Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,221 Year: 3,478/9,624 Month: 349/974 Week: 238/130 Day: 32/43 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 31 of 191 (533151)
10-29-2009 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Cedre
10-29-2009 2:56 AM


The conclusion is obvious having all the requirements in place is not all that is needed for life.
Biochemists have long agreed that life doesn't spring from chemicals in one single short step. Our understanding of such things seems to indicate that a fairly lengthy process is required. You might have all the ingredients for cake - but you need to mix them right and then heat them in an oven.
The problem is that in our current environment everytime the cake mix is put in the oven, some kids come along and eat the cake mix so we are unlikely to get cake. That is to say: when we put the chemicals together, they are consumed by bacteria and fungi etc.
The complexity of an doesn't matter as I showed above a dead bacterium still has all its parts in place needed for life yet it isn't alive. And dead animals have all the required parts in place yet are not alive, this is a problem whether you see it or not.
No. If it had all the parts in place needed for life, it would be alive. The fact that it is dead shows that all the parts are not in place. Can you find a contra-example to support your position?
A car may work again when its broken parts are fixed, but a dead organism will remain dead, even after the cause of death has been taken care of.
Dead people are brought back to life on a fairly regular basis by removing the cause of death.
The problem comes if they have been dead for a certain amount of time: Then decay would have kicked in and we currently have no way of taking care of this damage. Even if we cure what killed them - there is still something ensuring they are dead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 2:56 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 4:24 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 37 of 191 (533164)
10-29-2009 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Cedre
10-29-2009 4:24 AM


Regularly does not mean all the time, and sometimes people who haven't been dead for too long can also not be resuscitated, take Michael Jackson he had a doctor on hand, but was unable to be brought back to life, does it mean he didn't have all the required parts for life in tact? Of course he did. And I'm sure there are many more such cases all the time.
I've never said that people can be brought back everytime. This is because for whatever reason it is not possible to remove the cause of death, or restore the body back to a functional condition.
Michael Jackson did not have all the requried parts for life in tact. That's why he died.
The fact that it is dead shows that all the parts are not in place. Can you find a contra-example to support your position?
This is your claim you should back it up.
It is your claim that a dead person is functionally equivalent to a living person in every single way. I don't see why this has to be so. It might be, but I've heard of no case where this is true. You claimed that it was so, I'm asking for you to back this up. If you aren't able to, I see no reason to believe your claim that 'something else' is require for life.
Even if we cure what killed them - there is still something ensuring they are dead.
And that is the spirit. Without it the body despite having all its parts in place won't be animate.
Nice quote mine. The thing that is ensuring they are dead is decay, as I subsequently explained.
Then decay would have kicked in and we currently have no way of taking care of this damage.
As I showed in my last post decay doesn't happen fast.
Really? So the brain cells of a person deprived of oxygen for ten minutes are identical to the brain cells of a healthy living person and an autopsy would be unable to determine that deprivation of oxygen had occurred? No difference in pH levels? No difference in Calcium distributiion?
You should probably publish your results since forensic pathology has been getting things very wrong - people have gone to prison on the back of this kind of grotesque error. Justice must be served - stop debating on this pesky and pointless debate board - you clearly have a greater calling.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 4:24 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 5:28 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 9:48 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 191 (533171)
10-29-2009 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cedre
10-29-2009 5:28 AM


Can you prove this dear Modulous.
The coronor's report provides the information. I haven't read it, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't read: This body is perfectly healthy and functional. I'd imagine it would mention something about the presence of propofol, about oxygen starvation etc.
There is nothing missing in a dead person that is found inside a living person, are you suggesting that the heart magically vanishes or some other parts magically vanish from the body of a dead person, the only way for parts to fade from a corpse is through decay and like the Wikipedia article said decay can take a few days even years.
While there is nothing 'missing', the parts are not arranged in the same way. Agreed? The brain hasn't vanished - but the cells are no longer the same as a living brain - even after a mere few minutes. Agreed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 5:28 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 6:26 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 11:57 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 45 of 191 (533183)
10-29-2009 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Cedre
10-29-2009 6:26 AM


A report I watched on CNN actually said that Michael Jackson was apparently a healthy human being at the time of his death.
LOL - Equivocation isn't going to help you here. Being dead, as any doctor will tell you - is not 'healthy'. CNN were probably reporting that he had no specific illness immediately prior to his dying.
Do you have any evidence that his brain cells were exactly the same after his death as they were before? Or indeed - that this is the case for any person?
I would disagree that the parts are not arranged in the same way, I would say that they are for the most part, deterioration happens relatively slowly and that's why resuscitation is possible in some cases. for example a man was brought back to life after 30 minutes according to this link http://www.thaindian.com/...mes-back-to-life-half-an-hour-af. This shows that the life-sustaining components are still in tact after 30 minutes, yet many people can not be brought back in even shorter spells of time. also according to one article "muscle cells can live for several hours and skin and bone cells can stay alive for days!" http://www.madsci.org/...chives/2005-04/1114460899.Gb.r.html.
My point exactly.
So, after thirty minutes or five minutes or whatever short period of time you want to mention - are you suggesting that the brain cells of the poor person who has been starved of oxygen are exactly identical to that of a person who is still living?
It seems to me that your position is that doctors don't reverse the damage caused by whatever and that they don't simply restart bodily processes that were somehow interrupted, but instead they re-insert the 'spirit'. My position is that if you do the same procedure to the same patient just a few minutes later it won't work despite it having all the same organs because the brain cells will have already begun to break down and things such as pH balance and calcium levels will be sufficiently different so as to prevent resuscitation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 6:26 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:08 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 54 of 191 (533218)
10-29-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 9:48 AM


Re: Strawman?
Hi Modulous. I regard your point relative to dead people resuscitated as a strawman in that this resuscitation process is by intelligent work, not applicable to abiogenesis.
You should read the full argument,then. The argument is that there is reason to believe there is some 'essential force' a 'spark of life' or 'spirit' that animates life and that without it - the body is dead. This is meant to prove abiogenesis wrong because this spirit is needed for life to exist and that for some reason this 'spark of life' cannot conjoin with certain arrangements of chemicals without some intervention.
The support for this is that a dead body is physically identical in every way to a living one. My argument is that this is not so, so the support fails on these grounds.
So how have I constructed a strawman?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 9:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 55 of 191 (533220)
10-29-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Cedre
10-29-2009 11:08 AM


It seems to me that your position is that doctors don't reverse the damage caused by whatever and that they don't simply restart bodily processes that were somehow interrupted, but instead they re-insert the 'spirit'.
Yes to be sure that is what happens, doctors bring the person back to life that is to say re-insert the "spirit". It just wasn't his/her time to go.
But...why should doctors need to intervene? If the dead body is identical to the living one - why do doctors need to make changes to the dead body in order that it come back to life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Cedre, posted 10-29-2009 11:08 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 60 of 191 (533226)
10-29-2009 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
10-29-2009 11:57 AM


True, but it would seem that the body, moments after death, would be in a state far less impacted by the pressure of entropy than lifeless chemicals which allegedly once emerged into abiogenesis.
Yes - but it requires intelligent intervention to bring it back to life. The reason is because something has stopped working properly not because everything is the same but for a missing soul.
Of the billions of known deaths, aside from intelligent work, we know that life just doesn't regenerate. Perhaps this not only weakens the argument for abiogenesis but supports the argument for a living soul. Why? Because though the cohesion of elements for life exist, the body, apart from the invisible living soul remains dead.
My body remains alive without a soul. If bodies often spontaneously came back to life - that would be an argument for the soul. The fact that whatever is wrong with the body has to be fixed and processes started up again before life returns is not evidence for a requirement for a soul for life to start at all.
Besides - this only weakens theories that propose that if you put the right chemicals in vague proximity to one another life will immediately form. Of course - nobody has ever seriously proposed that this is the case except for creationists. But I started discussing that and Cedre warned that it was a strawman of his argument so I turned to focus on his argument for the existence of a spark of life.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 11:57 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2009 3:52 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 142 of 191 (533485)
10-31-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Cedre
10-31-2009 4:24 AM


Do not resuscitate
This is a straw man my argument is that dead organisms have all the necessary components required for life in tact for a certain period after death before tissue breakdown kicks in. Humans for example have the necessary components for life and more than that these components are arranged in the right positions, otherwise resuscitations wouldn't be possible.
I asked earlier, but you seem to have moved on to other things: Why is resuscitation even required? If the physical body has all the right parts in all the right places for it to be alive...why does someone need to come along and rearrange the parts, add more energy, supply new chemicals etc before it will come back to life?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Cedre, posted 10-31-2009 4:24 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 151 of 191 (533514)
10-31-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by SammyJean
10-31-2009 12:03 PM


abiogenesis vs theogensis
Life comes from non-living material, whether you believe that it was started by god or arose spontaneously on its own makes no difference.
I think you'll probably find that Cedre's position is something along the lines of "God is the source of life and God is eternal and living. Life does not come from non-living materials, but from God." Cedre would argue that without a God that gives the life spirit to non-living matter, there would be no life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by SammyJean, posted 10-31-2009 12:03 PM SammyJean has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 4:07 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 4:31 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 154 of 191 (533532)
10-31-2009 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Buzsaw
10-31-2009 4:31 PM


Re: abiogenesis vs theogensis
According to the
Wiki website which Meldinoor cited relative to abiogenesis, there is no imperical standard current model for the origin of life and the various versions of how it happened are postulations. Therefore, imo, neither the Genesis account or the secularist postulations are falsifiable.
That doesn't follow at all. Just because there isn't a single agreed upon hypothesis for
a)how life might be able to originate
b)how life on earth did originate
doesn't mean that there are no such hypothesese that are falsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 4:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 7:26 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 161 of 191 (533549)
10-31-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Buzsaw
10-31-2009 7:26 PM


Re: Abiogenesis Models
Could you explain, as per the above, how postulations on alleged abiogenesis is more falsifyable than postulations on the alleged Genesis record relative to the origin of life?
Sure.
Let's say you postulate that "complex organic molecules arose gradually on a pre-existing, non-organic replication platform such as silicate crystals in solution" (paraphrased from the wiki article) - you could falsify this concept quite tidily by showing that crystals "are not faithful enough to store and transfer information from one generation to the next" (again paraphrased from wiki).
As for whether or not it is more 'falsifiable' than the genesis account, isn't something worth getting into. I never claimed that the one account was more falsifiable than the other. I simply pointed that just because there are many hypotheses it doesn't follow from that alone that they are not falsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2009 7:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 168 of 191 (533667)
11-02-2009 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Cedre
11-02-2009 7:15 AM


Note my argument is about to carbon-compounds, so your objection here is unwarranted and without merit.
Oh well - in that case we agree. Carbon-compounds aren't the only thing that need to be in place for animals to be alive. But there are plenty of other things that go into maintaining animal life so that doesn't leave the conclusion 'there must be a spirit', I'm afraid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Cedre, posted 11-02-2009 7:15 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024