XnForums

If this is supposed to be a jab at evolution then it is what is commonly known as a strawman.

It is generally accepted that a given lifeform is defined by:

1.) The ability to move within its environment;
2.) The ability to detect what's going on in - and adapt to - its environment;
3.) The ability to assimilate food;
4.) The ability to use that food for energy;
5.) The ability to excrete wastes;
6.) The ability to grow (mature), and;
7.) The ability to reproduce itself.

How all this began is up for debate, but one theory states that life arose out of the necessary desire of willful intelligence to express itself through matter. In simple terms, this means that life as a willful conciousness or intelligence has an inherent desire to recognize itself in a form or manner that is other than thought: To see, feel, and know itself in terms other than "I Am."

In this sense, physical life began as the 'spirit' of life began to gather and pattern matter about itself, much as a magnet attracts iron filings and 'patterns' them according to its magnetic field.

At the same time, however, it must be understood that even iron filings have an 'innate intelligence' of their own, although 'intelligence' in this case is defined by the inherent processes that keep the swirling energies of the iron atoms in existence, as opposed to their 'poofing' into nothingness. And if this is truly the case, then it seems there must be, or at least there ought to be, a cooperation of sorts between mind and matter, where each agrees to the benefits of the proposed union.

But to answer how all this occured is a matter of faith, until such time that we can create life from lifelessness, using nothing more than the power of our thoughts combined with the innate desire to know ourselves in terms other than 'I Am', meaning to know the truth about ourselves in terms that do not arise from our own awareness.

So I imagine the 'how' of life's first appearance has to do with the mutual consent of bonding between the energies of mind, matter, and the desire to know one's self through the creation and existence of that union.

doc

Naw, this isn't meant to be an argument, simply a quote that goes along with the
discussion. Nor is it a jab at evolution...But, in order for evolution to even occur,
there has to be a beginning of life. My question is "how did life begin," not," how
did it evolve."

We can come up with all definitions of life, which may or not be helpful.
Whether our definition if correct or not, the fact is we are here, and we are alive.

The comedian Steve Martin said in one of his routines.."I want to tell you how
to have a million dollars, and not pay any taxes....First, get a million dollars....."

That is the dilemma with evolutionists...They haven't solved the first problem yet..
that is, how life began.

So, until I have the answer to the first problem, the beginning of life, then it is silly
to try and answer the second...

clean'

I dunno if I agree with this assessment...It's sorta like saying we don't know how the universe really began, so it is silly to discuss and apply the universal laws we have come to understand.

The truth is that evolution has bonafide answers to some degree, answers which help us to understand who we are and where we came from.

I find it perfectly plausible that life began as a self-replicating chain of proteins, probably in a bed of clay somewhere, and that life evolved as those proteins became cells and learned how to beneficially adapt to their environmnet, while mutating into lifeforms with differing characteristics in the process.

Besides, who's to say that God did not design the whole process of evolution so that we could understand that all life comes from all the same stuff, or that it arose as a result of a 'marriage' or union between spirit and matter?

doc

You are right about one thing. Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. But the only dilemma is in the anti-evolutionists mind. You are mistaken if you think that origins discredit evolution. Evolution is a reasonable explanation of the data; certainly more explanatory than young earth creationism.

As for me, I believe that life is the result of the consciousness that permeates it. It all began with consciousness, if indeed there was a beginning. But this is just a belief.

Any honest proponent of evolution will tell you that we really don't know how life began at this point in our science. There are hypotheses, but no testable theories yet. Some things have been accomplished in a lab, but these are controversial even to scientists.

But the second problem, that of evolution, is most definitely not a silly one. Evolution is just as well supported as the theory of gravity. You are aware that gravity is just a theory, aren't you?

"8. "I didn't come from no ape..."

This seems to be an arrogant argument. While the fossil record is not 100% complete there is significant evidence that humans have a common ancestor with many modern apes. Also, humans are 99% similar in DNAwith many primates and many of our skeletal features are very similar. While many feel too good to have evolved from a primate they are just ignoring scientific evidence for ignorance and arrogance."

Did it ever dawn on this author that similarity of structure may be evidence of a common
designer rather than a common ancestor?

In a world governed by certain physical and chemical laws, maybe only a certain range of
anatomical structures will be conducive to animals designed to walk on two legs. Since we all
have to live in the same bioshphere, we would expect some creatures to have similiar designs.

Look up human and ape retrovirus insertions and get back with me.

YouTube video on ERVs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

We could keep on exchanging videos if you like, mine could refute yours, and
then you could come back and refute mine...and on it goes...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElwuRv2gESY

True that, but mine has the backing of the scientific community peer reviewed and such. And besides your link goes to nowhere. It goes to no video at all. Did you think I wouldn't watch it?

FYI, I am totally open to evolution being wrong and even open to young earth creationism being right, but having been around the block on this I've seen for myself who does better science.

Oh and ERV's are just one point of multiple intersecting lines of evidence that we descended from apes.

Did you watch my video? I can do better than YouTube I hope you know. It could get very scholarly and reputable if you want.

Yes, I did watch the video, and I corrected the link to my video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELwuRv2gESY

Having said that, I appreciate the time that you are taking to discuss this
topic with me. I'm not trying to be dogmatic, however much it appears that I
am. This gives me the opportunity to crystallize my thinking process.
It also gives me an appreciation for another point of view.

I am a christian, and I don't apologize for that. (not that you or anyone here
have given me reason to)..and there are some beliefs that I will not compromise.
I don't necessarily hold to the belief of a young earth as many/most intelligent design
advocates do. I'm not opposed to it, just still weighing out the ramifications of it.

Now, as far as getting scholarly.......Bring it on!!!

First off, welcome to the board!

I think I'm gonna drop out of the discussion though.
Enjoy the forum, there are intelligent posters here, but the back and forth is a little slow...

If you want fast paced discussion that will challenge you, might I suggest you try posting on FRDB
http://www.freeratio.org//
C-ya...

Yeah, I was about to suggest that we consolidate our two discussions on one thread.
I wasn't really into it either, but, I didn't want to cut the conversation off unilaterally.

Thanks for you time and patience.

I'll see on the boards...

clean'