putting chemicals in the right place was sufficient for life. I do however think it is a reasonable assumption in the absence of any contradictory evidence.

You on the other hand did make a false assertion ie that life is known to fail even when the chemicals are in the right place.

I have no doubt that the particular patter ...[text shortened]... tion, but at no point is that equivalent to saying that the individual parts are not sufficient.

"I have no doubt that the particular patterns involved in life do make it somewhat more than the sum of its parts, but this applies to all configurations that give rise to larger patterns and processes - even evolution, but at no point is that equivalent to saying that the individual parts are not sufficient."

We again disagree, when I look at parts I wonder more than a few
things about them why that shape and not another, why does it start
working here and stop there, why is this made of that? We have some
very complex things within us, our ears and eyes among a few. You
suggest these things came into being by random mutations feeding
natural selection that with time gave us all of our parts all working
together in harmony for the most part. I again think that is beyond
any reasonable assumption all around! You would have a hard time
putting together a complex model airplane without directions or some
reasonable amount of knowledge before hand, and yet we see and
hear without effort on anyone or anythings part and you think that
is just acceptable.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well unless your some kind of stocker why would you need to respond
to any of my posts? Are you a stocker, do you feel compelled to look
for my posts and respond to them?
Kelly

I don't know what a stocker is. I've looked it up in my eng/swe-dictionary, but found nothing. What's a stocker?