Two questions for Evolutionists and Creationists

I believe that most, if not all of the threads I've seen on this subject are little more than an army of straw men. It's like asking the question, if Abraham Lincoln arm wrestled Plato, who would win? The answer of course is "who cares, and how would we know, even if we did care?"

Before I can have a passionate opinion on this subject, I have to ask two basic questions first: 1. What is this thing we call life and, 2. Why is it so sacred and precious?

And here are the corresponding answers:
1. Life is merely what could now be called highly sophisticated nano-technology, or a "Biological Machine."
2. Life isn't precious or sacred at all (and I believe Christianity supports this).

A Biological Machine (BM) is merely a collection of "non-living" atoms collected in such a way as to create a more complex organism, or machine, which is self replicating and self repairing. You could use this description for the Earth or the sun, but maybe not an individual rock, since it has no moving parts, other than those spinning within each atom - and if you break it even a little, it stays broken. Even Mars or Jupiter could be called living things using this definition, considering their flowing atmospheres and constantly moving magma, volcanoes, etc.

It is true that many groups and subgroups of BM seem to include some form of intelligence. But quite often, especially in the example of plants and insects, this is nothing more than the execution of a very simple computer program. In others, it is a very complex form of AI, as in the higher primates, whales and, yes - man. BM's can be very sophisticated. Take the human BM. Like a nano-machine, it ingests materials containing a myriad of molecules, all containing different combinations of atoms. This human BM then uses some molecules as-is and breaks down others to extract only the atoms it needs to produce the materials it needs, like blood, muscle, a spleen, or even another human. What it doesn't need, it passes out as waste (poop), much as a gold mine has massive mounds of it's own poop. This waste material is then used as input to other BM's, and so it goes.

A BM also uses some of these atoms to provide itself energy. This means constant chemical reactions to keep the ol' atoms spinning and convert the atoms from input molecules into molecules needed by the BM.. That's why BM's have a warm core or, in the case of plants, depend solely on radioactive stimulation from the sun. This would also imply some sort of evolution as energy is consumed and depleted. Much as a '56 Nash may rust away in a field, so evolution works it's curse on all of creation (the universe, for evolutionsts). But rust is not what created the Nash.

I am only scratching the surface of this concept here, but it begs the question, why is life so precious or sacred anyway. As I stated above, it isn't, EXCEPT… Except for man - not because of his BM body, but because of what that body contains.

Some of the new drone airplanes are so sophisticated in their execution of decisions as to fool the uneducated into believing they contain a pilot. However, a fighter plane is far more valuable than one of the new drone planes for two reasons. One is minor - it costs more. The other is the core of the difference: The fighter contains a human. If a drone is lost, we build another one. If a fighter is lost with it's pilot, an irreplaceable human BM has been destroyed.

So now think of the human BM as the fighter plane. That is, it contains something that no other living thing - be it animal (a monkey) or mineral (a solar system or planet) - contains. That thing is the human spirit. No, I'm not talking about the mind, memory or intelligence -, these are results of the wrinkles on a small part (the brain) of the BM contained in its upper extremity - it is a mere organ and a part of the BM. No, I'm talking about the eternal spirit that ALL human BM's poses. Without that spirit, a human BM is, as are all animals, so much meat and bone. And all that meat is just a very complex and sophisticated Biological Machine.

From my perspective, that makes all non human life nothing more than members of a group I call "Natural Resources," to be consumed, managed and otherwise exploited for the pleasure of man, who exists solely for the pleasure of God.

In a sense, we, and the universe we occupy, are Gods ant farm. And our bodies are to be treated with the respect the Bible instructs - Not for the preservation of the body itself, but because it is the "temple" of the spirit. It was created by God as the Spirits Earthly dwelling place, and it's span in years is not to be reduced by man for trivial reasons.

I think the only reason we have a hard time believing the trillions, in number and type, of BM's with which we come into contact every day are not actually created by God is that we have accepted their, and our existence as "natural" for as long as we have been able to call ourselves "conscious" - and because God, in his infinite wisdom, chose to neglect the application of a serial number or manufacturers logo. He must've thought it unimportant (and maybe entertaining to boot). Reminds me of the old joke, "how do you keep an idiot in suspense…"

To the creationist, among whom I count myself, I challenge you to show me anything I have written here that contradicts anything written in His Word.

To the evolutionist, a similar challenge. Does any scientific "proof" currently available contradict anything I have posited here?

The real question for me is, did God create the universe and what we call "life," or is there no God and our very existence is just coincidence. I'm sorry folks, but this is not an intellectual question as some would have you believe. You can no more answer this question with your limited "human meat" BM brain than can your dog. Go to a mountaintop, your car, your closet or a skating rink and call out to God, sincerely, and see what answer you get. Then go from there.

I understand that Christ lives in his resurrected body while the rest of us will be resurrected in completely new bodies. I don't know if these new bodies will even be human. I sincerely doubt it, though. And I don't know if Jesus will be in his "human" body for eternity either, but I believe he will occupy it at least until the final battle.

My biggest concern is firmly grasping my own (or my pastors) dogma on something that turns out to be desperately wrong, like the Catholic church believing that the bible taught that the Earth is the literal center of the universe even though it clearly does not. I'm no smarter or sincere than they were.

Much of what will happen will only be obvious after the fact. I've noticed the bible doesn't use prophesy so much to tell us what will happen, as to show us that it did in fact tell us what would happen. It is very clever in giving just enough info to verify that the prophesy was correct, but not enough info for us to interpret it before the fact.

Man, whoever came up with that book sure was smart 8^>

Sinc

>>Uh, Medved, I think your assistance is needed here because RobRoy seems to think planets are self-replicating.<<

Ha ha, I was wondering if someone would pluck that out of here. Well, yes, they could be, in their own way. Just like not all forms of life requre sex to reproduce. If you have one planet getting larger over eons, and then being struck by another body, to the point where it breaks apart, you would have two planets (or three, or an asteroid belt).

But I'm being kind of silly. I was really thinking along the lines of interstelar or interplanetary catastrophies, where matter is constantly regrouped, as it were, from the infinite mass of play-dough that makes up the universe. Planets and stars are made, then they die or collide, the matter ultimately ends up in another star or planet. The fact that that can happen means that in a real sense, planets and stars are self replicated by the universe itself. As I applied it in the article, the concept of nano-technology applies here

>>It is a way to think about life. Not the only way, of course, and still doesn't resolve the Paradox of Life, nor shed light on the Mystery of Life. But it is probably as useful an analogy as many others.<<

I think that hits the nail on the head. My big thing is busting paradigms. And that is what this article is intended to do. Maybe it makes someone look at it a different way. Not my way, but another way entirely. And they may ask some questions - on this thread, I hope - that I never thougt of, thereby enhancing my understanding of the subject.

I marvel at the way we humans work off each others ideas to come up with something better and more creative than the original thought.

>>I don't understand the reasoning behind it.<<

Ok, what I meant when I said life wasn't sacred was that life is not to be preserved for the sake of the body, but rather for the sake of the spirit that dwells within the body. The body is just a vessel and, in a real sense, what we called in grade school science, a "lever." I was also trying to alter the way we "perceive" the concept of life.

Once the body is perceived as a separate thing from the spirit, and therefore only valuable because of the contents (the spirit), all other bodies (cows, whales, mosquitos) can be seen in the context of a vessel without valuable contents. And since the value is in the contents, it makes the other "living things" mere natural resources.

Make sense?

Of all His creation, only we struggle with this truth. Why? Because as His heirs, only we are given the freedom to choose or reject him as our Father and Creator

Your essay today was interesting and I appreciated your attempt to us "biological machines" to fathom what makes humans so special.

While reading your essay, the first thing that entered my mind was a rather simple question: At what point can the cells (biological machines) of the human body be removed until it is no longer "intelligent" as per your definition?

Obviously, loosing a few thousand skin cells every day does not destroy our intelligence, but eventually a point will be reached when thought is no longer a possibility. Cells in the body die and are usually replaced. On the average, every single cell of the human body is replaced in about seven years.

Now back to the quote I started off with.

Humans are unique in our ability to pass along information between generations verbally or by using the written word. Knowledge learned thousands of years ago can and has been passed along to each generation. That knowledge, even if the person is not aware of it, does influence every single action of a person's life at one level or another.

So, for the sake of argument, how well does your theory work if our abiliy to pass along information was eliminated?

To be more specific, if humans were unable to pass along the information contained in the Bible, would we still have the "freedom to choose or reject him as our Father and Creator without that ability?

If so, could you explain?

That's the ultimate question, isn't it. And one which no one can prove either way, as God, being supernatural, is by definition above the limits of scientific investigation.

Beyond the limits of scientific enquirey (which limits itself to the perceived material universe) does not mean beyond the limits of intellectual enquirey, which would include philosophy, theology, philosophical psychology, and much more.

The supposition that because God cannot be perceived means that no intellectual inquirey or conclusions can be made about Him is a huge intellectual mistake.

Hank

>>So, for the sake of argument, how well does your theory work if our abiliy to pass along information was eliminated? To be more specific, if humans were unable to pass along the information contained in the Bible, would we still have the "freedom to choose or reject him as our Father and Creator without that ability? <<

Fascinating! I was thinking about this very concept as I was typing. It hit me at that time that the evolution that is happening to us right now (which I actually call de-evolution) is slowly rusting us away to nothing, as with the '56 Nash in the article. Now, without the ability to pass information on from generation to generation, we would literally get more and more stupid. But, because man can collectively learn from generation to generation, unlike all the rest of creation, we actually have the power to technologically stop and even reverse the process.

Ok, that's a little off your point, but what I think is this: If you remove the engine from the car, the transmission is worthless. That is, the bible was created for man by God to be used according to mans abilities as granted by God.

I guess what I am trying to say here goes along the idea that the early Church didn't have a "Bible" as we know it, and there are plenty of translations today that, in insignificant ways, at least, are not always identical - and many people will simply never see a bible in their lifetime. So the Bible is obviously not required for salvation. I see the Bible as something that augments what I have personally experienced. It's like having a book of wisdom that was written by youre father that you read quite often, but you also talk to him on the phone a lot. Ultimately, the bible is imperfect language (which is, by definition, sybolism), created by man. It is a good starting point to bring someone to the knowledge that there just might be something to all this stuff. And it can remind you of who He is, or inspire you, but the relationship must ultimately get past the intellect (the brain) and sink into the spirit.

More directly, If man was incapable of passing it down, I don't think God would have done it that way.

I've read all the responses so far, and I'm surprised no one has asked how you believe consciousness, not behavior, but the actual conscious (subjective) experience can possibly arise from any material function.

The interesting thing about consciousness is, it is totally undemonstrable. If it were possible to create a computer that was conscious, you could never know it. Only the conscious being, himself, knows whether he is really conscious or not.

The computer illustration is important, because we might be able to make a computer that could respond so well we would believe it is conscious, even if it weren't. (Which it wouldn't be, by the way.)

In some sense, all life has some element of this "consciousness" (even if it is only very primitive sensation). That is why the self-sustained action of a living entity is different than the self-sustained action of a non-living process, like a flame, for example. In some way, a living organism functions for the sole prupose of sustaining itself, and thought most cannot be cognizant of the fact, their behavior is purposeful, and the organism is the purpose. You cannot make a computer care. You can at best only make it act as though it cares.

Hank

>>Rob lets do a little reflection before we tackle this subject. Do you worship science or do you worship God. One is of the head and the other is of the heart.<<

God. Science is just fun stuff. You know, taking apart the alarm clock to try to figure out how it works, that kind of thing. Once science starts trying to figure out the existence and mind of the clock maker, it is way outside the bounds of its strengths and usefulness.

As long as we use science to figure out, for fun, how the clock works and use the knowledge to create fun stuff and make life more interesting, I'm all for it. Heck, my clock on my cell phone is real accurate, but I don't use my cell phone to call God. When it comes to Science trying to tackle creation, we're like ants trying to figure out why we can't burrow through glass.

Oh, and by the way, since I do perceive the human body as a BM, and I do think God gave us the intellect to do a pretty good job of figuring it out, I believe that if the Lord waits, It won't be long (my lifetime probably, I'm 48) before we will be able to extend human life almost indefinitely.

I'm confused as to why people think that would be a good thing since the Apostle Paul said that for us to die is gain. I guess it's just different phylosophies in action. Heck, if I wasn't a Christian I guess I'd want to prolong my life as long as possible...

But regardless if you believe in the biblical account of the universe being built or the "big" bang approach, something had to create matter. If there is no God, what created the thimblefull of matter that weighed billions of tons that imploded into our universe and out sprung life? No one ever addresses who made the matter or where did it come from?

One cannot state that question without also asking "where did God come from?". Any answer applicable to one is equally applicable to the other, and no answer I can think of is particularly satisfying to either.

While contemplating your questions today, Hellen Keller comes to mind. This poor girl was blind, deaf and dumb, so of our usual methods of communicating information between generations was totally denied to that poor child.

Eventually an outstanding teacher was able to break through, but until then, she was denied the concept of historical information.

In your essay, you implied that there is something special about humans that allows a knowledge of God. And with that knowledge, humans are better than other animal life.

My counter argument is rather simple, and Hellen Keller would be my example. If denied a historical foundation of religion, does the human animal actually have an internal knowledge of God? And if so, was Hellen Keller able to comprehend it?

The Evolution vs Creation topic often degenerates into who believes in what, based upon what subjects the person has studied.

My question is rather simple: Without any historical knowledge (scientific or biblical), what information is available today which would lead someone towards one side or the other?

Frankly sir, with those rules I implied, I do not have any idea and would enjoy your input.

>>The interesting thing about consciousness is, it is totally undemonstrable. If it were possible to create a computer that was conscious, you could never know it. Only the conscious being, himself, knows whether he is really conscious or not.<<

Ha! I agree wholeheartedly. I used this argument against some animal rights protesters about ten years ago. I started a discussion with them expecting to get logically trounced, since they obviously lived this stuff. They could not support their position beyond, "how would you feel if {insert atrocity done to animal here} was done to you. They couldn't grasp the concept that to feel what we define as "pain" you have to be conscious. I believe we will create computers that will fool even the most sophisticated to believe they were fully conscious, except, as you say, they won't be because they have not had life "breathed" into them.

BTW, the animal rights guy said that if you kick a dog, it feels pain begause it yelps. I told him I could program a computer to yelp every time I hit the "Y" key, but it would feel no pain. He couldn't get past the human paradigm regarding animals. It was almost comical as they got more and more strident and I was always extremely polite. It was like debating a 2nd grade bully that had never had to cope with an adult intellect before, and the guy was over 50! He eventually called me a name and I politely ended it at that point.

BTW #2, did you ever see the old STar Trek episode where these "godlike" beings in lighted globes took over Spock and Kirk and Nurse Chapels bodies temporarily while they built their own permanent mechanical bodies. As you may remember, they were corrupted by these human bodies to the point that they felt lust, greed, and one eventually tried to murder the other. It is as if the human body they occupied had "poisoned" their "real being" with it's lusts, desires and wants. That, in my opinion, is a great illustration of what is talked about in the new testament regarding the lusts of the flesh et al. It is also how I see myself as trying to be separate from the flesh (BM) and its desires

Anyway, just thought I'd share...

There is no logical problem with assuming indefinite existense of either God or existense. (I have intentionally avoided using the expression "material existense" as I believe that it is a subset of existense itself, which may or may not include a "supernatural" [non-material] existense.)

Since positing either that God always exists or the universe always exists leads to no logical contradiction, and either other premise that requires a "beginning" is either self-contradictory or requires a further supposition (of whatever preceded the hyopothetical beginning), one or the other must always exist, God or existense-without-God.

If you are a thorough-going naturalist, the answer is the univers always exists (in some form). If you are not convinced of the naturalist position, you better consider God.

(There is an intentional flaw in this argument. Do you see it?)

Hank

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.