Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

No clue what you are complaining about. Enzymes facilitate the chemical reactions in cells. They bind with a substrate that basically speeds up the chemical reactions. So what do you want to call it?

You're avoiding your accidental admission that cellular machinery insists upon intelligence. Even the processes that these cellular machinery execute can be considered intelligent since organic chemistry and its various reactions requires very precise conditions to conduct specific reactions as needed by the body. Every aspect of biological organisms is logical. Who would have thought?

originally posted by: cooperton

You're avoiding your accidental admission that cellular machinery insists upon intelligence.

When did I do that? I have continually said that using a naming scheme like "machine" to describe something doesn't instantly make it also intelligent design. I also said maybe go ask the people who actually do use it as to what they mean by it instead of asking me as I do not use these terms.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

When did I do that? I have continually said that using a naming scheme like "machine" to describe something doesn't instantly make it also intelligent design. I also said maybe go ask the people who actually do use it as to what they mean by it instead of asking me as I do not use these terms.

They called it machinery because that's the best word to describe it. This micromolecular machinery goes according to precise thermodynamics that allow your cells to continue to exist.

originally posted by: cooperton

They called it machinery because that's the best word to describe it. This micromolecular machinery goes according to precise thermodynamics that allow your cells to continue to exist.

I have no issues with that, it's you and others who then expand that to suggest machines can only be intelligent design. This is why I suggest that you ask those who use the terms if they also mean intelligent design, I don't think they feel the same as you though. Some may play on their faith but the vast majority would say that they are not implying intelligent design too.

As far as using specific terminology to describe a process or system or function, I think we've gone as far as we can with it.

I think it's a result of a natural evolution of chemical reactions.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

I have no issues with that, it's you and others who then expand that to suggest machines can only be intelligent design. This is why I suggest that you ask those who use the terms if they also mean intelligent design, I don't think they feel the same as you though. Some may play on their faith but the vast majority would say that they are not implying intelligent design too.

I agree, this shows how deeply entrenched they are in evolutionary dogma that they cannot see that their own vocabulary and definitions defy their beliefs. It is good news that we have an intelligible creator, and didn't emerge by natural incident.

When I was convinced of evolution as a 12 year old it was literally the most abysmal feeling ever because I knew the implications that I am permanently going to non-exist once I die. Luckily evolution was the fairy tale, and there is plenty of evidence for intelligent design in every aspect of biology. I wish to share this same hope with everyone who is in the grasp of nihilism due to the tenets of evolutionary theory.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: whereislogic

*: or is it more a matter of subtly changing the subject, and then if I point out that they shouldn't refer to enzymes as "processes" or "chemical reactions", explaining that they weren't talking about enzymes, but about the cellular processes or chemical reactions. Wasting a lot of time and still not responding to my argumentation.

No clue what you are complaining about. Enzymes facilitate the chemical reactions in cells. They bind with a substrate that basically speeds up the chemical reactions. So what do you want to call it?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: whereislogic
life's machinery and technology is the product of engineering

I kind of knew that is the direction you would go. I don't associate machinery and technology with chemical reactions.

That was a response to the notion that cellular enzymes (the things depicted in the videos referred to as "machines") are machinery and technology. So in response you swap out the subject of cellular enzymes with "chemical reactions" by making a point about that instead. As if the enzymes I was talking about are now the "chemical reactions" you are talking about, and you don't associate that with machinery and technology, so what? Neither did I, my point was about the enzymes/machines in the cell, not the reactions. So if you're saying something in response to that, stick to the same subject please. The point that you don't associate machinery and technology with chemical reactions has no relevance to the question whether or not enzymes are machines (i.e. machinery and technology).

TerraLiga does the same thing but uses "processes" instead of "chemical reactions". Making points about "processes" in response to a point about cellular enzymes/machines, as if it's relevant regarding the discussion whether or not enzymes are machines.

a reply to: cooperton

Keep in mind that cellular processes that involve the activity of enzymes and chemical reactions, are not the machines themselves. So if you change the subject to cellular processes or chemical reactions, then the reader is more inclined to get the impression that what we are talking about, are not actually machines (which was what the 2nd initial question was about, are cellular enzymes machines or not).

But we're* not talking about the cellular processes or chemical reactions here, we* really are talking about what everyone in the field recognizes to be "machines" (as per their own explanations):


*: I used "we" as part of the general expression, realistically, it's more like "I". Exactly because Xtrozero and TerraLiga are both swapping out the subject in response to the initial 2 questions, which I'm sticking to. So every time they swap it out, a reminder what the initial questions were actually about (the fact that the enzymes are the machines) is not uncalled for.

And I guess that could get rather repetitive if they stick to their guns. I don't think I have the patience for that though.

a reply to: whereislogic

Both the cellular machinery and the processes they execute are intelligent. For example, creating ATP from a proton gradient is a chemical process facilitated by the electron transport chain. It is essentially performing the same reaction as a hydrogen fuel cell generator in our mitochondria.

I honestly love talking about it, there's bound to be some people who are open minded enough to see the writing on the wall. These micromolecular engineering feats are astounding

a reply to: Xtrozero

From my perspective, anyone who can't see the process of intelligent design is totally and utterly dismissing reality.

You're looking at the most intricate, nuanced and complex machines in the known universe and stating it's nothing more than a random occurrence.

Intelligent design is so obvious to anyone who looks at reality objectively that i simply am unwilling to accept anything otherwise other than your right to express that opinion.

No amount of indoctrination will ever allow me to accept that a chemical soup is capable of something so beautiful as the expression of thought, and no amount of science will ever understand the process. True understanding is only ever achieved by introspection and there will never be a measuring device for perspective.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Xtrozero

From my perspective, anyone who can't see the process of intelligent design is totally and utterly dismissing reality.

You're looking at the most intricate, nuanced and complex machines in the known universe and stating it's nothing more than a random occurrence.

With hindsight these machines had an obvious 100% certainty of evolving exactly as they did. My evidence for this is our very universe itself. Unless you have an exact replica of our universe that was subject to the exact same forces yet where these things didn't evolve, to compare it too? How could it have evolved any other way?

No amount of indoctrination will ever allow me to accept that a chemical soup is capable of something so beautiful as the expression of thought, and no amount of science will ever understand the process. True understanding is only ever achieved by introspection and there will never be a measuring device for perspective.

Beauty is subjective and thought isn't always considered beautiful (ask a schizophrenic), but we already know the processes in the brain that results in thought occurring. Why would someone design schizophrenia? Is the designer incompetent, evil?

A "true understanding" might be more relevant to philosophy, is it even possible? I doubt science ever claims to have that. It finds explanations for natural phenomena and is always open to being wrong (a precambrian rabbit might do it). Wouldn't a "true understanding" require understanding the nature of reality itself at the most fundamental level? A noble goal for sure, but the only people I have heard claim such a thing have been charlatans.

originally posted by: Quintilian
Why would someone design schizophrenia? Is the designer incompetent, evil?

Humans have been given free will. When we continually choose things that defy our original source code, we become vulnerable to all sorts of disease. Even children with birth defects are carrying the burdens of their parents. We were told the law of the land and life/prosperity or death/disease rests in our decisions to uphold it.

I figure the ones we mistake for atheist are having a little trouble to express themselves in a competent way and we understand them very well. We all know those people who think differently about what they write down, they mean this but say that; like when they get what they don't want or are done wrong they say thank you. These types of people, but we understand them.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Xtrozero

From my perspective, anyone who can't see the process of intelligent design is totally and utterly dismissing reality.

You're looking at the most intricate, nuanced and complex machines in the known universe and stating it's nothing more than a random occurrence.

originally posted by: Quintilian

With hindsight these machines had an obvious 100% certainty of evolving exactly as they did. My evidence for this is our very universe itself. Unless you have an exact replica of our universe that was subject to the exact same forces yet where these things didn't evolve, to compare it too? How could it have evolved any other way?

Did you notice my comment on page 5 about circular reasoning?

There's more about it on page 8. And again on page 10 (multiple comments).

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Quintilian
Why would someone design schizophrenia? Is the designer incompetent, evil?

Humans have been given free will. When we continually choose things that defy our original source code, we become vulnerable to all sorts of disease. Even children with birth defects are carrying the burdens of their parents. We were told the law of the land and life/prosperity or death/disease rests in our decisions to uphold it.

Humans don't choose to have schizophrenia. Ask one of them, for many it ruins their lives.

Even if what you say is true, burdening youngsters for things they had no say in is backwards and cruel and makes the designer quite an asshole.

There is no evidence that humans have free will in the religious sense, apart from "it feels like we do". The concept itself is ridiculous with a little thought. Although it might be best if you define free will, so we know what you mean by that claim.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Xtrozero

From my perspective, anyone who can't see the process of intelligent design is totally and utterly dismissing reality.

You're looking at the most intricate, nuanced and complex machines in the known universe and stating it's nothing more than a random occurrence.

originally posted by: Quintilian

With hindsight these machines had an obvious 100% certainty of evolving exactly as they did. My evidence for this is our very universe itself. Unless you have an exact replica of our universe that was subject to the exact same forces yet where these things didn't evolve, to compare it too? How could it have evolved any other way?

Did you notice my comment on page 5 about circular reasoning?

There's more about it on page 8. And again on page 10 (multiple comments).

I understand what you mean and have some sympathy with the idea this amounts to circular reasoning.

Though from the pov that the universe is entirely deterministic it isn't really so. From that pov it was always going to evolve exactly in the way it did. Though I think they call it "superdeterminism" these days (but it's still old fashioned determinism).

ps. I see no shortage of fallacious reasoning amongst creationists to be fair. I wonder if the whole field isn't based on it. In a Douglas Adams type of way.

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking...this is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

originally posted by: Quintilian

Humans don't choose to have schizophrenia. Ask one of them, for many it ruins their lives.

I volunteered at a behavioral health center, I am aware. People aren't born schizophrenic, although you could argue genetic propensities, so it is a clear indication that it is the developing mindset that has the role to play where their minds are either deluded and or they're actually tapping into another dimension. Perhaps they were the shamans of the ancient era, but our civilization tends to disfavor anything beyond material literalism.

Even if what you say is true, burdening youngsters for things they had no say in is backwards and cruel and makes the designer quite an asshole.

Yeah there are consequences for free will decisions. I'd rather have free will and face the consequences of my own actions rather than be a decision-less cog in a machine.

There is no evidence that humans have free will in the religious sense, apart from "it feels like we do". The concept itself is ridiculous with a little thought. Although it might be best if you define free will, so we know what you mean by that claim.

I can lift my hand up now if I want, or not. It is up to me. I have the ability to choose. I don't know how this wouldn't be considered free will. The ability to make choice and actions with our conscious existence

originally posted by: Untun
I figure the ones we mistake for atheist are having a little trouble to express themselves in a competent way and we understand them very well. We all know those people who think differently about what they write down, they mean this but say that; like when they get what they don't want or are done wrong they say thank you. These types of people, but we understand them.

I often get a kick out of it when believers define atheism for the atheists.

originally posted by: cooperton

I volunteered at a behavioral health center, I am aware. People aren't born schizophrenic, although you could argue genetic propensities, so it is a clear indication that it is the developing mindset that has the role to play where their minds are either deluded and or they're actually tapping into another dimension. Perhaps they were the shamans of the ancient era, but our civilization tends to disfavor anything beyond material literalism.

So in effect you are saying that people choose to have schizophrenia. Or perhaps worse than that, that somehow they deserve it?

Yeah there are consequences for free will decisions. I'd rather have free will and face the consequences of my own actions rather than be a decision-less cog in a machine.

How can being born deformed because of decisions other people have made, have anything to do with individual free will?

I can lift my hand up now if I want, or not. It is up to me. I have the ability to choose. I don't know how this wouldn't be considered free will. The ability to make choice and actions with our conscious existence

The fact that when and which mit you lift is largely predictable seems to disagree. But then you haven't defined free will, so who knows?

originally posted by: Quintilian

I often get a kick out of it when believers define atheism for the atheists.

I also get a kick out of it when non-believers defines theism for theists. They often give a generic misconstrued definition of the belief, which makes it no wonder they are an atheist if that is what they believe theism is.