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.

 

Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I'm a Fortean with respect to the fossil record and hypothetical earth histories.

Life is an agent of order, versus entropy, any way you slice it. If evolution is true, it is still a problem to describe how the life force increases order in the universe over time, rather than decreases it.

In H.P. Lovecraft's literary universe, the "Old Ones" created biological life to use the way we employ machines. In his narrative, intelligent design was not necessarily a good thing.

I agree with the original post as it stands; archaea is already amazingly complicated even though it is the 'most primitive' form of life.

If you want to say that it self-evolved by chance, then said chance is so remote that it quits looking like coincidence and begins to look like some kind of synchronicity. I'm not using that thought to insert a particular deity or pantheon. I'm just sayin'.




posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: tovenar
I'm a Fortean with respect to the fossil record and hypothetical earth histories.

Life is an agent of order, versus entropy, any way you slice it. If evolution is true, it is still a problem to describe how the life force increases order in the universe over time, rather than decreases it.

No it isn't. The Earth isn't a closed system. It receives most of its energy from the sun. If the energy received from the sun exceeds the energy lost due to entropy (which it does) then there is no issue.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Raggedyman

No unlike you I recognize a despot is a despot because the individual is an asshole and don't attribute the beliefs he happens to share with millions of innocent people who've done nothing similar as the cause. Most Christians are good decent normal people, same as most atheists, evolutionists and theists. Neither belief in evolution nor theism by itself leads to any of this. It's an individual sickness pure and simple and to pretend otherwise is not only dishonest but a crime against all those who've done no wrong you are accusing by association. Collective hands my ass. Get over your tribalism.


No that's just dumb, you said
"If Christians didn't believe in their sky daddy, no meaning"
Your words

Wake up to yourself
Want me to spell it out for you? I can, I also think you are just playing dumb, I hope you are


and then to moan and cry about my tribalism, you take childishness to a truly deeper level
edit on 6-9-2018 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
DNA needs data . That's what it does store and replicate data . Where did the first set of data come from ?



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It's a sound one right now.


Good to see were back on topic. What do you have to say about the content in the OP that claims it is not a scientifically sound hypothesis ?
edit on 6-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It's a sound one right now.


Good to see were back on topic. What do you have to say about the content in the OP that claims it is not a sound hypothesis based in any sort of observable science?


There is no way anyone is going to discuss abiogenesis
Maybe only if they can try and confuse the argument of abiogenesis with evolution but it's clear you have differentiated the issues



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TREESNAKE1111

Data is not information. It only becomes information when structured by humans. It is a deep concept, but one that considers if humans create all information, then we are the creators of the conceptualization of the universe.
edit on 6-9-2018 by JasonBillung because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

There is no way anyone is going to discuss abiogenesis
Maybe only if they can try and confuse the argument of abiogenesis with evolution but it's clear you have differentiated the issues


To try to separate abiogenesis from evolution is to ignore the beginning template for evolution. If the starting template for evolution could not have formed through ordinary material means, then the tower of evolution falls, and people are free to think for themselves again.
edit on 6-9-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: tovenar
I'm a Fortean with respect to the fossil record and hypothetical earth histories.

Life is an agent of order, versus entropy, any way you slice it. If evolution is true, it is still a problem to describe how the life force increases order in the universe over time, rather than decreases it.

No it isn't. The Earth isn't a closed system. It receives most of its energy from the sun. If the energy received from the sun exceeds the energy lost due to entropy (which it does) then there is no issue.


I shouldn't have referred to entropy which is about energy within a system.

I intended to point out how unusual it is that life increases order. Whether by evolution or not, the trajectory of life is clearly one of increasing order. That is unique and interesting; it sets the mechanisms of life apart from the rest of reality. Do the pieces of old cars lying in a junkyard get "coincidentally" blown into the shape of a '57 Chevy that runs? No? But life did; not from broken parts that were once alive, but from some ribose molecules floating in water...



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I can both believe a persons beliefs are absurd and recognize them as an individual defined by more than the belief I find absurd. I once had a crush on a girl that didn't believe in dinosuars I worked with because she was still a good decent person who did right by others. Didn't mean I didn't think her beliefs on dinosuars wasn't absurd and idiotic.

I'm sure if we look hard enough we can find something all those despots you mentioned believe in that you do as well. Then we can, since you do it, take said belief and use it as an explanaition for there behavior and lump you in by association with that shared belief.

People like those you mentioned will find any rationalization to allow them to do what they do within their own minds. It doesn't matter if the believe in evolution creationism Christianity or are atheist they'll still find some kind of rationalization for it.

Also you got what I said wrong. What I was saying was that the belief in a sky daddy does no more to ensure someone will not be a despot than the belief in evolution ensures it. It was a neutral statement that accuses neither of being any more or less responsible for despots.

edit on 9/6/2018 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: tovenar

Do the pieces of old cars lying in a junkyard get "coincidentally" blown into the shape of a '57 Chevy that runs? No? But life did; not from broken parts that were once alive, but from some ribose molecules floating in water...

Well you just compared a human artifact that humans designed knowing fully well how it will behave to organic material that originated from molecules and atoms created in a star. There is a big difference there.
edit on 6-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

That's all just diatribe for your pathetic tribalism and hate rhetoric

I never got what you said wrong, you are just back pedaling
Come on pups, I am not the stupid one here

What the belief in the Creator means is that we are all His creation, Christians believe we are all valued above chattel, that means we are not animals who evolved, we at in Gods image, highly valued, worth dying for, not killing for

Guess I did have to spell it out



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Fantastic. It's nice your believes make you feel cozy at night, but making you feel good doesn't mean they are true.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Raggedyman

There is no way anyone is going to discuss abiogenesis
Maybe only if they can try and confuse the argument of abiogenesis with evolution but it's clear you have differentiated the issues


To try to separate abiogenesis from evolution is to ignore the beginning template for evolution. If the starting template for evolution could not have formed through ordinary material means, then the tower of evolution falls, and people are free to think for themselves again.

Bull#. God could have created the first life (which means the origin of life is Biogenesis instead of Abiogenesis) and life could have evolved from there. You are creating a false equivalency here.
edit on 6-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
So some people still believe that life came from nonliving matter all on it's own?

Some ole wives tales diehard.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You are confusing your beliefs in what being a Christian is with what every Christian believes as well as assuming your way of responding to said ideal is the same as every other individual that espouses Christian beliefs.

My best friend believes he can see ghosts and demons. He also claims he sees people age before his eyes into a state of decay. I have another friend that thinks he's a psychic vampire. I've had many friends and still do with many beliefs I find absurd and rediculous. My ex wife was Christian.

So you can stop pretending I am limited in ability to separate beliefs I find absurd from the worth of a whole individual. It is not a limitation people must have.

I will freely admit I find Christianity as a belief absurd. I however can do so while also having many christians I both love and respect. The teacher I have the most respect for in college was a devout Catholic and most of mu clients as an aide are Christian and it has no effect on my ability to care about their well being or care for them as individuals.

I have Christian family members whom I still love and am there for. So I would appreciate if you would stop confusing believing a concept is absurd with hate.

Oh and I'm a low paid home health aide that accepts the low pay because even if I get paid barely enougj to survive at least I get to feel I made someone's life a little better helping those in need when I go home. If I hated Christians and most of my clients are christians... actually all currently.. . I wouldn't have that feeling now would I?
edit on 9/6/2018 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Bull#. God could have created the first life (which means the origin of life is Biogenesis instead of Abiogenesis) and life could have evolved from there. You are creating a false equivalency here.


Correct. Addressing this logically though, as we would supposed this being that created the first life is very logical, why would it create the first life as a rudimentary lifeform? Wouldn't this capable Being instead create human beings? Wouldn't it make more sense that the initial act of creation of life from non-life, given that this Being has the capability of producing life, would be a complete act of creation, forming all necessary life, rather than just leaving a primordial archaeabacteria to forego random interactions to culminate a human?



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

The answer as to why it created the first life the way it did would be unknown. You'd have to ask god those questions. However, your questions don't make the possibility of it being true false, so you can't discount the possibility. Thus your argument that evolution's validity hangs on the validity of abiogensis still fails.
edit on 6-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
If you observe a squirrel crossing the street you do not also need to know which nest the squirrel was born in to know it crossed the street.

Abiogenesis would be a theory on which nest the squirrel came from which could be wrong while evolution is the squirrel crossing the street which unlike the nest we have observed.



posted on Sep, 6 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
If you observe a squirrel crossing the street you do not also need to know which nest the squirrel was born in to know it crossed the street.

Abiogenesis would be a theory on which nest the squirrel came from which could be wrong while evolution is the squirrel crossing the street which unlike the nest we have observed.


A better analogy would be that a rhinoceros was on the top of mount everest. Yeah sure it's easy to say it's there once it's there, but how it got there is the bigger question.



new topics




 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join