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: 22
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Barcs's's'ss' reaction,


No offense, but your categories of scientists are silly. As others have said, in the real world, they aren't categorized like that and associating one "type" of scientist with drinking is an absurd generalization, just like each category you created. I was trying to get you to stop using generalizations to describe science, but you try to explain your position by doing it more. You can claim it's just for humor, but you don't present it as such, you present it as if it is factual or as if each scientist can be pigeonholed into that personality set. You did the same thing to atheism earlier in the thread.


Noindenseses'es' reaction


Where are you basing these sterotypes from? No I am curious, because... they are cliche, caricatures, but you got these wacky ideas from somewhere. I am pretty sure you do not mix with many actual scientist. Which is ok, but ummm no. Those are not how one breaks down types of scientists. We are all human, and thus much more varied.


My almost supernaturally accurate prediction


Now I will over generalise for the sake of giving others people a reason to criticise me, which they usually do anyway so hey!


Little experiment to see how much attention some people actually pay when they allow their emotions to get in the way of their comprehension. It explains to me why I have to explain things over and over again.

Carry on chaps.



edit on 11-4-2015 by kennyb72 because: amended




posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Let's not talk about emotion and poor comprehension when you are just as guilty of both. Don't forget that you came in here vehemently defending folks with the illogical the position that evolution requires abiogenesis in order to be true. If you want emotion, try reading your first response in this thread.

Also here's a protip. Predictions don't come after the fact. Correcting your false generalizations of science isn't an emotional response. The pot is calling the kettle black with this one and it's hilarious.


edit on 12-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Sorry but I don't see how you posting that disclaimer changes anything. It's like someone saying "I know I'm going to get flamed for this but...". It doesn't mean that what follows isn't what they think.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

So you were just trolling? That's always helpful in a conversation.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Hi barcs, Sorry but I have never defended abiogenesis,(which in my view is a ridiculous postulation) as a prerequisite for a process you chaps refer to as evolution (I prefer to call intelligent adaptation). Again another assertion based on not understanding another persons position, or, actually caring about what others think.

I gave prior warning that I was a going to over generalise, (ridiculously so in fact) to emphasise that one should not take that too seriously, as it is just a useful way to sum up millions of individuals and inject a little humour. If it where done in a 'face to face' conversation it would be clarified with a wry smile and a raised eyebrow. Oh well, I guess subtleties can be lost on the internet.

My God, where us the humour around here. I just don't take anything too seriously at all, so, I am always flippant and chuckling to myself when I respond to you guys. I always seem to get the same reaction as a TV host received from the Dali Lamer, when he told him the joke about the Buddhist monk going into a Pizza shop, who asked for 'One with everything' - Just no humour at all those Buddhists.

Are we then to assume, that when entering this Forum that we must enter with full reverence to the holy order of 'evolutianity' and never question the 'Darwin-Dawkinian' world view. Not going to happen my friend, because this Forum, if you hadn't noticed is named Origins and Creationism, in fact, What are you lot doing in here? because neither of those words have anything to do with evolution.

As you always point out, that origins of life has no place in a discussion on evolution, and given that you don't believe in creationism, we really need a sign on the door that states, unless you talk about origins of life or creationism then you are trolling. Perhaps if we had a section called 'The Evolution forum' then you guys could just sit around in there twiddling your thumbs waiting for believers to enter the conversation, Not much fun in that though hey!
Most believers don't go around spoiling for a fight, so it would get a bit dull in there I would suggest.




daskakik,
Sorry but I don't see how you posting that disclaimer changes anything. It's like someone saying "I know I'm going to get flamed for this but...". It doesn't mean that what follows isn't what they think.

Sorry, but no, to predict you will get flamed means you are about to make a controversial statement, to state you are about to over generalise means you are about to depart from reality and the following should not be taken literally.




iterationzero
So you were just trolling? That's always helpful in a conversation.

I guess there is a fine line between trolling(in its original sense) and attempting to make a point, it all comes down to intent. It is not my intent to garner an emotional response but an intellectual one, however, the response itself is beyond my control and some people will react in a negative way, which is their choice, but thank you for your input.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

So you basically admit to trolling? Interesting technique. You got two of us to correct you, civilly too. We both read the whole post, we just choose to correct the large steaming heap of inaccuracy.

Perhaps you feel you were trying to "defend creationists" here? Except, we go after the information, not the person or the faith. I don't seem to remember us talking about the drinking habits of creationists in jest or not? Perhaps we did?

You say you can't convince me of your anti science bent? It is posts such as this which reinforce that perception to me. Just as threads such as this reinforce that creationist are not willing to have open and honest dialogue.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
Sorry, but no, to predict you will get flamed means you are about to make a controversial statement, to state you are about to over generalise means you are about to depart from reality and the following should not be taken literally.

It is similar.

Also, why bother posting something that is meaningless? I honestly give the posters that called you out the benefit of the doubt because it stands to reason that if you posted it, chances are that you stand behind it, the exception being sarcasm but you already said it wasn't that.

The disclaimer doesn't make it clear that you don't stand behind your post.
edit on 12-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden



So you basically admit to trolling? Interesting technique. You got two of us to correct you, civilly too. We both read the whole post, we just choose to correct the large steaming heap of inaccuracy.

I just finished explaining how I was not a troll with my explanation as to why, and then you respond with this post. For a scientist you can be very obtuse. I acknowledge your civility, and as it should be, I respond in the same way.

It must be my sense of humour that is misinterpreted. I come to ATS for a bit of fun, you know, a 'leisure activity'. If I was attending a lecture at University, which I have done many times, (I hold post graduate qualifications with high distinctions). I would do so with a degree of brevity for the task at hand.

There is probably not another single poster I would have mentioned that to, by the way.



You say you can't convince me of your anti science bent? It is posts such as this which reinforce that perception to me. Just as threads such as this reinforce that creationist are not willing to have open and honest dialogue.


ETA: I am not saying I don't have issues with science because I do, but I am certainly not anti-science. I have written reams about why I don't have issues with scientists, they (in keeping with my over generalisations) are, again a generalisation, good eggs.

Are you quite sure you are not just carrying a "Chup" on your shoulder mate!




edit on 12-4-2015 by kennyb72 because: ETA



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



Also, why bother posting something that is meaningless? I honestly give the posters that called you out the benefit of the doubt because it stands to reason that if you posted it, chances are that you stand behind it, the exception being sarcasm but you already said it wasn't that.
The disclaimer doesn't make it clear that you don't stand behind your post.


I have searched through every single emoticon to try to find one that conveys 'despair'

Perhaps sometime in the future, we will be able to tune into each others wavelength, it's just not happening at the moment.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Or you could refrain from posting things that you don't really mean.

Also, why despair? If your here for fun and leisure and are ending up in despair then you may have taken a wrong turn somewhere.



posted on Apr, 12 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Again with the generalizations. *Shakes head*

Look kid, I've been online since the early 1990's. I've seen your excuses before.

"Sense of humor", no, not even close.

You dislike something about science, and scientists. You have a problem with evolution, or you would keep out of this.

Indeed this thread is a demonstration of nothing more than people who dislike evolution as an idea, trying to discredit it.

You say I have no sense of humor and I take things too seriously? The later perhaps, but I also have this thing against liars (not you, but this thread has a few in it), bullies, and the such. You stand up for creationists, I stand up for the truth.

So lets get back on topic:

What do you, kennyb72 have to say with regards to the OP that will add to this thread? What do you know that makes the premise of the thread (that some would say that one must understand Abiogenesis before one can understand evoution?).



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden



You dislike something about science, and scientists. You have a problem with evolution, or you would keep out of this.

You dislike something about creationism and creationists "you have a problem with creationism or you would keep out of this. (origins and creationism forum right! get it!.)



Look kid, I've been online since the early 1990's. I've seen your excuses before.

Look kid, I have been online since before the internet was the WWW,and I've seen your indoctrination before.



Indeed this thread is a demonstration of nothing more than people who dislike evolution as an idea, trying to discredit it.

indeed this thread is a demonstration of nothing more than people who dislike creationism as an idea,trying to discredit it.



What do you, kennyb72 have to say with regards to the OP that will add to this thread?


I think I have made it perfectly clear that the concept of abiogenesis is absurd to me, and so no, I do not agree with the OP. I do however believe in his right to state his case because without life there would be no evolution.

If you believe that life can spring up from know-where, then evolution would have to be the only explanation. If you belief that life is intelligently designed then evolution is not the only explanation for diversity.

Now having stated this clearly, as I have done with most of my posts, you will still conveniently ignore it and continue to rant on against creationism and accuse me of all manner of things. KID



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

See Kenny, that is your problem, you don't read. No where have I said anything about my belief in abiogenesis. Just that it is not necessary to evolution. My own feelings, are my own. I know a lot more about the theories than most. My point still remains: Abiogensis does not need to be even considered to understand evolution.

Why are you and your buddies so resistant to understanding this point?

So you've made your point? Yet you've missed ours. You accuse us of poor reading comprehension, when you have not read what we have written. And you wound why you have communication issues.

You beat your chest over "lack of sense of humor" and "defending the creationists", yet you've not talked to the science. That which is being attacked


Slan leat



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden



Abiogensis does not need to be even considered to understand evolution.

I agree but that is a very narrow understanding of a subject, if the whole premise of evolution is predicated on abiogenesis. If it is not, then panspermia or other explanations of the ultimate question of 'how did life come to be', is far from being settled, as life had to start somewhere 'a priori', If the question cannot be satisfactorily answered by science then the default answer would have to be creation.

Which of course devolves evolution to a process of adaptation after the event.

slán agat


edit on 13-4-2015 by kennyb72 because: hate predictive text



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72



I agree but that is a very narrow understanding of a subject


Scientists who study evolution are not concerned with abiogenesis. It is not necessary for the theory of evolution.



as life had to start somewhere 'a priori'


Of course life has to start somewhere but we don't know how it happened. If you want to get "philosophical" maybe life has always existed?
edit on 4/13/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien



Scientists who study evolution is not concerned about abiogenesis. It is not necessary for the theory of evolution.


I quite understand that Deaf Alien, It is just that evolutionists see evolution as the only possible explanation for our adaptation over time. As we are in the Origin and Creationism forum, I am simply trying to state that I believe there is more than one explanation to what science observes through the scientific method.

It is all well and good studying empirical evidence, but if creationism is never considered as a possibility for life on earth, then what other possible conclusion can be draw from the evidence.

If a creator revealed himself to the world tomorrow, (which I don't think is going to happen any time soon). Evolutionist would continue to reveal how species change over time, but a new dimension would be added that would explain diversity and complexity that would't be such a stretch to intellectualise.

I have explained several times now, how a programmer using object oriented programming to introduce diversity would look exactly the same as the evidence discovered by science.



edit on 13-4-2015 by kennyb72 because: puctuation



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72



It is just that evolutionists see evolution as the only possible explanation for our adaptation over time.



I have explained several time now, how a programmer using object oriented programming to introduce diversity would look exactly the same as the evidence discovered by science.


So you think evolution has some kind of 'inherent program' going on that we are not seeing? Something that is underneath? Well if we were to discover that that would be a fundamental discovery that add MORE to how life evolve. Perhaps mathematically driven (or as you say intelligently driven). That still won't change the theory of evolution but ADD to it.

If the aliens created us then maybe they added more programs and designs to life on Earth.



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien



So you think evolution has some kind of 'inherent program' going on that we are not seeing? Something that is underneath? Well if we were to discover that that would be a fundamental discovery that add MORE to how life evolve. Perhaps mathematically driven (or as you say intelligently driven). That still won't change the theory of evolution but ADD to it.


DNA is programming, whether naturally occurring or intelligently designed. It is not aliens that I believe created the biological organisms we witness, but intelligent consciousness that has evolved beyond being human. Also beings that have evolved through a different lineage to humanity.

I believe in an originator and sustainer for want of better words, but the intelligence I speak of is humanity that has evolved beyond the human kingdom, and has become something much more.



edit on 13-4-2015 by kennyb72 because: punctuation



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

I dig what you are saying. Evolution and intelligence could multiply and multiply upon themselves, growing and evolving at rapid rate. Maybe intelligence is inherent in the very structure of the universe or started it. Maybe mathematics and intelligence are related. Who knows.

That would make an interesting addition to the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis still isn't necessary tho for the theory of evolution.

It seems that you want a theory that link everything. Like the coveted theory of everything physicists so want to discover.
edit on 4/13/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: kennyb72

Evolutionist is not a real word Kenny. Its a theory. You don't have "Gravitationalist" or "SN2ists", you have scientists. As for it being a narrow way of looking at it? Not really, it has zero influence on how evolution works, just like Gravity, and planetary motion have zero influence. Do we need to understand how the Universe formed, before we study how the planet formed, before life arose, and then evolution? No, one studies what one can study, with avaliable evidence, it does not need to be neat and linear.

You are (as with the others on that side of the debate) showing that you don't get science, but certainly do get hostile to it.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join