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: 14
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


macchi.....careful, you are coming dangerously close to getting too personal.

'Trolling' you say?!

Since when is against T&C to have an opinion, on a thread. YOU certainly have yours, and YOU post often....is that 'trolling' too?

Out of 13 pages, I have 19 posts. the OP has about 80....

I would expect the OP to welcome a discussion.....however, when posts are broken apart sentence-by-sentence, it seems (my opinion) that the particular person in dissent is just trying too hard.

It's like how amino acids sever nucleotide bonds, and chemical reactions occur, and an entirely different meaning evolves.

Or, when peptides give me an ulcer....which may be starting right now....

I happen to favor rational thinking....if you want to view it another way, even if you favor 'creation', then god gave you that brain to use rationally.

Nevermind........

I think this thread has served a purpose....to show how emotions creep in and rationality sometimes gets squeezed out.

Could some deity have been responsible for what we refer to as 'abiogenisis'??? Well, in a Universe large enough and diverse enough that, as I think the OP said, millions of monkeys on millions of typewriters, given infinite Universes and infinite time (my addition) might write a novel.

(actually that is SUCH an old analogy, I'm embarrassed to have brought it up...)

Because, monkeys randomly hitting keys.....just not the same as the well-defined and specific ways that molecular bonds are formed, and broken....through chemistry.

Back to the top....it's time to circle 'round....There is still a lot of science to be accomplished. How life started? The 'chemical' hypothesis is plausible, but there are competing ideas....INCLUDING Divine intervention, if you'd like. If you wish to confine yourself to only one interpretation, then it is self-limiting.

I simply rank religious explanations well lower on the scale of possiblities.




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


[rant]
Hey now...don't bring me into this argument. I have 80 posts because I like to reply to people that quote me or refer to me.

Yes, I want discussion. Not people insulting each other because of beliefs either way (Creationist or Evolutionist).

If everyone stuck to the discussion and didn't even MENTION ones personal belief, I think that would be a lot better.
[/rant]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I do have the power to change things. One of the stimuli reacting is me.

Does an ant have the power to change things or is it simply a biological piece within a deterministic natural system?


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.
but you still insist that you have the power to change things. You act according to nature. Nothing more, nothing less.


What paradox? That I'm a puny complex collection of stardust and am limited in my abilities and could be wrong? Oh well.
You see right there. If your logic is flawed and leads you to believe that you are a “puny collection of stardust”; you have no reason to believe that you are so.


I have never said I was perfect.

I’m not saying that you should consider yourself perfect. I’m saying that if our consciousnesses are constantly evolving than that means no one on this planet is capable of any true insight and they never will be. Only by chance will they ever stumble upon a truth and even then, they might not realize it.

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
-Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)


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

That renders you with no control over nature.


Why is control outside of the natural system?

Control must be “outside” the natural system because the natural system dictates everything within a naturalist universe.


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.

But YOU are not in control. Nature is dictating your every move. That is like saying that a rock is in control when it responds to gravity the way it should.


You can define 'control' as outside of nature if you want.

Real control would have to be. I hate to sound like Morpheus here; but what you believe you have is the illusion of control.


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.

Right and wrong? Are you saying there are such things in a naturalist universe?


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...

Yes, it’s blah blah blah, because the same as with your logic, you are caught in a paradoxical situation.


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.

Being unique does not mean that you are in control.


And I would apply the same to you.
if my only grounds for believing I have control are that no one else has the same fingerprint as me, I’m in trouble.


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.

But whatever is “chosen” by “you” is dictated by nature and only nature. You are nothing but a biological entity within a natural system. Just because your reactions to stimuli are more complex than those of a rock does not mean that you have control. Unlike a rock, water is much more dynamic in nature when responding to stimuli. Does that mean that water has more control or any at all?? The answer is no.


Originally posted by JPhish
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.



Originally posted by melatonin
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’m not saying it’s an illusion; you’re the one saying it.


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 don’t determine anything. Nature does. Any action or thought you perform is because 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.

It isn’t so because I say it, I say it because it is so. If you are not even going to attempt to rebut any of my claims, am I to understand that you are in denial at this point?



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.
That is another paradox . . .


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
I never claimed to have control. You did.


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.

I don’t see why it’s hard for you to see that your control is dictated 100% by nature. Hence, you have no real control.


Rocks need not respond!

That’s the way nature works.


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.


“If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash.”-bruce lee

BUT WATER HAS NO CONTROL.

[edit on 3/11/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
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.
they both hold, which is why you resorted to “if you say so”.


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.
you have no reason to believe that 2+2=4 based on your own philosophy.


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.
I explained it. You were unable to rebuke it.


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.

You still have not exhibited that you have control. You’re a ventriloquist doll and the ventriloquist is nature.


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...
I never said there was such thing as supernaturalism I said it is the other option. But if you claim to have control, then there must be something supernatural. If you and your consciousness are only within the natural system you can not have control.


Supernaturalism: 0
methodological naturalism: 7562394909291

It seems that hypocrisy is not without a sense of irony.


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.
I’ve proven that there must be something supernatural because your entire belief system is built upon a feeling.


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 long as you also believe that you have no control.


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.
I never defined things that we don’t understand as supernatural. We’ve already discussed that I was merely expressing my opinion on where I would place those things within my hypothetical vendiagram.


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. .

Thank you for bringing up decartes . . . because it reveals yet another paradox in your philosophy.
Descartes said, “I think therefore I am.”
You say, “I am therefore I think” The proof does not work.


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...
I’m not pulling anything out of thin air. I’m using logic. I’ve shown; count it, THREE paradoxes in your belief system. All of which lead to only two possibilities. You have no control, or there is something supernatural. “You can’t have your cake and eat it to.”


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.

Again . . . you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You have no control, or there is something supernatural.

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.
Why would I believe that the brain is a black box?



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.
never said that either. Perhaps if you’d actually address the things I have said reasonably you wouldn’t have to have these imaginary conversations with yourself . . .



Perhaps like J., you'll sing the national anthem in response to this post.
second time you’ve said that and I still have no idea what you’re talking about.



So, what is free will in my opinion. . . .

Your opinion of free will is not what free will is. Free will denotes that you have control. You have absolutely non within naturalism.

Good radio head song.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
So now that I’ve addressed your posts, which more or less were filibusteresque because you never really addressed my points . . .

Here they are again, in a post aimed towards minimalism . . .

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

You claim to have control over nature, but by your own principles your control is merely a by product of nature. Therefore nature is controlling your control; it’s another paradox.

The only logical thing that you can say as a naturalist is that you have absolutely no control, merely the illusion of it.

Descartes said, “I think therefore I am.”
You say, “I am therefore I think”

The proof does not work because it is, yet again, paradoxical.

And Bruce, again . . .

“If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash.”-bruce lee

BUT WATER HAS NO CONTROL.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:34 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.



You keep trying to link abiogenesis with evolution.
It doesn't work that way.
It's like linking the big bang with abiogenesis.
The thing is, abiogenesis isn't even needed for evolution.
Some believe that life always existed in some form, and abiogenesis is not needed.
Or, maybe God created life and then evolution took over
.
You can't link the two because they are separate studies.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

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.



You keep trying to link abiogenesis with evolution.
It doesn't work that way.
It's like linking the big bang with abiogenesis.
The thing is, abiogenesis isn't even needed for evolution.
Some believe that life always existed in some form, and abiogenesis is not needed.
Or, maybe God created life and then evolution took over
.
You can't link the two because they are separate studies.


I'm responding to someones questions.

You need the first cell for Evolution to start taking place don't you? Without that first cell there is nothing for macro-evolution (fiction) to take place on. Explain how this isn't related? Why? Because Science says so, so they don't have to admit there is a complete "unknown". Also, once we DO get the answers for Abiogenesis, then we'll have to start answering more questions about the big bang.

Yes!!! I do believe God created living things and let Evolution take over. I've only said it a million times. I BELIEVE in the FACT of EVOLUTION. Do you even read my posts or just critique them?

You keep trying to link Creationism with Evolution. They aren't related, right?

Doublespeak.


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



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Why do you keep doing this?
No one is 'bashing' anyone else...
We're trying to have an intelligent discussion not a mudslinging fest.
The creationists didn't 'pwnzord' the evolutionist nor did the evolutionists "panzoozored' the creationists.
That's not how you learn...
If you make this into a football game, you'll always be cheering for your team instead of the truth - regardless of what side of the fence it lies on.


 




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


My logic tells me that if my logic was perfect than I would know it.
I don't know it so my logic must not be perfect.
"not perfect" doesn't mean "not accurate" - my logic could very well be accurate most of the time, but it certainly isn't perfect.
There's no paradox, it's just a belief which most hold that their logistic abilities are not perfect.
An imperfect system can be accurate about the fact that it's imperfect.
The word you are looking for is ironic.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
You need the first cell for Evolution to start taking place don't you? Without that first cell there is nothing for macro-evolution (fiction) to take place on. Explain how this isn't related? Why? Because Science says so, so they don't have to admit there is a complete "unknown". Also, once we DO get the answers for Abiogenesis, then we'll have to start answering more questions about the big bang.


Of course it's all connected as one big time-line, what I'm saying is that the lack of evidence we have for abiogenesis in no way effects the evidence we do have for the Theory of Evolution.
You're trying to attack the Theory of Evolution by using abiogenesis when the Theory of Evolution does not need abiogenesis, only life.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yes!!! I do believe God created living things and let Evolution take over. I've only said it a million times. I BELIEVE in the FACT of EVOLUTION. Do you even read my posts or just critique them?


So then you linking the Theory of Evolution to abiogenesis would be the same as me linking the Theory of Evolution to God?


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Without answers for Abiogenesis the whole Theory of Evolution falls apart.


Me: Without answers for God the whole Theory of Evolution falls apart.


Don't you see how silly that is?

Clearly life exists from SOME SOURCE.
So the FACT that life exists is all that is needed for the Theory of Evolution - not the details. We don't need to know exactly how life originated to know that species evolved to be what they are today - so it does not 'fall apart'.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then calling us crazy for not doing the same. They are two separate studies.

I'll say it again: Abiogenesis is not needed for the Theory of Evolution to be accurate.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
You keep trying to link Creationism with Evolution. They aren't related, right?


Not really. I said that they could both be true, without one effecting the other.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Of course it's all connected as one big time-line, what I'm saying is that the lack of evidence we have for abiogenesis in no way effects the evidence we do have for the Theory of Evolution.
You're trying to attack the Theory of Evolution by using abiogenesis when the Theory of Evolution does not need abiogenesis, only life.


I agree. I'm not trying to attack anything. You admit that "life" is an unknown. There are parts of the Theory of Evolution that are unknown as well, yet they are cited as fact. ie; macro-evolution



So then you linking the Theory of Evolution to abiogenesis would be the same as me linking the Theory of Evolution to God?


IMO yes. I call Abiogenesis God.



Me: Without answers for God the whole Theory of Evolution falls apart.


Again I agree.




Clearly life exists from SOME SOURCE.
So the FACT that life exists is all that is needed for the Theory of Evolution - not the details. We don't need to know exactly how life originated to know that species evolved to be what they are today - so it does not 'fall apart'.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and then calling us crazy for not doing the same. They are two separate studies.


I know that Science considers them 2 different studies. There are MANY different unrelated studies used to validate the Theory, why not one to invalidate? How do you know species evolved to be what they are today? You don't. It's neither verifiable or observable. We've never witnessed a NEW species evolve from an old one. That's theory, not fact. Unless you want to talk about mutant fruit flies that do WORSE in their native environment, that are still nevertheless the same species.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
You keep trying to link Creationism with Evolution. They aren't related, right?




Not really. I said that they could both be true, without one effecting the other.


I agree with this as well.


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



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Why do you keep doing this?
No one is 'bashing' anyone else...
We're trying to have an intelligent discussion not a mudslinging fest.
The creationists didn't 'pwnzord' the evolutionist nor did the evolutionists "panzoozored' the creationists.
That's not how you learn...
If you make this into a football game, you'll always be cheering for your team instead of the truth - regardless of what side of the fence it lies on.


 




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


My logic tells me that if my logic was perfect than I would know it.
I don't know it so my logic must not be perfect.
"not perfect" doesn't mean "not accurate" - my logic could very well be accurate most of the time, but it certainly isn't perfect.
There's no paradox, it's just a belief which most hold that their logistic abilities are not perfect.
An imperfect system can be accurate about the fact that it's imperfect.
The word you are looking for is ironic.


Ill only respond to you where it pertains to what you have asked me personally. First of all who is "We"? Last I checked that includes those you often do not agree with including me.

Secondly, I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to someone your self righteous indignation would be more appropriately aimed for doing just what you accuse ME of.

Third, and finally, when you learn to learn, then and only then, will I take any "advice" on how to learn from you, until then, you haven't learned a thing yet.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Ill only respond to you where it pertains to what you have asked me personally. First of all who is "We"? Last I checked that includes those you often do not agree with including me.

Secondly, I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to someone your self righteous indignation would be more appropriately aimed for doing just what you accuse ME of.

Third, and finally, when you learn to learn, then and only then, will I take any "advice" on how to learn from you, until then, you haven't learned a thing yet.


See, you're doing it again.
All I'm saying is put your pom-poms away and don't make this into something personal.
I have seen several threads that are going just fine until you come in and rile everyone up, and make it into a "evolutionists - bad , creationists -good" thing.
Just discuss the arguments, not the people - that's all I'm asking.
No need to call me stupid or incapable of learning your truths.
Just stop the mudslinging - for your sake as well as everyone else's...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
they both hold, which is why you resorted to “if you say so”.


I usually say that when I start to accept there's little point responding to another complex collection of stardust. It's a shortened expression of 'I think we'll have to agree to disagree' because you think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong.

Oh well.


Originally posted by JPhish
So now that I’ve addressed your posts, which more or less were filibusteresque because you never really addressed my points . . .

Here they are again, in a post aimed towards minimalism . . .


Cool, appreciate it. I'm pretty busy.


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


The evidence leads me to that position.

I said that my reasoning abilities were imperfect, that is the evidence. It is pretty clear. So are yours. I'd be more worried if my 'logic leads me to believe my logicistic abilities are' perfect


My reasoning abilities do not necessarily lead to truisms, thus all my knowledge and positions are tentative and feature a degree of uncertainty. However, my reasoning abilties are sufficient to lead to truisms (2+2 = 4). So the 'no real insight' is a naff suggestion, we have a fallible insight. If you mean by 'real' that it must be perfect, then, yeah, you appear to have a rather inane point.

So where is the paradox? If I said my reasoning abilities necessarily lead me to the truth, but they are imperfect and can be wrong, then I could see it. It is well-supported by evidence that human reasoning abilities are imperfect. I'm just accepting the evidence.

Plantinga sucks.


You claim to have control over nature, but by your own principles your control is merely a by product of nature. Therefore nature is controlling your control; it’s another paradox.


No, I have some control over an aspect of nature - my actions and thoughts etc. Which can then lead to further external and internal responses. I can pick up a rock and throw it, I can determine its direction and speed to a degree. The process would involve me representing the outcome I would like to achieve, planning the action, and executing.

Try asking that of some dorsolateral PFC patients.


The only logical thing that you can say as a naturalist is that you have absolutely no control, merely the illusion of it.

Descartes said, “I think therefore I am.”
You say, “I am therefore I think”


I'd probably say something like 'I think because it was determined for it to be so', lol.


The proof does not work because it is, yet again, paradoxical.

“If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash.”-bruce lee

BUT WATER HAS NO CONTROL.


Cool. When water is able to represent future and past, represent options and plan and direct its behaviour as an active adaptive agent, then I'll label it so.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

See, you're doing it again.
All I'm saying is put your pom-poms away and don't make this into something personal.
I have seen several threads that are going just fine until you come in and rile everyone up, and make it into a "evolutionists - bad , creationists -good" thing.
Just discuss the arguments, not the people - that's all I'm asking.
No need to call me stupid or incapable of learning your truths.
Just stop the mudslinging - for your sake as well as everyone else's...


NO YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN! If you are going to lie and say I called you stupid then by all means ALERT THE MODS! Otherwise copy paste the exact quote or quit LYING!

If you hadn't NOTICED, I spoke My peace to weed for doing the pom pom act, a phrase I COINED on these boards Long ago to Melatonin if he remembers. So I know very well what it is and do you know how you can tell I know??

Because I never responded to weed again!

THAT's HOW!

Now GET OFF MY NECK!



[edit on 11-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


I'm trying to be polite and respectful.
Why can't you do the same?



Originally posted by Aermacchi
If you are going to lie and say I called you stupid then by all means ALERT THE MODS! Otherwise copy paste the exact quote or quit LYING!



Originally posted by Aermacchi
Third, and finally, when you learn to learn, then and only then, will I take any "advice" on how to learn from you, until then, you haven't learned a thing yet.


Saying that I 'haven't learned a thing yet' and that I'm not even capable of learning is essentially calling me stupid.

Call it what you want, I took it as an insult, as all of your posts have sly insults embedded in them.

I'm tired of fighting. That's all I'm saying.

You can't even agree with that...

I can see the future... You're going to try to bait me into another arguement when all I'm doing is saying that I don't want this thread to turn into a mudslinging-fest as I've seen the other threads you've participated in become - I'm sure Mel can remember that as well...

So I will not reply to your next post, and I'm sure there will be many caps and sly insults involved.

 



reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I'm just pointing out that your statement:

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

is false.

Abiogenesis is not needed for the Theory of Evolution.

What if life has always existed in some form or another?
How then would abiogenesis have any part in TOE if that is true?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
What if life has always existed in some form or another?
How then would abiogenesis have any part in TOE if that is true?


Good question, the only problem is that Evolutionary Theory doesn't say that life has always existed. It say's we all have a common (one) ancestor.

Remember, I am talking about Evolutionary Theory, and the theory states thus:


en.wikipedia.org...
The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms evolved. It stretches back over 3,000 million years ago, possibly as far as 3,800 million years ago , and there is evidence that evolution continues, even in humans. All present-day organisms use the same large set of complex chemical reactions, which indicates that all modern organisms share a common ancestor.


I know it's a wiki source, but you won't find a better description anywhere else.

This states that according to Evolutionary Theory there is an Origin Of Life (common ancestor) dating back to possibly 3,800 million years ago. A common ancestor doesn't exist if life alway's existed. That would go against the theory.

I am arguing The Theory, not philosophy, neither of us "know" where life originated. Or even if it always existed. That's a philosophical debate, that will make our heads sore.


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



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Even so, would the "whole Theory of Evolution falls apart", if they were wrong about one small detail?

The whole theory doesn't fall apart if there are minor flaws - I don't know of anyone who says the TOE is perfect.

What I'm saying is that the TOE is not reliant on abiogenesis - existent or nonexistent, because it's something else entirely.
Abiogenesis may have occurred several ways, or it may not have, but the evidence or lack thereof does not affect the evidence we do have for TOE.

When a person is born, over the next few years they grow until they become an adult. This process of maturity is a fact.
If we didn't know how a person was born, it wouldn't change the fact that a person matures.
You're saying that the whole process of maturity 'falls apart' just because we don't yet know exactly how a person is born.
That makes no sense...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

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


Even so, would the "whole Theory of Evolution falls apart", if they were wrong about one small detail?

The whole theory doesn't fall apart if there are minor flaws - I don't know of anyone who says the TOE is perfect.

What I'm saying is that the TOE is not reliant on abiogenesis - existent or nonexistent, because it's something else entirely.
Abiogenesis may have occurred several ways, or it may not have, but the evidence or lack thereof does not affect the evidence we do have for TOE.

When a person is born, over the next few years they grow until they become an adult. This process of maturity is a fact.
If we didn't know how a person was born, it wouldn't change the fact that a person matures.
You're saying that the whole process of maturity 'falls apart' just because we don't yet know exactly how a person is born.
That makes no sense...


Yes I believe the Theory would fall apart. The common ancestor is what the whole theory is based on. Ourselves and every species are supposed to have evolved from this common ancestor. So no common ancestor, means no starting point for evolution to take place. This is no "minor" flaw.


Can't have maturity without the starting point of the embryo.


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



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

I'm trying to be polite and respectful.


No you are NOT, and i don't care HOW you sugar coat it pal, you saw me talkling to weeb about mocking the faith AshleyD has as if she was invoking some religious argument when she wasn't!

I said my peace about that to weed and weed disagreed just as I expected he would because weed is NEVER wrong regardless of the fact he couldn't cite any examples of Ashley doing this. I could have posted that too BUT I DIDN'T! I could have went on a rant and started doing all this you are inciting and accusing me off BUT I DIDN'T DID I??


Nope!

I never said another word after that untill YOU came in here and started attacking me with this crap.



Saying that I 'haven't learned a thing yet' and that I'm not even capable of learning is essentially calling me stupid.


Oh you just don't know me very well then do you! Just ask around or ask mel, what I would post if i wanted to call someone stupid, ask them if I would have any problem saying it just like it is spelled.

When I said you haven't learned a thing yet, it is this VERY argument I am having with you and in that very context that you still don't get it that YOU are just what you accuse me of when up until your post, I had only posted twice. One agreeing with mel on animals and emotions and the other to weed. Where you are getting this other "stuff" I can only speculate and what makes you want to bring up old posts you allege I have done things you didn't like has NOTHING to do with this one got it now?




Call it what you want, I took it as an insult, as all of your posts have sly insults embedded in them.


In spite of you begging to be insulted so your whining of being a victim is justified, I cannot explain to you what you willfully desire to remain ignorant about. If you want to interpret the context of my response to your telling me how to learn as stupid, be my guest but I cannot give you that kind of inferiority complex without your consent!

Remember IT was YOU suggesting I didn't know how to learn FIRST! but did I take offense to that crying about being called stupid??

NOPE

So I suggest before you go spotting the speck in my eye, you take the log out of your own.




I'm tired of fighting. That's all I'm saying.

You can't even agree with that...

I can see the future... You're going to try to bait me into another arguement when all I'm doing is saying that I don't want this thread to turn into a mudslinging-fest as I've seen the other threads you've participated in become - I'm sure Mel can remember that as well...

So I will not reply to your next post, and I'm sure there will be many caps and sly insults involved.




You're tired of arguing?? HA HA HA Gee why didn't you consider that before you engaged me to bring you to this state of tiredness. You not replying to me again as you said is a good thing if you really were in fact tired of arguing and was the reason why after ONE post arguing with weed I QUIT RESPONDING TO HIS!

I don't just talk about avoiding trolls, I put em on my ignore list without saying a word and is what I have been trying to tell you since you first posted to me. You see THAT is the REAL way to avoid this kind of thing and the lesson YOU need to learn. Had I gone back and fourth with weed he would have reacted in kind and I know it and THAT is why your accusation pissed me off because I NEVER SAID ANOTHER WORD to HIM AGAIN! So it isn't Good enough for you to accuse me wrongly of calling you stupid when I didn't and while it may seem to some that is an appropriate title when one trys so hard to earn it, NOW you say I don't even have the right to get angry about it ??

HA HA HA


You owe me an apology is what I think and if you really don't want to argue do what I do, and as you "say" you'll do in your last reply.

If you don't keep your word Ill put you on my ignore list along with weed as well.

I encourage you to do the same with me,

just incase you're wondering



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yes I believe the Theory would fall apart. The common ancestor is what the whole theory is based on. Ourselves and every species are supposed to have evolved from this common ancestor. So no common ancestor, means no starting point for evolution to take place. This is no "minor" flaw.


By 'minor flaw' I was talking about the idea that abiogenesis may not have been the process by which life exists.
TOE does not try to explain how life came into existence, simply how we evolved.
How life came into existence is a completely separate matter, because we know that it did happen, by one means or another.

If we found out that God created life from non-life, it would not affect the theory that animals evolve into other species.
If we found out that life has always existed in some form, it would not affect the theory that animals evolve into other species.
If we found out that pink unicorns crapped out simple cells, it would not affect the theory that animals evolve into other species.

Can't you see that it's a completely separate issue?



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Can't have maturity without the starting point of the embryo.


I never said that. I don't think you understand the point I was making.
The maturity of the baby into an adult would be a fact regardless of how it came to be. Just like TOE.
It doesn't matter if a stork delivered the baby, it's a fact that it matured.
It doesn't matter if God zapped the baby into existence, it's a fact that it matured.

The theory of evolution is what it is regardless of abiogenesis.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join