It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Should Abiogenesis Be Separate From Evolution At A Philosophical Level ?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 09:59 AM
So this argument continues to rage over on the other creation forum, and it has for years now.
And I put this one in philosophy for a reason this time.
Abiogenesis and evolution are separate from a scientific categorized standpoint, just like biology and chemistry, different fields of science.
I agree, so restating it a million times is a waste of a persons key strokes. I have heard it a zillion times by people trying to educate us, we get it.

But within the sphere of philosophical ideology they must and can be linked. What is real is this universe is unaffected by how we categorize different fields of science with jargon, semantics and idealogical dogma based on scientific categories.

It's a philosophical concept in it's totality.

So scientifically they are separate, but philosophically and ideologically they are linked for most people in the total concept of the world view of how we got here.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 10:18 AM
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

well life in general, If not created by other life. Comes about from the proper particle alignment of which energy transfer is directed accordingly.

Since matter is Eternal, and is constantly going through a shifting cycle of Expending energy within the physical state, to recovering in the compressed state such as the case for dark energy which was formerly physical matter compressed by black holes.

It is safe to safe such a process has been occuring for all of eternity, giving eternal qualities to matter in general. Tho this process takes a very long time for it to occure in its cycles.

Abiogenesis is the begining of the chain of life uncreated by panspermia or higher life forms terra-forming. So both are viable methods but both stem back to the source which is energy and how it is directed.

Since all matter is eternal but seperated by the constrains of time, as everything that has existed does not exist in all time lines simply because of entropy. It is very likely that what does not exist now, Did exist in the passed.

So all matter, with the probability of infinity, at one point or another. Contains the information of life in order to copy the information and redirect it based on its capcity to contain and redirect the flow of expanded matter that is expending energy through the process of slowly expending which allows physical mass to exist for as long as it does before entropy depletes it and it cannot generate its physical nature any longer and becomes unmoving, or weakly interacting at which point it will phase in and out of what we call physical reality.

Radiation greatly increases the rate of entropy, which is why it's so deadly because it depletes other matter around it. Lead is similar to gold and is a very stable structure so it regains almost but not entirely all the energy it depletes. Which is why gold lasts so long before becoming lead ect.

This argument between evolution and abiogenesis really does not matter in the long run. But the information that generates the life as explained will always come from a pre-existing source. Pre-dating the moment of abiogenesis or evolution for a given planet and its inhabitants.

There is nothing in creation, or uncreation that has not be done before or was destined to be predetermined in the universe where everything comes from a previous state.

It is just as likely humans could of be generated by intelligent design as the intelligent design was generated by evolution. Regardless. Both stem back to the source which is the energy. there isn't a thing that can survive without energy. Either mass is expending potential, Or it is recovering in what we call * empty space* which isnt really empty to begin with.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 10:28 AM
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Educated philosophers do not link them together it is only those who consider themselves philosophers with poor understandings that try to link them.

So there is one group with a poor understanding that tries to link them and then there is the other group which I have no respect for.

If they were honest they would admit the only reason they try to link them together is so they can construct a strawman argument. It is lazy and deceptive and no self-respecting philosopher would do so.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 12:57 PM
a reply to: Grimpachi

Couldn't have said it better.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:11 PM

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

Abiogenesis and evolution are separate from a scientific categorized standpoint, just like biology and chemistry, different fields of science.

Can you study biology without a knowledge of Chemistry, sounds like you cant separate biology totally. They are related.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 01:13 PM
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So after you failed at making a scientific argument you're now trying a philosophical one?

Unless you can give a reason why the diversity of life must be combined with the origins of life, then this is just another thread from you attempting to validate your supernatural superstitions......

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 07:33 PM

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So after you failed at making a scientific argument you're now trying a philosophical one?

Unless you can give a reason why the diversity of life must be combined with the origins of life, then this is just another thread from you attempting to validate your supernatural superstitions......

Oh you poor dear

It is just so tough when someone proposes a question that attacks your religion.

The scientific argument did not fail its still valid and on a philosophical level it is also valid.

Why do you get so upset when science is questioned, is this a raw nerve.
Why are you getting all upset over a philosophical question, to close to your true feelings.

Abiogenesis is the beginning of evolution, like it or not.

If you have something to add show courtesy and some logic not a hissy fit.

I guess you would prefer nothing you believe or see should be questioned, thats being brainwashed,

Yes I question my faith daily and am happy to

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 08:42 PM
a reply to: borntowatch

Because science is about logical thinking, and understanding life strictly from a spiritual superstitious one isn't logical without science.

Spirituality is the understanding of something being unknown or rather magical/mystical in the sense that it adds significance to something greater than just plain logic.

Stating old gods created the world from water and men made from clay as if hands melded clay into the formation of man and zapping it into life isn't within the confineds of Logic but simply faith because the process cannot be proven rationally it relies on hypothetical concepts counter productive to logic.

Saying that a the river spirits are what makes water flow is counter productive to logic without a scientific thesis to back it up. It needs to make sense to everyone, Even for the non believer to see it as plausible.

But we as humans do not decide how physics occurs within the Universe. We do not decide how it works, not through faith and not through thesis. We can only observe the universe and draw up conclusions based on what is already per-existing and may not be known to the collective of humanity at this time.

Saying the universe spawned humans here and the entire cosmos from a big bang is very much as unscientific as a faith based pagan view such as the Universe governing itself from one single consciousness that observes all consciousness at the same time everywhere and creates everything. In order for you or me to be legitimate, it must not be so. Because if it was in such a case, then that would make the creator of everything the only true original consciousness, and everything else would simply just be mirror created physical memories of the original who if it wakes up everything would blip out of existence because everything else except the original wouldn't technically be real to begin with. And there is already Thesis about that specifically, if you like the idea of being a figment of some dreaming gods imagination all power to you. But that dosn't sit well with most so they become atheist lol.

Besides that. If we neglect that we are just figments of imagination, Then how does life start? The universe is Eternal so life never did start at one point in current existence. Through the logic of the eternal cycling universe. Life has existed in long dead galaxies, an unfathomable time ago. So regardless of life is created 13 billion years or 50 billion years and survives to this day is irrelevant because it will not be the original life-force seeding the universe as the original is just an unfathomable concept to begin with when the ideas of creation span as endlessly as the universe is wide and as it is ageless. The only things that age within the universe are creations within the universe. As new galaxies are being formed, they are young, well old galaxies die, they are old. The newly created galaxies are not considered old.

And the old galaxies are not considered young. Giving the entirety of the universe timelessness, But creation bound by time because of Entropy.

Life doesn't have to come strictly from matter recombining itself into life without any prior blueprints such as current life replicates right? Even tho that process is totally possible as i explained in my previous post, its not necessary. Because advanced life such as us can create our own blueprints of life, and apply it to dead planets. To Fill planets void of life, with life fulfilling the role of Abiogenesis But is impossible to occure without evolution to generate the advanced life-form in the first place.

See humans are an exception because advanced life created us. And it may very well be that advanced life created our creators too at some point. But even then down the chain of advanced life seeding creators which seed more creators ect, it all starts with non-intervention abiogensis. Where matter slowly becomes living, and eventually evolves over billions of years. But the likelyhood of such living matter becoming advanced like us? Is extremely unlikely. To get to where the level of humans are currently would take trillions of years, Simply a lifespan that planets cannot endure. Evolution occures from legoblocks shifting around to create new structures of energy releasing constructs.

To get to where we are as a human by sheer randomness of the shifting blocks is not impossible. But without intervention. Highly unlikely. Tho the universe is infinitely huge. We will come across others like us undoubtedly. Most will be seeded by other advanced life to be at our levels, Very very few will not and be original. If it was the other way around, life would be super advancing all over the place. And we would be seeing far more numerous terraformed planets which we simply do not. We would see plant filled planets in every solar system we view if that was such a case because advanced life colonizes in order to survive. There just isn't that many things locally doing such a thing. On the greater scale of the galaxy there are probably 1000 to 100,000 advanced forms of life in the milkyway alone. However there are trillions of stars here. The number itself speaks for the number of stars present. There just isn't that much advanced life.

So the advanced life seeks out other advanced life to know why it is so far and in-between. I guess its our jobs now as created advanced life to spread our seeds of creation onto other planets and decide if we want to increase intelligence in our local area, However it is more than likely we serve as some sort of purpose for advanced life that very well within probability seeded this planet. Evolution is invaluable in such the case because without neither abiogenesis or evolution we wouldn't exist right now.

Its not a question of Either or, because both are literally requirements for something like us to exist...

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 09:03 PM
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Absolutely, they should be considered fundamentally different. Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life while Evolution is the study of why life is diverse. Two completely different fields that require far different approaches and perspectives.

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 09:56 PM
a reply to: borntowatch

Abiogenesis is the beginning of evolution, like it or not.


Does the theory of evolution depend on abiogenesis?

posted on Apr, 25 2015 @ 10:03 PM
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

But within the sphere of philosophical ideology they must and can be linked.

In some philosophical spheres there may be no origin of life. I brought that up in one of your other threads. Life might be eternal.

but philosophically and ideologically they are linked for most people in the total concept of the world view of how we got here.

Worldviews vary. Some believe that God created the universe. Some don't. Some believe that aliens created life on Earth. Some believe that we exist as spirits. Some believe in mathematics and patterns of the universe. And so many more.

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:24 AM

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: borntowatch

Abiogenesis is the beginning of evolution, like it or not.


Does the theory of evolution depend on abiogenesis?

For the most part yes it does depend on Abiogenesis, But it's all situational.

Evolution is the process of shifting life, Abiogenesis is the creation of the foundation of life.

Abiogenesis can occure naturally with no intervention to develop viruses, followed by single celled organism.
Evolution is the process of how these tiny organisms assemble into singular organisms based on information packets that transition to release energy in different ways. Life is just another method for energy to be released by matter and it is an efficient way of doing it as well.

I guess people arn't thinking in a broad enough sense to even really debate something like this as personal beliefs instead of logic get in the way of it.

There is science behind all of this. And the Soul. There are many reasons why people think spirits exist but in the scheme of the basic debate of Creationism Vs altering states they are directly needed.

Rocks don't just evolve into more complex rocks lol. Life has to evolve and gather to become singular organisms.

Humans like us have trillions of organisms living in us that make us us. we are a group of single celled organisms in most cases bonded by a unifying consiousness. What ever others define as evolution simply is meaningless because no single organism true *Advances* the way they claim it so. The entirety of all organisms are constantly shifting reguardless.... Just abiogenesis is the begining of it.

The term abiogenesis deals with 1. Matter becoming animated and turning into life which is not evolution it is abiogenesis. 2. Life seeding areas where there is no life is also abiogenesis be it from an impacting meteor or aliens terraform and seeding planets ect.

For instance humans plan on teraforming Mars. Which would be abiogenesis. People can deny god or accept god i don't really care lol. But its going to be blaspheme when the masses claim they are the one and only creator after teraforming mars and being like * Were the original true and only life in the universe spreading life on other planets!*

pure 100% blaspheme. and that's really all these creationist deniers want honestly. They want humans to be the first because they cannot bare the thought of being second place to something else. Think of how humans in society claw there way to being * number 1* among a bunch of dying fools?

There is no other ulterior motive short of heresy and blaspheme lol.

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 06:54 AM
a reply to: borntowatch

Abiogenesis is the beginning of evolution, like it or not.

It is not a question of whether someone likes it or not, it is a question of definitions. The theory of evolution explains speciation and diversity, not the origin of life. You can believe that life was created by a Supreme Being and still accept evolution as an explanation for the fossil record and diversity of species. It is true that most biologists assume abiogenisis, not as a belief, but because it is a more fruitful assumption. Once you say "God made everything," there is no need to do any further investigating. On the other hand, by assuming that life arises spontaneously from chemical interactions, there is a great motivation to examine biochemical processes; in fact, this research has led us to conclude that life is probably universal throughout the cosmos!

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 02:48 PM
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It’s not a "philosophical concept" neighbour. It’s a hang up you and the other creationists have. There is a difference.
In addition something "most people believe" does not make something a philosophy either. Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. (1)

So it really seems that you are having a problem with science AND philosophy now.

(1) Jenny Teichmann and Katherine C. Evans, Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide (Blackwell Publishing, 1999), p. 1

posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 01:27 AM
a reply to: Noinden

Oh the semantical dance you weave to escape the point, maybe you prefer this then.

Metaphysics -
"the philosophical study of the nature of reality, concerned with such questions as the existence of God"

Should I make new thread that says "Should Abiogenesis Be Separate From Evolution At A Metaphysical Level ?

Nah, I think most ATS people get it.

posted on Apr, 27 2015 @ 01:54 AM
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
"Should I make new thread that says "Should Abiogenesis Be Separate From Evolution At A Metaphysical Level ? "

Didnt you
already do that here?

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 05:21 PM
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Sigh ....

Its not semantics when you are misusing terms. Just as it was not semantics when we (and it was a group of us not just I) spent far too long trying to show you your original premise was wrong. Its wrong here too, and would be wrong in the metaphysical forum.

You tried to discredit me by asking for a "pagan creation myth", over in the religions and spirituality forum. So its clear that your faith is what is limiting you in this discussion. I gave you a creation myth in that post.

SO we return to the question, why does Blue_Jay33 have such a hang up over having to equate the hypotheses (multiple) with the theory (singular) of evolution? Perhaps you can be honest and say "evolution offends my faith and I need to discredit it", I've been honest, I'm a deeply spiritual (even religious) individual, I belong to a recognized faith, one which has a US tax exemption just like yours, and I am perfectly capable of looking at the data, and sayng "my faith is not threatened by the facts".

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 05:28 PM
How many threads can a person start on the same topic before it's considered blatant trolling and the mods do something about it?

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 05:52 PM
a reply to: Answer

A very very good question
Its not like he's been a good boy in all of them. I know in forums I moderate, this would be a paddling.

I actually get what he is asking and trying to do here, I just wish it was done in an open and honest manner :/

But on topic, its not a philosophical matter, as its clearly under the philosophy of science, which s totally clear on the answer.

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 06:09 PM
Ok so way back on topic.

Abiogenesis and evolution being linked?

Blue_Jay33 or one of his fellow creationists (note I am not calling anyone a young earth creationist here, despite the evidence for some) love to use the example of a car. The car is being used as the total system. They feel that how a car was designed (abiogenesis) influences how it was used. Which is fine until you get that this implicitly implies a designer or group of them, so god or gods (creators).

But lets run with it. Do we need to understand how (and why) a car was designed to change the spark plugs or fuel it up? Nope. It might help if we are total geeks, but as any mechanic will tell you, turning the key is more than you can expect for most users, yet they can still aim the car in the right direction.

Now the example that the creationists really like to use is the internal combustion engine. OK lets run with that.

The internal combustion engine, has remained unchanged for a long time. It burs fuel, which provides energy to move the engine parts, which moves the vehicle.

So using this logic, before you can drive a car, you need to know where that fuel came from. It of course came from dead organisms. If you are a creationist of the young earth type this is a huge issue, as it is clearly Noah’s flood which caused it. For the rest of us, its millions of years of dead, decomposing once living things, which gave us hydrocarbons.

Next we need to distil out the appropriate parts of that oil, because well oil is dirty to burn. Once we get things around the octane fraction range, we add some other derivatives to stop bumping. Which will damage that god created cars engine. We then ship the fuel, to the distribution point, then the service station, then you fuel that baby up.

Thus clearly (using the logic of this debate) we must understand what created the organisms which decomposed, what caused them to die enmass, etc. Someone to drive a car must now have several higher degrees, a time machine, and omniscient levels of intelligence, to run a car. Clearly only the good Doctor (Dr Who) can drive a car. Right?

Here endeth the sarcasm.
Clearly that is a load of dingo’s kidneys. We can understand how to maintain a car perfectly well, without knowing how to design it. We can operate an internal combustion engine without understanding the processes which created the fuel we run it on. They are separate processes. They are yes part of the whole. SO yes the many hypotheses of abiogenesis (like I said there many and all at different levels of being formed, none are even near being a theory), is how life started. Just as how the theory (there is really only one, constantly evolving (Sorry)) of evolution informs us of how life differentiates (evolves, changes, speciation etc.) through genetic mutation.

What the creationists are trying to do is two logical fallacies.
(a) Make a straw man to knock down.
(b) False equivalence. Link two things which are not directly related.
As Answer has said. How many of these gods forsaken threads will Blue_Jay33 create? Its not like they are ones which build on the last in any way shape or form. This thread has been posted by him (?) for several years, with the same result. Nope, nope they are not related.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in