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: 13
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Ok. I'm apparently not making myself clear. I'm sure it's my fault.

By saying, 'Then how it relates to biogenesis' was referencing what I had stated previously when posting:


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.


Hope that helps. I was referencing my earlier statements. But you are absolutely correct. The clue, as you say, is most definitely in the name.

[The Law of] Biogenesis: Life from life.
Abiogenesis: Life from nonlife.

I was trying to point out the seemingly contradiction of theories relating to abiogenesis compared to the law of biogenesis.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I was trying to point out the seemingly contradiction of theories relating to abiogenesis compared to the law of biogenesis.


Well clearly. However I think that "[the law of]" biogenesis is fairly sound, but it begs the question "Whence comest life?" If the law is not wrong, there must be exceptions in special circumstances.

Although it's not exactly the same kind of fundamental law like Newton's laws of motion are.

Law of Biogenesis

Redi's and Pasteur's findings that life comes from life is sometimes called the law of biogenesis and asserts that modern organisms (there is the out) do not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life.

Orthogenesis

A second meaning of biogenesis was given by the French Jesuit priest, scientist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to mean the origin of life itself due to an inherent drive of matter towards higher consciousness, an extension of the orthogenesis hypothesis.


It's more of a concept based around modern life which is nothing like life when it started.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Welfhard, Ashley...

This is another thread, following evolutionary-themed threads that I am.....ermmm....following.

I'm not the clever 'Ape' that can do linkys....I can only bring a sense of rationality into a discussion/debate.

I've seen many, many pages that attempt to bring in this, or that....sometimes a really 'bollocks' argument, sometimes quite good....from BOTH sides.....

Point I have to make, and argue it out amongst yourselves is.....WE are here, now.

WE are here, discussing/debating.

WE are using a form of communication UNIMAGINABLE to people just 20 years ago....well, not 'unimaginable'.....but if we 're-set' to 30 years, that statement becomes correct.....except.....'unimaginable' covers a lot of ground.....let's change it to 'UNATAINABLE'

Works better!!!

20, 30.....heck, even 10 years ago, would you believe the technololgy
we currently have?

Didn't arrive through 'prayer' (sorry)....but because of science.

'faith'....don't lose it, if it comforts you.

I happen to find comfort in science....it is my choice.

I suppose, in a way, I am 'proselytizing', a bit....but, with a HUGE difference.

Reason....and rationality, versus....blind obedience to unverifiable.....'beliefs'.

Back to 'Abiogenisis'.....(heck the first chapter of the Bible is in the word!!! Should get some attention there?)

WHY is this a 'controversy'???? Again, I know, I know....'conspiracy site'....heard that! It's just, why so difficult to reaize that life erupts everywhere!?!?

Bottom of the oceans, lifeforms that would die immediately if exposed to oxygen! Why? AND, on our own Planet Earth??



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hey WW, I can't answer for the others on the thread. The reason I think it is a conspiracy is because Abiogenesis should be added to The Theory of Evolution and the only reason they won't add this field of study is because it would raise obvious questions (like when did Evolution take over? When did Abiogenesis occur? Was Abiogenesis evolution?) which are too hard to answer at this time.

I know, I know, I'm a real skeptic when it comes to Science. Must be the Creationist in me. hehe



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


"However, in colloquial terms, evolution is a fact. Just as gravity is a fact."

There is the chance I may have misunderstood you here, as a truly uneducated laymen.
Just to clarify and be sure what you are saying, do you believe the following…………
“Apples fall from trees due to gravity = the original simplest life form mutated itself into every form of living thing that has ever existed in the history of this planet, animal or vegetable or microbial etc., intelligent or otherwise, up to the present day” Do you consider these as equal colloquial facts?

Or are you talking about the theories used to explain the fact that apples fall from trees, such as due to the bending of space/ time, or how it can play a part in the formation of the universe, or how it might apply or not to quantum mechanics, or whether it is due to a particle or wave force, does it travel at the speed of light etc? Or perhaps what this force actually is, because no one seems to really know. Is it these you consider equal to evolutionary theory, in a colloquial way?

I am not a necessarily a disbeliever in the theory of evolution, just don’t see how it is a colloquial everyday fact like this. I tend to agree with it in principle but have never accepted it as a fact this way. I know many who haven’t accepted it as more than a scientific theory containing many facts. I agree evolution happens. In an overall sense of life on this planet it deserves a very high status as a theory.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Evolution is a fact, I agree, but it is an adaptation.

Without answers for Abiogenesis the whole Theory of Evolution falls apart.

Can anyone offer proof for Abiogenesis Scientifically? Without guessing, or placing faith that it "just happened"?

No.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evolution is a fact, I agree, but it is an adaptation.

Without answers for Abiogenesis the whole Theory of Evolution falls apart.

Can anyone offer proof for Abiogenesis Scientifically? Without guessing, or placing faith that it "just happened"?

No.


And the wagers begin. I'm sure I don't have to remind a person who believes in God that just because you aren't aware of the evidence, doesn't mean it didn't happen/doesn't exist.

Because we can't get evidence of the individual event (because it would have happened more than 3 bya and those cells are tiny) it becomes a statistical exercise. I can't prove that intelligent civilisations exist elsewhere in this universe, but going with the math (Isaac Asimov; Extraterrestrial Civilisations 1979), there is 350,000 extraterrestrial civilisations in this galaxy alone.

And as my understanding goes, life exists. Therefore the chances of abiogenesis occurring is 1.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
And as my understanding goes, life exists. Therefore the chances of abiogenesis occurring is 1.


I agree that Abiogenesis occured. What caused it is my question. My answer is just as good as yours, because neither of us can prove it either way.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Except that mines a naturalistic explanation whereby the mechanisms can be understood, that's why it's a theory rather than a hypothesis. That's why it's a theory rather than a faith.

Also science doesn't deal in 'proof', it deals in evidence. In science the closest thing to 'proof' you'll get, the highest level of reality you get is "Theory". Only maths can deal in proof.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

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


Except that mines a naturalistic explanation whereby the mechanisms can be understood, that's why it's a theory rather than a hypothesis. That's why it's a theory rather than a faith.

Also science doesn't deal in 'proof', it deals in evidence. In science the closest thing to 'proof' you'll get, the highest level of reality you get is "Theory". Only maths can deal in proof.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Welfhard]


The mechanisms of Abiogenesis can be understood? You better start holding lectures to explain these mechanisms to Science then. Because they can't.

I know what I believe is faith. I don't contest that. The whole "God" exists thing is faith based. I do realize this.

Theories may explain things that have been verifiably observed. It's this explanation that requires faith. Faith in the fact that it is the right explanation. That's all I was getting at.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
The mechanisms of Abiogenesis can be understood?


Abiogenesis in not like the matrix, it does not have to be seen to be believed, understood and theorised. The mechanisms are being studied in this relatively young sub-field of biology.



Description:

The video explains current ideas as to how life might have originated on Earth. The idea that inorganic mud can miraculously turn into cells is a claim made in the Bible and the Qu'ran, not science. What biologists are trying to do is understand how carbon-based chemicals combine to form nucleotides, the building blocks of replicating chemicals. The chemistry is complex, but it's starting to be understood, and it's not magical. Please also see The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis by cdk007 which gives an excellent description on the latest hypotheses about cell formation.

This one is quite good as well.



Description:

This has been CONFIRMED in Dr. Szostak's LAB!!

It's been 55 years since the Miller-Urey Experiment, and science has made enormous progress on solving the origin of life. This video summarizes one of the best leading models. Yes there are others. Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start. Don't be fooled by creationist arguments as even a minimal understanding of biology and chemistry is enough to realize they have no clue what they are talking about.

Note on how competition works. Water will flow across a membrane to try to equalize the ion concentration. If there is a lot of polymer in a vesicle it will be surrounded by many ions, thus causing water to flow into the vesicle, increasing the internal pressure and stretching the membrane. Fatty acids are in equilibrium between the vesicle and solution. If 2 vesicles are near one another they will gradually swap fatty acids. If one membrane is under tension, the fatty acid "on rate" will be greater than the "off rate" (move to a lower energy state by relaxing the pressure). It will suck up fatty acids from solution. The other vesicle will still give them off, but they will disappear (sucked up by neighbor) and not return. Therefore, the vesicle with high internal pressure will grow and the neighbor will shrink.

To download this video go to:
www....(nolink)/?yyd0eywkmhj

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
www....(nolink)/?jfijmimctnd

For more info check out:
www.exploringorigins.org...

Think about it.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Yes I am aware there are many theories about this. That doesn't mean it is understood though, because it isn't yet. There are no verifiable observations for origin of life. Lots of neat experiments in controlled environments, but still no life from non life.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


"Lots of neat experiments in controlled environments"

Yes, controlled environments replicating primordial conditions. Ways in which it could happen are known- as mentioned in the vids -given the time, resource, space and conditions, it only had to happen once. Theory.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

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


"Lots of neat experiments in controlled environments"

Yes, controlled environments replicating primordial conditions. Ways in which it could happen are known- as mentioned in the vids -given the time, resource, space and conditions, it only had to happen once. Theory.


Given the time, resource, space, and conditions a million monkeys could write a best seller



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


BAC, if you actually watched the videos, then you didn't quite get it yet.

Give me a 'controlled environment', to approximate theearly Earth's oceans, the proper chemicals and minerals, etc, and oh, say....a few million years....then come on back and we'll view the results.

It ain't gonna happen in a laboratory, in the course of a Human's lifetime, to satisfy you. (Unless you can dig up
Dr. Frankenstein)

Serious question for you, BAC. Say that microbial life, or even early primitive plant forms, such as algae and the like are verified to exist on Mars? Do you think you would pause to consider that a serious flaw in the strict 'creation' theory?

Another (probably not in my lifetime) potential place to discover ET life is on some of the icy moons of the gas giants in our Solar System. Europa comes to mind.....theorized (that pesky word again....maybe, hypothesized...) that under the ice, liquid water, because of thermal activity deeper down. Could....."could", I say...be very similar to already observed deep-sea extremophile lifeforms in our own oceans. Too deep for sunlight....the heat from the vents provide the energy. The FACT that organisms such as these exist on the Earth is very compelling to form the 'hypothesis' that it could occure elsewhere.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

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


BAC, if you actually watched the videos, then you didn't quite get it yet.

Give me a 'controlled environment', to approximate theearly Earth's oceans, the proper chemicals and minerals, etc, and oh, say....a few million years....then come on back and we'll view the results.

It ain't gonna happen in a laboratory, in the course of a Human's lifetime, to satisfy you. (Unless you can dig up
Dr. Frankenstein)

Serious question for you, BAC. Say that microbial life, or even early primitive plant forms, such as algae and the like are verified to exist on Mars? Do you think you would pause to consider that a serious flaw in the strict 'creation' theory?

Another (probably not in my lifetime) potential place to discover ET life is on some of the icy moons of the gas giants in our Solar System. Europa comes to mind.....theorized (that pesky word again....maybe, hypothesized...) that under the ice, liquid water, because of thermal activity deeper down. Could....."could", I say...be very similar to already observed deep-sea extremophile lifeforms in our own oceans. Too deep for sunlight....the heat from the vents provide the energy. The FACT that organisms such as these exist on the Earth is very compelling to form the 'hypothesis' that it could occure elsewhere.


Yes I did get it, I just didn't get it the way you want me to.


If there was EVER life confirmed on another planet I would be the first to post a thread here and say sorry to everyone for bothering them.

I am aware of Meteorite ALH84001 which is theorized to have come from Mars which had organic compounds in it. Again, this is only a "best" guess as they have no verifiable observations to support this guess. These compounds could even have entered the meteorite when it came crashing to earth or thereafter. It's all theory, who knows.

Sure if there is life out there, it is possible to find it. Have we? Nope.

So at this point it's all theory and conjecture.

BUT

Yes if life was found to have evolved on another planet and the verifiable observations were there, I'd have no choice but to admit I was wrong.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

This is another thread, following evolutionary-themed threads that I am.....ermmm....following.



you mean trolling. weed, and as usual, it is YOU who doesn't seem understand that Science and Religion are TWO different things to US too! It is you who can't separate the two whenever you are aware you are talking to someone who happens to be a Christian and also has an above average grasp of science, YOU invoke this asinine argument and you do it every thread I see you arguing in.



I'm not the clever 'Ape' that can do linkys....I can only bring a sense of rationality into a discussion/debate.


No I disagree, what you bring is the same typical sarcasm, the same prejudice and bigotry that assumes if someone doesn't believe in the fraud of evolution, if someone challenges it, you invariably assume he is a "fundie", a creationist. Now you would think someone knowing AshleyD as long as you have in as many debates regarding Science as she has participated in, you would think by now, you could make the distinction between Ashley the Religious person and Ashley the person with as much appreciation of Science as you have with a much deeper more robust understanding of Science than you will ever hope to establish as a reputation of yours and I don't care how much "logic and reason" or rationality you think you bring to the table, especially when you shoot yourself in the foot as soon as you invoke the Christian Mockery Method of mundane platitudes and pious postulates that insult NOT only our intelligence, but anychance that self puffery for rationality you keep pitching like some carnival guy.




I've seen many, many pages that attempt to bring in this, or that....sometimes a really 'bollocks' argument, sometimes quite good....from BOTH sides.....


Yeah and as i remember it, YOUR idea of science was DESTROYED by YEC's in that thread and they demolished the evolutionist's like nothing I had ever seen before on any thread before between these two opposing worldviews.




WE are using a form of communication UNIMAGINABLE to people just 20 years ago....well, not 'unimaginable'.....but if we 're-set' to 30 years, that statement becomes correct.....except.....'unimaginable' covers a lot of ground.....let's change it to 'UNATAINABLE'



Here it comes,,




20, 30.....heck, even 10 years ago, would you believe the technololgy
we currently have?


DuH Gee DuH,, WeeeD,, DuHHHH, We "Xtian Fundies" are still learnin to edumacate ourselfs in the funda mentalis of FAXING messagiz,,. We pray to Godf for the kind of nowledge YOU git when using a compewter.

Don't patronize people weed and think people Like AshleyD is all that impressed with things like email and instant messaging is not because she doesn't have the same appreciation for Science NOR does it mean she couldn't run circles around what you think you know about Science.

I pretty much got the jist of what you are about in the last thread you and the evolutionist's were humiliated in and yeah, I was whincing at how mad they got their theory handed back to em on a platter of piltdown ploys and pure science. www.abovetopsecret.com...'



(all that) didn't arrive through 'prayer' (sorry)....but because of science.


Here you go again weed,

Umm gee do YOU really think she believes the internet and things like Cell Phones came about by Prayer? Or is this just you trying to be a smart aleck again.

Tell us weed why you continue to use this tactic and then wonder why you don't get that reputation you trhink you have for rationality and reason.



'faith'....don't lose it, if it comforts you.


You ought to know weed, you have faith in Science and THAT comforts YOU. By the way, why is it Evolutionist's must always use that anecdotal crap to superimpose this image about the Faithful not having the capacity to understand Science by riding on the coat tails and acheivements of other REAL sciences as if Evolution is a part of al that.



I suppose, in a way, I am 'proselytizing', a bit....but, with a HUGE difference.Reason....and rationality, versus....blind obedience to unverifiable.....'beliefs'.


We have always said evolution is a religion but where do you get this idea that our faith is blind obediance and I know this has been explained to you ad-nauseum ad-infintum, yet you still claim to know what our faith is based on better than we do.

Where does one such as yourself aquire such powers to know what we are thinking,? Kreskin? Sylvia Brown? John Edward? Chuck Darwimp?

I would submit what I think is true, that you are not being presumptuous here, Nor are you psychic.

What you are, is an antagonist, using the same trolling tactics on AshleyD while mistaking her faith for stupidity, her kindness for weakness and her religion as Junk Science.

Your demenor and condescending witticisms have been noted and are taken in the manor you presented them,

Un-reasonable and irrational

as they usually are.





[edit on 11-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


You aught to look at this.
www.exploringorigins.org...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

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


You aught to look at this.
www.exploringorigins.org...


Would you like me to start showing you Bible verses? Didn't think so.

Even if they could create a living cell in a lab, could they give it enough DNA for EVERY species on earth to evolve from? Do you realize how much information this is? It's completely ludacris.

Now quit preaching, I'm not interested in theories I've already studied.



[edit on 11-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


The amount of information hasn't anything to do it. These protocells don't even start with DNA. It's clear you've no more that glossed across the research. Watch the videos I posted!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join