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 Origin Of Life Conspiracy

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Beyond current knowledge, rather than nature I would think.

What?



Technically yes, but I’m basing it on human knowledge, not actual knowledge, only after those natural means are discovered would they become natural. Since we are not aware of them at the moment, I’d say they are supernatural.


You just attempted to define something as supernatural (beyond nature) by taking stuff we don't understand (beyond current knowledge) as supernatural, when in fact it could well just be natural.

For example, we don't really understand abiogenesis at this point. If it is natural, by your defintion, it would therefore be supernatural as we don't understand it. If it was supernatural it would therefore be supernatural. And so at this point abiogenesis is supernatural in all cases, lol. God of the gaps by semantics? Perhaps that's a foundational problem with such thinking - supernatural by default, when the answer is actually 'don't know'.

It's a pretty useless definition. Use it by all means, but I think I'll go with the clearer 'technical' defintion.

Semantics is pretty tedious. A potentially copious lulz harvest, but not helpful.


I don’t think anyone is a 100% believer in anything Mel, I don’t believe it's human nature to be such a way. But most will not acknowledge possibilities because they’re trying to convince themselves of a particular thing being true.


Perhaps, but if you ask them, you get a different response.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Perhaps, but if you ask them, you get a different response.


As should be expected. And of course it's always their opponents that is doing it by their claims.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
According to metaphysical naturalism - chance and necessity.

According to intelligent design creationism, creationism etc - chance, necessity, and design.

So when you say just chance, you are leaving out necessity by design

So to correctly represent the argument from metaphysical naturalism, it is chance and necessity. And, of course, no teleology. It is undirected by the miraculous pantheon. It does serve a purpose, though, to label evolution and wider naturalism as being based on just chance. The misrepresentation sounds rather silly and ridiculous doesn't it? Who could readily accept the rather deterministic and ordered nature we see around us as just happening by chance alone.

Cheers.


You're starting to sound like me


I agree, we have to be clear in which context we are viewing things or using words.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
You're starting to sound like me


I agree, we have to be clear in which context we are viewing things or using words.


Jeez, I hope not. I wanted to leave the cyanide for a few years yet.

This is in no way comparable to your semantic difficulties in understanding that words can mean different things in different contexts. Although, I do see similarities in that both ignoring necessity in naturalism and false claims about '90% of scientists and evolutionists' could be conceived as deceptive. Suppose it would depend on whether it was sourced from ignorance or design.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


So you know first hand the stance of every scientist on this subject? Or do you, like him, have a source who provides the contrary information with the assumption that it is correct?
Not attacking you but attempting to make a point.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
You're starting to sound like me


I agree, we have to be clear in which context we are viewing things or using words.


Jeez, I hope not. I wanted to leave the cyanide for a few years yet.

This is in no way comparable to your semantic difficulties in understanding that words can mean different things in different contexts. Although, I do see similarities in that both ignoring necessity in naturalism and false claims about '90% of scientists and evolutionists' could be conceived as deceptive. Suppose it would depend on whether it was sourced from ignorance or design.




What if I said all Ignorance is part of a Design?

I call God, Abiogenesis in a certain context. I have no problem with context. The same way you speak of Evolution and Theory of Evolution as both theory and fact. When we are of 2 opposite beliefs, it's good to put everything in it's proper context. Then the argument becomes fruitful, because we can understand each other.

Do you agree?

[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by melatonin
 


So you know first hand the stance of every scientist on this subject? Or do you, like him, have a source who provides the contrary information with the assumption that it is correct?
Not attacking you but attempting to make a point.


Attack if you want, not as if I care, lol.

Don't really get your point in the context of the post you link to. The stance of every scientist on what? The assumption that what is correct? What was the point?

If you are simply asking if I speak for all scientists, well, no. Others can speak well enough for themselves. All I asked him to do was support a claim he made in another thread, and the response was to dance a two-bit semantic jig for several pages.

ABE: and now, for some reason, he thinks I'll give him the pleasure again...

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What if I said all Ignorance is part of a Design?


You say lots of things and make up your own terms. So, yeah, no surprises.


I call God, Abiogenesis in a certain context. I have no problem with context. The same way you speak of Evolution and Theory of Evolution as both theory and fact. When we are of 2 opposite beliefs, it's good to put everything in it's proper context. Then the argument becomes fruitful, because we can understand each other.

Do you agree?


You can call MC Hammer 'god' for all I care.

Again with the silly semantics. It's rather simple.


The same way you speak of Evolution and Theory of Evolution as both theory and fact.


The general claim is that evolution can be seen as both theory and fact.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


So you can cross out "The Theory of Evolution" completely out of the equation of Evolution? No need for that nasty theory.

Ok, lets go with that, lets talk about Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Can we talk about that? Or is this off bounds?

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is basically a Theory. It was created to bring together the many different fields of biology. Why did they need this Synthesis? Because there was poor communication and confusion amongst the different fields. The facts were difficult to reconcile with gradual Evolution and Natural Selection.

This has been a problem for awhile (communication). I didn't invent it. The semantic game is necessary.



[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by melatonin
 


So you can cross out "The Theory of Evolution" completely out of the equation of Evolution? No need for that nasty theory.


Nope, just correcting your inane attempt to play semantic games for the umpteenth time.


Ok, lets go with that, lets talk about Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Can we talk about that? Or is this off bounds?


You can talk about whatever you like. Whether I bother answering to your tripe is another question. Perhaps you might surprise me.

ABE:

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is basically a Theory. It was created to bring together the many different fields of biology. Why did they need this Synthesis? Because there was poor communication and confusion amongst the different fields. The facts were difficult to reconcile with gradual Evolution and Natural Selection.


Yes, well done. You read wiki.

What I would suggest next is to buy a good book. I would suggest the more layman's Zimmer books on evolution, or perhaps Shubin's recent book. Good starting points.


This has been a problem for awhile (communication). I didn't invent it. The semantic game is necessary.


No, your semantic game wasn't. It was inane and rather pathetic. Good for a laugh, though.


[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thanks, I have many books on Evolution. I have many books on The Theory of Evolution as well.

Wiki? I didn't have to wiki that, come on now.

Are you still arguing about Evolution? I thought we moved past that.

Anyway, no proof that Abiogenesis isn't God. No proof of Abiogenesis in the Scientific sense at all. Only confirms we must have a Creator. Abiogenesis is God.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Anyway, no proof that Abiogenesis isn't God. No proof of Abiogenesis in the Scientific sense at all. Only confirms we must have a Creator. Abiogenesis is God.


That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam. No surprises.

Probably a result of flawed design...

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Anyway, no proof that Abiogenesis isn't God. No proof of Abiogenesis in the Scientific sense at all. Only confirms we must have a Creator. Abiogenesis is God.


Nah, it only confirms that life jumped here from another Universe. I call this the "puff theory".



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Double bleedin post.

ABE: Lets use the space...


Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Nah, it only confirms that life jumped here from another Universe. I call this the "puff theory".


I thought it was excreted from the anus of boss nac mac feegle?

Science doesn't say otherwise, must be true...

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam. No surprises.

Probably a result of flawed design...

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]


Ok, insult if you must. I won't reply to you anymore. No problem. We'll never get anywhere obviously.

You don't want to discuss, you want to attack, Gotcha.

We agree to disagree, that's for sure. Yay we agreed on something


Again, I won't bother you anymore.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by iWork4NWO
Nah, it only confirms that life jumped here from another Universe. I call this the "puff theory".


Same thing with you. If your only responses are insults it just demonstrates your intelligence.

So elaborate on this puff theory. I'd like you to explain it better.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Not an insult. That's what that type of argument is called. Perhaps we should rename/redefine it just for you, wouldn't want to confuse you too much with all those wyrd words.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Not an insult. That's what that type of argument is called. Perhaps we should rename/redefine it just for you, wouldn't want to confuse you too much with all those wyrd words.





I've been right all along. You've been the one arguing semantics. You moved on to context when my argument about semantics was successful. I was technically right. You should have just admitted that and we could have moved on and discussed context. Then we could have moved on, period. You created all the arguing, not me.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I've been right all along. You've been the one arguing semantics. You moved on to context when my argument about semantics was successful. I was technically right. You should have just admitted that and we could have moved on and discussed context. Then we could have moved on, period. You created all the arguing, not me.


lolwut?

You make an argument from ignorance, and that shows I'm arguing semantics.

Lovely.

I actually think your BS designed the 'arguing'. Certainly wasn't chance, and it definitely wasn't necessary.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
What is a gene?

I'm curious if anyone can answer this question. Anti - Creationists or Creationists alike.



plato.stanford.edu...
There has never been a generally accepted definition of the “gene” in genetics. There exist several, different accounts of the historical development and diversification of the gene concept as well. Today, along with the completion of the human genome sequence and the beginning of what has been called the era of postgenomics, genetics is again experiencing a time of conceptual change, voices even being raised to abandon the concept of the gene altogether.


I've always thought of a "Gene" as fact. Guess I was wrong. This is weird.



[edit on 8-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join