Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

Originally posted by melatonin
I know what you said to start with. And I had no issue with that. I replied by essentially saying when people rely on 'it happens by chance', leaving out the necessity, it gives a false impression. Then you responded with:

ok, but that’s not what I was doing.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, what gets me is the reliance on stating the naturalist category 'happens by chance'.

there’s no other way it happened unless there was intent.

My statement still holds true, it happened by chance and there is no other way it could have happened in a naturalistic universe. Because even if water boils at 100 by the laws of nature. If water is never given the chance to boil at 100 it never happens.

Originally posted by melatonin
Followed by several yes's about it just being chance for a number of well-determined natural phenomena.

i never said that. It should have been understood after my first post that every time I addressed the naturalistic universe I was acknowledging the laws of nature as being an integral part.

You were trying to add words like necessity and order, knowing all along that your terms were synonymous to what I had been saying in my first post. You were playing with semantics.

In a naturalistic universe, if a star blows up and produces Helium3, it happens by chance, and chance alone. It’s nearly a priori that the laws of nature are at work in this hypothetical situation. If you’re saying I had to say that every single time after I said it in my initial post, I don’t know what to say.

I suppose I should start every post with, “I exist, and I believe you exist, and if the world exists I believe it does, let’s have a discussion?”

Come on . . .

Originally posted by JPhish
They don’t have to happen, but they will under the right circumstances given enough time.

Originally posted by melatonin
Which essentially removes necessity.

No it doesn’t because it should be understood after my first post that I was acknowledging the laws of nature at work within every subsequent post to follow.

Some things do appear to have to happen under particular conditions. In the natural order of things it is a necessity that I die, it's natural, unless there is some surprising intervention - perhaps science, I'd depend on that more than miracles.

You don’t need to die, but it is inevitable that you will.

Similarly, if I take purified water down to -10'C at 1atm, it will form ice. It does have to happen, it is a determined feature of the molecules. Some molecules of water will be bouncing across states, but I essentially know I will get ice.

what do you mean if you take purified water??? Again at this point, you are simply a very complex biological machine capable of responding to a wide array of stimuli. You are the equivalent of an intricate rock. When I push a rock it moves, when I push you, there’s a little more involved. You essentially have no intent or free will because your actions are being dictated by the laws of nature. When you have a thought or take an action, it is nothing more than a glorified sneeze. You have no control. Therefore, by chance you take purified water down to -10’C at 1 am. Essentially, by chance the water solidifies according to the laws of nature. Or necessity as you say.

I don't need to play dice.

You don't play dice my friend, dice plays you.

[edit on 3/8/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
...

Ok, J. I'm sure that's the case.

So new meat...

You essentially have no intent or free will because your actions are being dictated by the laws of nature. When you have a thought or take an action, it is nothing more than a glorified sneeze. You have no control.

I do hope all my actions are determined by 'me' and external stimuli. The thought of my behaviour being uncaused and undetermined feels a bit weird - sort of beyond my control and will. I have control, it has been determined that it is so, because I am the sum of my biology and experiences. That is me. And that's the me that acts and decides. My subconscious drives and motivation are a part of me, and my conscious decisons are a part of me. My biology is a part of me, and my experiences are a part of me.

All that 'me' reacts to the external. I have a form of free will. It's not uncaused, though.

I guess we just have several posts of crossed wires. Fun and games.

Search me.

Do you haz gloves?

Originally posted by melatonin
I can agree that the unknown is 'up for grabs', but I don't hold out much hope for supernaturalism, lol. Has a very poor track record.

The track record of naturalism is not immaculate. According to naturalists everything is constantly evolving and changing along with their own consciousnesses and reasoning abilities, ergo if you are a naturalist you are caught in the paradox of belittling human logic through your own logic.

[edit on 3/8/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by melatonin
I do hope all my actions are determined by 'me' and external stimuli.

Naturalist philosophy does not leave room for that hope. There is no, “me”, you are simply a complex rock.

The thought of my behaviour being uncaused and undetermined feels a bit weird - sort of beyond my control and will. I have control, it has been determined that it is so, because I am the sum of my biology and experiences. That is me. And that's the me that acts and decides. My subconscious drives and motivation are a part of me, and my conscious decisons are a part of me. My biology is a part of me, and my experiences are a part of me.

Just because you are the sum of your biology and experiences does not mean that you have control.

All that 'me' reacts to the external. I have a form of free will. It's not uncaused, though.

free will is not a form, you either have it or you don’t.

[edit on 3/8/2009 by JPhish]

Two for the price of one!

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by melatonin
I can agree that the unknown is 'up for grabs', but I don't hold out much hope for supernaturalism, lol. Has a very poor track record.

The track record of naturalism is not immaculate. According to naturalists it is constantly evolving and changing along with their consciousness and reasoning abilities, ergo if you are a naturalist you are caught in the paradox of belittling human logic through your own logic.

I wouldn't ever say it was, it's a work in progress. I don't think it's belittling human reason, just accepting it is imperfect. We are stuck with puny senses, and technology is our way of expanding our horizons and reach. As technology develops, so does our understanding.

Standing on the shoulders of midgets giants.

Originally posted by JPhish

Naturalist philosophy does leave room for that hope. There is no, “me”, you are simply a complex rock.

Me is a complex 'rock'.

Just because you are the sum of your biology and experiences does not mean that you have control.

There's no other me to have control. I do have more control than an ant. I can represent potential futures and the past, weigh up costs and benefits, make decisions. Even decide to change my mind mid-action.

Even when my actions are purely driven by unconscious drives, that's still me - the complex rock, the sum of my biology and experiences.

All that 'me' reacts to the external. I have a form of free will. It's not uncaused, though.

free will is not a form, you either have it or you don’t.

In that case, I have it. It has been determined that I am the source of my actions and decisions. Me, a complex 'rock'.

ABE: just for future reference - I do prefer to think of myself of complex stardust.


[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I wouldn't ever say it was, it's a work in progress. I don't think it's belittling human reason, just accepting it is imperfect. We are stuck with puny senses, and technology is our way of expanding our horizons and reach. As technology develops, so does our understanding.

So your logic leads you to believe your logistic abilities are imperfect. That’s a paradox. You forfeit your own (possible) ability of having any insight at all.

Me is a complex 'rock'.

There's no other me to have control. I do have more control than an ant. I can represent potential futures and the past, weigh up costs and benefits, make decisions. Even decide to change my mind mid-action.

Like you admit, you are just a complex rock, albeit more complex than an ant.

A rock has no control, an ant has no control, and you have no control.

Absolutely none.

But in this hierarchy of physical objects starting with an inorganic rock and eventually going up to you, a complex biological entity. The only difference is, you respond to stimuli in a more complex way. The same way an ant responds to stimuli with greater variation than a rock does.

Even when my actions are purely driven by unconscious drives, that's still me - the complex rock, the sum of my biology and experiences.

Yes it’s “you” but you are nothing but a biological entity that responds to stimuli in greater variance than a rock does.

In that case, I have it. It has been determined that I am the source of my actions and decisions. Me, a complex 'rock'.

No, the source of your thoughts and actions are stimuli.

[edit on 3/8/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
So your logic leads you to believe your logistic abilities are imperfect. That’s a paradox. You forfeit your own (possible) ability of having any insight at all.

Nope, I have to work at making it as best as possible.

I don't forfeit anything. I accept my reason can be flawed and keep testing it against the world to make it as best as possible.

Like you admit, you are just a complex rock, albeit more complex than an ant.

A rock has no control, an ant has no control, and you have no control.

Absolutely none.

But I'm not a rock. I'm a complex rock. Complex rocks can have control. As I do.

But in this hierarchy of physical objects starting with an inorganic rock and eventually going up to you, a complex biological entity. The only difference is, you respond to stimulus in a more complex way. The same way an ant responds to stimulus in greater variation than a rock

OK. And my responses to external and internal stimuli are determined by me - biology and past experiences.

Yes it’s “you” but you are nothing but a biological entity that responds to stimuli with greater variance than a rock does.

Yup.

In that case, I have it. It has been determined that I am the source of my actions and decisions. Me, a complex 'rock'.

No the source of your thoughts and actions are stimuli.

And part of the stimuli are me. I'm part of the world. I'm stimulus for others.

In sum, I am my biology and experiences. When I was born, I was provided with the foundation of me. Since then, environment and biology has produced the current me, the one that exists in the moment, looks into the past and future.

All my decisions and actions are responses to stimuli, internal and external. But they are always sourced from me or through me. Even my very basic reflexes. When a doctor whacks my patella, I respond. Not a rock. Although it feels like I have no control, it was still my leg responding to the stimulus. In other situations, I feel the full control of my consciousness, as I sift through past experiences, future consequences and situations, and my current subjective state to determine my next action/decision.

ABE: for example, these experiences/stimuli I'm having now are potentially becoming part of me. Some will have no effect and be totally forgotten, others might stick and last helping to guide my future behaviour.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Nope, I have to work at making it as best as possible.

Nature is objective. You can break it down any way you’d like. Everything eventually is a reaction to something else. Believing that you have control is merely a reaction according to your philosophy. Control implies that you have the power to change something. But if you are merely reacting to stimuli, you are not changing anything, nature is going about at its’ own accord. As I said before, you don’t play dice, dice plays you.

Your logic leads you to believe your logistic abilities are imperfect. That’s a paradox.

“If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to believe my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
- Professor J. B. S. Haldane - (Possible Worlds, p. 209)

I don't forfeit anything. I accept my reason can be flawed and keep testing it against the world to make it as best as possible.

In order to test something you need to use your logic. Once again you fall back into the paradox.

But I'm not a rock. I'm a complex rock. Complex rocks can have control. As I do.

No they don’t, they merely react to stimuli in a more complex way. If you claim to have control you are acknowledging the supernatural; because control is something that exists outside of the natural system. If you can control the natural system the source of your control must be separate from the natural system.

OK. And my responses to external and internal stimuli are determined by me - biology and past experiences.

According to your theory, they’re not determined by you, they are determined by nature.

And part of the stimuli are me.

No, I’ve caught you in another paradox, if you claim to have control; you are acknowledging something exists outside of nature. If you don’t acknowledge that, then control is merely a by product of nature. Therefore your “control” is nature. Nature is controlling your control; therefore you have no control.

In sum, I am my biology and experiences. When I was born, I was provided with the foundation of me. Since then, environment and biology has produced the current me, the one that exists in the moment, looks into the past and future.

All my decisions and actions are responses to stimuli, internal and external. But they are always sourced from me or through me. Even my very basic reflexes. When a doctor whacks my patella, I respond. Not a rock. Although it feels like I have no control, it was still my leg responding to the stimulus.

Yes your leg responds to stimuli the same way a rock moves when I hit it. Your thoughts and actions do in the same fashion according to your theory. Anything you say think or do is a glorified knee jerk.

In other situations, I feel the full control of my consciousness, as I sift through past experiences, future consequences and situations, and my current subjective state to determine my next action/decision.

Just because you “feel” control doesn’t mean that you have it. You’re determining your thoughts by feeling which as we know is irrational to do. For a theory that claims to be so scientific with experiments and testing, your only source of evidence is now FEELING, not rationality.

You’ve been caught in a paradox with your logic.
You’ve been caught in a paradox with your control.
Now the sole basis of your theory is a FEELING. Which according to your philosophy is just a byproduct of nature.

[edit on 3/9/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
Nature is objective. You can break it down any way you’d like. Everything eventually is a reaction to something else. Believing that you have control is merely a reaction according to your philosophy. Control implies that you have the power to change something. But if you are merely reacting to stimuli, you are not changing anything, nature is going about at its’ own accord. As I said before, you don’t play dice, dice plays you.

I do have the power to change things. One of the stimuli reacting is me.

In nature are lots of stimuli, one of them is me. I don't see intent outside of the biological parts of nature. I have intentions, though.

Your logic leads you to believe your logistic abilities are imperfect. That’s a paradox.

“If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to believe my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
- Professor J. B. S. Haldane - (Possible Worlds, p. 209)

I hope my 'beliefs' are true. I test them against the world, if they appear to be wrong, I discard and change/alter.

In order to test something you need to use your logic. Once again you fall back into the paradox.

What paradox? That I'm a puny complex collection of stardust and am limited in my abilities and could be wrong? Oh well.

I have never said I was perfect.

No they don’t, they merely react to stimuli in a more complex way. If you claim to have control you are acknowledging the supernatural; because control is something that exists outside of the natural system. If you can control the natural system the source of your control must be separate from the natural system.

Nope, no supernatural. All natural. I am part of the natural system.

Why is control outside of the natural system? That's a non-sequitur. I am saying I have control and am inside of nature. Again, the control is from me. I am the sum of my biology and experiences. All these words are being typed under my control, they come straight from me to you - I have sat and thought, pulled up past experiences, contemplated, and formed new stimuli to send to you. I did respond to your words as a stimulus - you words became part of me, and the response is mine and was under my control.

You can define 'control' as outside of nature if you want. But I don't agree. I see no reason for it. In fact, knowing that your logic and reason is as infallible as mine, perhaps you are wrong, but I am right.

According to your theory, they’re not determined by you, they are determined by nature.

And I am a part of nature. The 'me' is a part of nature. It is determined by my nature, lol. And my nature is a result of blah blah...

No, I’ve caught you in another paradox, if you claim to have control; you are acknowledging something exists outside of nature. If you don’t acknowledge that, then control is merely a by product of nature. Therefore your “control” is nature. Nature is controlling your control, therefore you have no control.

Nope, because I am a part of nature. I'm not all of nature, just a complex collection of a proportion of stardust with its own experiences and biology. In fact, I am unique. No-one has had all my experiences, no one has my biology. I respond unlike any other stimuli in the universe.

And I would apply the same to you.

Yes your leg responds to stimulus the same way a rock moves when I hit it. Your thoughts and actions do in the same fashion according to your theory. Anything you say think or do is a glorified sneeze.

Okie doke. But a rock doesn't sort through options. I do. All the options are the result of past experiences and biology, of course. All caused.

Just because you “feel” control doesn’t mean that you have it. You’re determining your thoughts by feeling which as we know is irrational to do. For a theory that claims to be so scientific with experiments and testing, your only source of evidence is now FEELING, not rationality.

True, but even if you want to say the control is an illusion, like my leg the actions are still all mine (All mine I tell you!!! lol). I take ownership of even my unconscious drives. I might argue about responsibility, though.

I don't think I just determine all my thoughts by feeling. I'm a sort of information processor with emotional influences - an embodied complex collection of stardust. I'm not pure rationality, no-one is. I sometimes try to enhance my potential for reason as much as possible. But I also know that to lose the feeling/emotion part of my nature would make me a even less perfect complex collection of stardust.

You’ve been caught in a paradox with your logic.
You’ve been caught in a paradox with your control.
Now the sole basis of your theory is a FEELING. Which according to your theory is just a byproduct of nature.

If you say so. The only paradox would be if I said my logic was perfect and I must be correct, when I never said it was. I see no paradox about the control issue, as the 'me' who has control and will is my biology and past experiences, it is a part of nature - I don't accept that control is necessarily outside of nature.

The whole of me is a [by]product of nature, lol. All my experiences and biology are a part of nature. But they are not nature.

If you really want to think that invoking random non-deterministic influences gives you some sort of control and will (perhaps zoomed in from some outer dimension), by all means, use your imperfect reasoning to think that. That would be truly controlled by dice

Perhaps your free will will induce you to sing your national anthem in response to my post, lol.

ABE: I used my control in an effort to change something in nature, my emission of stimuli are intended to produce a response from another complex collection of stardust (see that's a nicer term), lol.

Rocks need not respond!

ABE: I used futher control to edit my typo in my last controlled edit. I contemplated leaving it till tomorrow, but I decided to do it now. Probably because my biology appears to drive a pursuit of perfection - a sometimes irritating part of my nature, as I know I can never achieve it. So I weighed up an internal drive against my tiredness (ABE3: another internal drive - see bleedin' perfectionist - night!).

Now I will further control myself and find slumber. I will inhibit all possibility of further responses tonight.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by B.A.C.


Good thread. For quite a while now it has felt like listening to a broken record when, once addressed with the question of the origin of life, to automatically hear 'Oh, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.'

Hm. Like you said, even Darwin speculated on abiogenesis in his book, although to no great length, to be fair.

Anyways, [naturalistic] abiogenesis in itself seems to be a direct conflict of the law of biogenesis. Essentially, life can only come from life.

This is the opposite of what was believed in antiquity and even semi-modern history, spontaneous generation.

Creationists and proponents of some form of intelligent design are allowed faith. However, science is afforded no such luxury. Reminds me of that song.

Oh, ho, ho. It's magic. You know.

It may be true that evolutionary theory and abiogenesis are not technically connected but it doesn't take a Harvard graduate to realize there are questions for evolution arising from the issues with abiogenesis.

If the law of biogenesis is accurate, then I believe there is some hardcore explaining to be done.

Hope this post makes sense. It's 1 A.M. for me.

reply to post by AshleyD


Oh, Ashley!!

Good to see you again.

Two linkys you provide, to Wiki. Other references on Wiki contradict the first one....and as to the second one....did you read it in its entireity?

Of course, if a proponent of spontaneously occuring organic matter, through strict chemical reactions, wishes to linky to Wiki, it is immedieately poo-pooed by the 'devout'.

How about a compromise?

There simply IS NO conspiracy, as suggested in the thread title.

Just believe "God Did It" about 4 billion years ago, then went on to do other hobbies (maybe model trains) and checks back on the work in his "lab" every few billion years.

OR, alternatively, "God Did It" about 14 billion years ago, in the 'creation' of the Universe, as we perceive it.

Either way, there should never be any imposed 'censorship' of scientific study, just because it might ruffle feathers.

Heavier-than-air manned flight is impossible!!! THAT was 'known' just a few hundred years ago. Well, I spent 35+ years flying, so to say I did the 'impossible' would be an understatement......

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey, WW! Don't frequent this forum much anymore. It's dark, cold, and scary!

Very true- I don't believe in referencing Wiki for evidence but it can't be beat for ease of use when it comes to simply offering definitions of things (which is what I used it for above).

Anyways, I do not believe in stifling scientific experiments either. Within reason that is- don't get me started on the LHC. Not sure what that had to do with my above post, though. Absolutely- experiment away.

OK, so after a controlled movement down to sleep, motivated by my own internal causes, I feel somewhat refreshed.

A summary and clarification is in order.

At this point, J. has tried to induce two paradoxes - neither of which hold.

1. It seems to be a paradox due to holding a belief as sort of true or something. The paradox is because I have admitted my rational abilities are not perfect, lol. Firstly, no paradox, because I never said that my rationality must necessarily lead to truisms. Secondly, no paradox because even if my reasoning abilities are not perfect, it still doesn't mean they can't lead to truisms. 2 + 2 = 4, wow! We know our ability to reason is less than perfect, for example, there is a tendency for promiscuous teleology and perceiving intention where none exists, we let emotions colour our decisions - sometimes adaptive, sometimes not. It's something we have to fight against - we can aim for rationality.

2. Another paradox was attempted to be invoked because, essentially, J. decided to define control/will as supernatural. No real reason, just because he says so.

No, I’ve caught you in another paradox, if you claim to have control; you are acknowledging something exists outside of nature. If you don’t acknowledge that, then control is merely a by product of nature.

Sorry, no. The control and will is a part of nature. I am a part of nature. I am the captain of my ship at varying levels and that ability to control the SS Mel was determined by my biology, which is also natural.

One feeble naturalist's perception of free will

Supernatural

Firstly, lets sort this supernatural jazz out. There is absolutely no evidence of supernatural jazz. None. Nada. The more science moves on, the more supernaturalism retreats into the shadows. If we make a scorecard...

Supernaturalism: 0
methodological naturalism: 7562394909291

Supernaturalism might give people hope, serve emotional and social needs, but it has provided little to no real insight about nature or anything beyond (certainly nothing that required such positions).

As noted, my reasoning abilities are limited, but any good reasoner will use evidence to determine their positions. No evidence of supernatural, no reason to believe it to be true. Believing otherwise could be viewed as irrational. I might be wrong, hey-ho. When the reliable evidence is presented, I'll accept it on its merits and move on - I'm not holding my breath, lol, I have better control than that.

Natural

My biology is natural. My phenotype is a product of genetics and environment. The genetics appears totally natural, no ghosts or ghoulies. The environment appears natural, no ghosts or ghoulies pulling my strings. All my experiences can be explained by natural events, no need to invoke supernatural causes or influences.

So, where does the ghost many think about come from - ze brain, the seat of our will and control, and also our sense of self. However, yet again, no need to invoke the supernatural - unless you muddily and rather desparately define stuff we don't fully understand as supernatural - like J. tried to do earlier.

But neuroscience and psychology shows no evidence of Descartes' ghost in the machine, just neurons doing the cerebral jig. Brain causes mind, nothing shows it be wrong, and evidence suggests it is true. Again, my feeble brain and our limited science might be wrong - hey-ho, rational contemplation suggests I take the evidence available and make a fair assessment - no ghost. As evidence collects, I keep updating.

If the brain causes mind, then:

1- Brain states will correlate to mental and behavioral states.

2- Brain maturity will correlate with mental and emotional maturity.

3- Changing the brain’s function (with drugs, electrical or magnetic stimulation, or other methods) will change mental function.

4- Damaging the brain with damage the mind - producing specific deficits that correlate to the area of the brain damaged.

5- There will be no documentable mental phenomena in the absence of brain function.

6- When the brain dies, mental function ends.

www.theness.com...

All predictions that have been so far verified.

So, no evidence of supernatural in the machine, no evidence of supernatural outside of the machine, predictions verified for brain causes mind - a fair tentative inference that there are no ghosts lurking. I might be wrong, hey-ho.

...............
A way off the journey of SS Mel

At this juncture, if you believe that free will is a result of supernatural causes, then you appear buggered in my opinion. Oh well. If we take the current knowledge to be indicative, either there is no such thing as 'free will' or your conception of 'free will' is incorrect. If you want to pull supernatural free will out of fresh air, cool, but there is no reason or evidential support to do so. That could be considered irrational and just what J. doesn't like...

You’re determining your thoughts by feeling which as we know is irrational to do.

But we do have this feeling of control, no? I sense my willing of behaviour, I'm sure you sense yours. Either it is an illusion or it is real. If it is an illusion, oh well. But I'm going to be optimistic. We can haz free wills.

...............

A form of free will - the one that I wants, ooh, ooh, ooh

I actually swing between there being no free will and there being a 'form' (oh noes, a bad word apparently) of free will. Lately I've been playing with the notion of free will being consistent with determinism - I don't care if it exists that much either way, tbh, I can handle both. If you think that the brain is a black box, and that decisions are produced out if thin air with no material/causal antecedents, you should have stayed in the supernatural section earlier - no supports for that, sorry.

The buck doesn't stop here. I have varying level of control and will. Like when the quack stimulated my reflexes earlier - I had no real control, it was my movement. But I'll give responsibility to the quack. A direct S-R - I was really out of the loop.

Other of my actions are highly willed. They appear to be based on prior causes, some innate biological, some experiences (all appear natural, as noted earlier), and I survey each and make a decision. But again, the brain and my actions are not created from fresh air, they did have antecedents - some might even be considered rather random - caused, but uncorrelated to my needs (a firing of neurons here and there).

It's just an intuition that the buck-stops-here, that your decisions or neural representations are pulled from fresh air. We can even see your decisions being made in action in imagers, we have patients with lesions who make decisions they feel they have little control over - they'll perform the action, after telling you it was the wrong action, tell you again, and do it again - they have lost inhibitory control, their impulses drive through their will, like a hot knife through butter. All the result of real material lesions of a material brain, which produces your sense of mind. A quick survey of the neurology and neuropsychology literature will find you lots of exotic and strange conditions due to material effects on the brain (try 'phantoms in the brain', by Rama).

To invoke nondeterministic influences (e.g., quantum magic) is just wacky and suggests an even lesser form of free will - what? You mean your will just poofs out of nowhere with no correlation to the stimuli around you, lol. That's not very adaptive, and also has no support. Perhaps like J., you'll sing the national anthem in response to this post.

So, what is free will in my opinion. Just a result of particularly your frontal lobe but also other areas of the brain. The ability to represent past and future, to sift through represented options, make decisions and act. To act in some rational way, rather than being the simple and direct S-R - you are in the loop. To be an active agent with intentions. All caused and founded in prior events and biology, reacting to internal and external stimuli/drives.

That is what you are, in my feeble opinion, a result of your biology and experiences, an intentional natural agent with a active will. If you want to convince me that free will doesn't exist, fine, I can live with that and have done.

And if in some future, some evil doctor places a neural chip in my brain and uses me for nefarious means, then I'll probably lose that ability and hope people hold him responsible for my actions. Until then, I'll be the captain of SS Mel.

However...



Avast!

[edit on 9-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by AshleyD
It may be true that evolutionary theory and abiogenesis are not technically connected but it doesn't take a Harvard graduate to realize there are questions for evolution arising from the issues with abiogenesis.

If the law of biogenesis is accurate, then I believe there is some hardcore explaining to be done.

Thanks I'm glad you like the thread!

Yes, there is either explaining to be done, or learning to be done. One or the other.

Good points.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You're right, there may or may not be a conspiracy. I have to have a conspiracy theory to post this thread here. I gave one. Is it true? You decide.

I like the discussion about Abiogenesis from an Evolutionist vs Creationist/ID viewpoint. Conspiracy? who knows....

Originally posted by JPhish
So your logic leads you to believe your logistic abilities are imperfect. That’s a paradox. You forfeit your own (possible) ability of having any insight at all.

It's not a paradox, it's a fact.
We are far from perfect.
I can imagine a humanity which takes things at face value and doesn't allow emotions to interfere with truth. We have evolved to survive - not to know the wonders of our universe. There are many flaws in humanity...

Originally posted by JPhish
Like you admit, you are just a complex rock, albeit more complex than an ant.

A rock has no control, an ant has no control, and you have no control.

Absolutely none.

That I can agree with.
Everything in our universe is cause/reaction. We can't escape that but we like to imagine that we can.

reply to post by AshleyD

once addressed with the question of the origin of life, to automatically hear 'Oh, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.'

Perhaps becuz it doesn't. Evolution explains the diversity of life, abiogenesis explains the origin of life.

Anyways, [naturalistic] abiogenesis in itself seems to be a direct conflict of the law of biogenesis. Essentially, life can only come from life.

Modern forms of life come from modern forms of life, although not everything is technically alive. A virus isn't technically alive as it only fulfils one of the requirements for life; movement (MRSGREN).

It's a similar story for the simple cells produced in abiogenesis, not technically alive, at least not for a long time. The first simple cells would fulfil movement, growth, reproduction, and nutrition. It would be a long time before sense, respiration and excretion arose to have the complete package.

Living biological organisms do not spontaneously generate any more that planets do, there is a long drawn-out process.

Originally posted by Welfhard
A virus isn't technically alive as it only fulfils one of the requirements for life; movement (MRSGREN).

I love the hypothesis that cell nucleus has viral origins.


edit. en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 9-3-2009 by iWork4NWO]

Originally posted by Welfhard
Perhaps becuz it doesn't. Evolution explains the diversity of life, abiogenesis explains the origin of life.

Yes, thank you. I am aware of that. I felt I was pretty clear getting it across that I understand that.

What I'm saying is, as an example, all too often I've seen a real stumper of a question posed to evolutionists but somewhere mingled in with a ten paragraph article, someone mentions one or two sentences concerning abiogenesis.

Instead of remotely addressing the pertinent critiques, the evolutionists only hammer home the point 'Abiogensis is not a part of evolutionary theory, you moron!' And for some reason feel they rebutted the entire argument because they nitpicked that one fact out of someone's arguments.

Now that we've resolved that, the main point was not 'is abiogenesis a part of evolutionary theory' (technically it is not, as I already mentioned), but that it is still a very important subject to discuss because, of course, in order to get the diversity of life, it is a very natural question to ask, 'How did life start at step one to eventually start the process and result in such diversity?' Then how it relates to biogenesis.

That was my main point. As for whatever conspiracy theory and side discussions are taking place in this thread, I am not quite sure what everyone is talking about. I never read past the original post.

Thanks for your post, though.

[edit on 3/9/2009 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

Then how it relates to biogenesis.

Surely the clue is in the name.

Theism/Atheism
Biogenesis/Abiogenesis

I'm imaging that this is no coincidence, perhaps alluding to the gradual formation of life.