It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Questions That Abiogenesis Needs To Answer, Before Evolution.

page: 18
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

The debate was never lost, everybody agrees abiogenesis had to happen BEFORE evolution, within the biological science categories.

I still disagree with entire process 100% on a philosophical level.




posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

BS, I don't know what you think you have proven but it looks like you would rather move the goal posts than admit you were wrong. It wasn't just one word in the title. From the OP:


Abiogenesis remains an enigma of theories, yet it needs to be achieved to even get to the theory of evolution.

This doesn't say that abiogenesis (the event) needs to happen before evolution (the event).

It clearly states Abiogenesis is "an enigma of theories", insinuating that we are talking about the theory of abiogenesis and not the event. Likewise, it states that it needs to happen before the theory of evolution, not evolution itself but the "theory of evolution".

Both, making it clear, that you were saying that the studies had to come in that order and not the events.



edit on 8-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Abiogenesis remains an enigma of theories, yet it needs to be achieved to even get to the theory of evolution.


Equals BEFORE



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

But, in regards to the theories and not the events, as you are now claiming.

You need to work on your communication skills or stop trolling. Which ever it is, it's making you look bad.



edit on 8-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I'm not going to respond to everything, I'll try to keep it simple (even though I seem to never stick to that).


originally posted by: kennyb72
You do have a tendency to view everything as wrong or right, as if this debate was about point scoring which of course it goes way beyond that.

I think there are 1000 shades of grey. Most things are not black and white, absolutely right or absolutely wrong. There is always a rational medium that can be attained, I'm not looking for debate point scoring, I'm looking to expand my knowledge and correct invalid views on science that I feel are detrimental to society. As you know, I'm an avid science defender, and always will be because it directly benefits our species and could be the difference in us surviving the next extinction level event or going extinct. You may trivialize this type of thing because you seem to believe that how you live your life and your personal beliefs are more important. The thing is, that all goes out the window if the human race goes extinct.


A strong belief, in a way is far more important than strong evidence because it shapes the way a person conducts his life.


Far more important in which way? I'd say the future of the human race is way more important than a single person's faith. Strong beliefs are still beliefs, whether the people admit this fact or not. When it comes to reality, science trumps beliefs.

Now I see your explanations for your beliefs about consciousness. I don't really disagree, although much of it is highly speculative. I just don't see the connection you are making with atheism, spirituality and "mental faculties".

There is a big difference between appealing to emotion, and controlling your emotions. There's nothing wrong with emotion, it's just a bad combination with science because science is objective and technical while emotion is all about your feelings. I honestly see the 4 states of consciousness as you describe being properties of the brain, not actually accessing different dimensions, although I don't doubt the possibility of such. I just don't see why you are attributing states of mind to being in different dimensions, rather than the brain itself.


"it is your incapacity or a missing faculty that denies you from seeing the same as some other people"

I. Where is it you have you trained your consciousness to spend most of your waking hours?
II. Which world or worlds, do you spend the most of your time?
III. How often do you tune your consciousness to access the causal plane? because it is not where you would go to work something out.


Is that really a missing faculty or incapability? Is sounds like you believe that people don't access the same planes as others by choice. If it is by choice, they aren't incapable of it, they chose not to. To me it just sounds like states of mind and consciousness, rather than other dimensions or planes of existence. I feel like balance is the most important thing. If you can balance all aspects rather that exclusively live in one plane, it is ideal. But again, I see it as states of mind and see no reason why all of them cannot coexist at the same time, regardless of which one is focused on.

For example a scientist goes to work each day and focuses on logic and problem solving. At home he is a god fearing family man. He loves them extremely, but he has trained himself to put those things aside while at work. The emotion doesn't actually go away, it is suppressed. He will not forget that he loves his family, even as he works. He could possibly even draw motivation to solve the problem or invoke creativity as well if the situation calls for it.

So again, I have to ask, what do you feel that atheists are missing? They can be emotional, creative, physical and also very mental. I know atheists that experience all 4 of these states, so I don't see your point. I get your belief system overall, just not the part that leads you to this conclusion, or the part where attacking science is justified by your believe system. No belief system should be defended by attacking another or making fun of science and that's the part(s) of your posts that get under my skin. I have no problem with your beliefs, except that you think you absolutely know it to be true. Even if it is true, I don't see how attacking science gets us anywhere.
edit on 8-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Answer

The debate was never lost, everybody agrees abiogenesis had to happen BEFORE evolution, within the biological science categories.

I still disagree with entire process 100% on a philosophical level.


The debate never even started. That's the problem. You make assertions, you don't back them up or source your claims. People post counter points and you don't reply to them, you just ignore them. You invalidly attack evolution, and refuse to even consider that you might be wrong and won't even do the basic reading on the subject of evolution or abiogenesis. Nobody agrees that abiogenesis HAD TO happen before evolution in order for evolution to be true, except religious creationists that don't understand science at all. Philosophy is irrelevant when it comes to science. Your position has no merit or validity to it whatsoever, you just keep repeating the same lie over and over.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




you just keep repeating the same lie over and over


Questioning the abiogenesis scientific process isn't a lie.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Yet that is not how you started this thread neighbor. You started the thread, and have maintained for most of the thread (18 pages thus far) that we need to understand abiogensis before we can understand evolution. When this has been demonstrated by multiple posters to be a flawed stance. Did you reframe? Did you re-evaluate? Nope, you shifted the goal posts. Its one of the tactics that you and your congregation are known for. Its is intellectually dishonest. Its now an attack on abiogenesis. Despite none of us claiming it is a well formed scietific idea (its many).

So yes you are dishonest.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33



Questioning the abiogenesis scientific process isn't a lie.


Question what? There's not much evidence for ANY hypotheses and theories of abiogenesis.

Life happened obviously (duh!) but we do not know how it happened. Theory of evolution does not hinge on that. It hinge on Life that has already happened.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




Nope, you shifted the goal posts. Its one of the tactics that you and your congregation are known for.

Nope, there never was any goal posts.
Think of this discussion more as curling, it is always changing, and how you must deal with the topic.

edit on 8-4-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Not only do you seem to have problems with science, you seem to have have some severe handicaps with forming a coherent debate.

Let me break it down for you.

Your OP (Which seems to contain very little from your own thought process, i.e. its a cut an paste job), poses questions about belief in abiogenesis. You then (or cut and past in) a comment about evolution being flawed if we can not understand or prove abiogenesis.

Over the next few pages your premise is ripped to shreds. Its not the first time this very topic has been posed by you, and not the first time this has happened. You are nothing if not consistent in not learning from mistakes.

You recently (around page 16) decided to drop evolution (for now) out of this argument. You now claim it is just about abiogenesis. Why? Well unlike you, those of us with scientific training are willing to be honest. WE honestly (from the start) have said abiogenesis is not a well formulated scientific theory. Its not even a theory, it is barely a group of hypotheses. Jumping on what you perceive to be a weak point, you are going in that direction now.

Now one does wonder where you cut and pasted your OP diagrams from. It would be less dishonest if you cited the source. I am 99.99% sure they are not your own creation (pun unintended). Which is of its self dishonest neighbor. You just can not help yourself.

Though if I were to make an educated guess, you have read a version of this
edit on 8-4-2015 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden


WE honestly (from the start) have said abiogenesis is not a well formulated scientific theory. Its not even a theory, it is barely a group of hypotheses.


EXCELLENT !

The challenge that comes BEFORE evolution

Finally we are making some progress.

edit on 8-4-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

My you really should see a neurologist about that intellectual dissonance you are having, it might be a growth on an important bit of your brain.

I reiterate (in my best Dwayne Johnson impression);

"It doesn't matter what happened before evolution"

Quite simply it has no impact on the process of evolution. You can try these mustelid smelling words all you like, but your premise is wrong, and you are dishonest in your tactics.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden


"It doesn't matter what happened before evolution"


Is that ideology, intellectually and philosophically honest ?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

it is completely and utterly honest. Because it does not influence our understanding of the process of evolution. I know that is a bitter pill for you to take, but grab the KoolAid and Applesauce, ignore the powder in the applesauce and swallow that pill.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Not to interrupt the OP's own threadjack or anything, but here is a rather timely pop-sci summary of current thinking...

The New Science of the Origins of Life

From Australia's "Radio National: The Science Show"

By all means follow the links to the audio of the interview. Robyn Williams is a terrific interviewer.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa
From that article at the very end.


So the debate rages on. Over the past few decades scientists have edged closer to understanding the origin of life, but there is still some way to go, which is probably why when Robyn Williams asked Lane, ‘What was there in the beginning, do you think?’, the scientist replied wryly: ‘Ah, “think”. Yes, we have no idea, is the bottom line.’


I like how people have put their faith in a "scientific philosophy" that even the scientists says, "we have no idea" about.

SO what came BEFORE evolution ?
We still have no idea about this, and the questions still stand, but it's not problematic to people who believe in evolution, because they have faith that science will come up with the answers in the future.

How about I do the same, and put faith in God, that he will show the world he is the creator in the future, fair deal ?

edit on 8-4-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33



How about I do the same, and put faith in God, that he will show the world he is the creator in the future, fair deal ?


That is fine. Maybe God or aliens or unicorns or whatever started life. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with that. Why are you so stuck on that?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Noinden


"It doesn't matter what happened before evolution"


Is that ideology, intellectually and philosophically honest ?





Yes since evolution has nothing to do with how it started or cares for that matter. What it does show is species don't remain the same but adapts to its surroundings kind of common sense if you think about it. We knew there was adaptations going on long before this. What evolution did was help explain the process. This is why Darwin did his research in the first place scientists were noticing species variations and finding fossils that didn't fit with current species.
edit on 4/8/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

I like how people have put their faith in a "scientific philosophy" that even the scientists says, "we have no idea" about.

SO what came BEFORE evolution ?
We still have no idea about this, and the questions still stand, but it's not problematic to people who believe in evolution, because they have faith that science will come up with the answers in the future.

How about I do the same, and put faith in God, that he will show the world he is the creator in the future, fair deal ?


Nobody I know of views things that way. Science is upfront about it's ignorance, and most people are just happy to accept such concepts as just hypotheses. No actual blind faith required.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join