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: 15
6
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


I know the Theory doesn't want anything to do with Origin of Life. They have no answers for that. They just have "faith" that life started somehow.

The common ancestor is part of the theory. Whether they like to talk about the common ancestor or not, it is a part of the theory.

I didn't put the "common ancestor" idea into the theory. Scientists did.

I just think that the "common ancestor" idea logically relates to Abiogenesis.

You disagree?

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




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

Originally posted by B.A.C.
The common ancestor is part of the theory. Whether they like to talk about the common ancestor or not, it is a part of the theory.


That's the start of the theory, not part of it (as in it doesn't claim to know how that 'common ancestor' came to be).
But it doesn't matter by what means it exists - it doesn't affect evolution and natural selection.

For continental drift to take place, there must be an Earth right?
Just because we don't know exactly how our Earth came to be, does the whole idea of continental drift fall apart?
That's exactly what you're saying...



Originally posted by B.A.C.
I didn't put the "common ancestor" idea into the theory. Scientists did.

I just think that the "common ancestor" idea logically relates to Abiogenesis.

You disagree?


I don't agree or disagree, but I do disagree with you saying that the whole TOE falls apart just because we can't at this point in time know exactly how the 'common ancestor' came to be.
The whole theory doesn't fall apart.
Natural Selection is still an accepted explanation by which animals evolve over time - and I guarantee you that no matter what we may find out about abiogenesis in the future, that will not change.
The Theory of Evolution would not 'fall apart' if we found out that simple life has always existed in the cosmos - think about it...

In fact, by your logic, the Theory of Evolution should already be in ruins, just because we can't answer specifics about abiogenesis.
So let me ask you. Is that the case?
Or is the Theory of Evolution still alive and well regardless?



Originally posted by B.A.C.
They just have "faith" that life started somehow.


It's not "faith" at all.
It's a verifiable fact.
Do we exist?
Then faith is not needed, because Scientists know that every reaction has a cause.
It doesn't take "faith" to know that there's a cause, it would instead take faith to believe there isn't a cause.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by TruthParadox]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Is The Theory of Evolution alive and well? The latest one is


Evolutionary Theory v1.0
Darwinian Evolution - It was built on the notion that climate, diet, and exercise cause inheritable changes that are filtered by natural selection, resulting in a gradual progression from one species to another.

Proven incorrect by the field of Genetics

Evolutionary Theory v2.0
Modern Synthesis - It featured the radical new idea that random mutations (not climate, diet, and exercise) cause inheritable changes that are filtered by natural selection.
Inconsistent with the fossil record.
Evolutionary Theory v2.1
Added to Modern Synthesis - "Hopeful Monster is the colloquial term used in evolutionary biology to describe an event of instantaneous-speciation, saltation, or systemic mutation, which contributes positively to the production of new major evolutionary groups. The memorable phrase was coined by the German born geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958), who believed that small gradual changes could not bridge a hypothetical divide between microevolution and macroevolution."
en.wikipedia.org...

Evolutionary Theory v3.0
Post - Modern synthesis - is our current theory. Is it right this time? Who knows....according to Science it is, until they change it again.

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



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


That in itself is evidence that the theory is alive and well!
I don't worry that there have been changes made, on the contrary I would be worried if there were no changes made. If that was the case, I would take it as another religion, being to stubborn to change ideas based on increasing data.
This is what science is.
It's a good thing, and in many ways opposite of how religion works.

You can come up with one idea and stick with it and hope you are right, or you can come up with one idea, then receive new data and change the initial theory, thus increasing your odds of being right.

It baffles me how some think this is a bad thing.
It's what science is.

The more we learn, the more we know, the more we learn.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

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


That in itself is evidence that the theory is alive and well!
I don't worry that there have been changes made, on the contrary I would be worried if there were no changes made. If that was the case, I would take it as another religion, being to stubborn to change ideas based on increasing data.
This is what science is.
It's a good thing, and in many ways opposite of how religion works.

You can come up with one idea and stick with it and hope you are right, or you can come up with one idea, then receive new data and change the initial theory, thus increasing your odds of being right.

It baffles me how some think this is a bad thing.
It's what science is.

The more we learn, the more we know, the more we learn.


When did I say it's a bad thing? Although good theories stand the test of time, some do need to be replaced with updated theories.

Just don't tell me the Theory is a fact. That's a bad thing.

Anyway, we seem to have gotten sidetracked. Any thoughts on Abiogenesis?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Just don't tell me the Theory is a fact. That's a bad thing.


I agree. It's not a fact.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Anyway, we seem to have gotten sidetracked. Any thoughts on Abiogenesis?


Just that it is separated from TOE in that one may be true while the other may not.
And that there is no conspiracy
.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Just that it is separated from TOE in that one may be true while the other may not.
And that there is no conspiracy
.


I have no problem with that. Although that is the Realm of Opinion.

We've both shown how our views are relevant. They are just different.

That's what debate is all about.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Post - Modern synthesis - is our current theory. Is it right this time? Who knows....according to Science it is, until they change it again.


When they change it, it's not going to be a major shift but a minor refinement as we learn more about the process. Today, because of ongoing research in all fields of biology, tToE is constantly being updated. More gaps are being filled in.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Post - Modern synthesis - is our current theory. Is it right this time? Who knows....according to Science it is, until they change it again.


When they change it, it's not going to be a major shift but a minor refinement as we learn more about the process. Today, because of ongoing research in all fields of biology, tToE is constantly being updated. More gaps are being filled in.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Welfhard]


The last 2 times they changed it, it was major. You have a lot of faith in this theory. History shows you shouldn't have as much as you have.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

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.


paradox is the exact word i'm looking for. The situation contradicts itself.

Logic is used to conclude that logic is flawed
If logic is flawed then it is unreasonable to believe the conclusion is correct because it was arrived at through the use of logic itself.

It's a paradox.

The only thing ironic here is your name.

[edit on 3/11/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
The last 2 times they changed it, it was major. You have a lot of faith in this theory. History shows you shouldn't have as much as you have.


It was major as huge holes in the ideas were filled in, there are no gaping holes any more.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
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.

Little point? I’d hope that if anything you’d hope to enlighten a fellow collection of star dust. Isn’t the pursuit of truth more important than being right or wrong?


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.



Originally posted by melatonin
The evidence leads me to that position.

You obtain that evidence through logic; hence the paradox.


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
again, you are using logic to analyze the evidence . . . If perfection were such a thing, it wouldn’t be a paradox if you claimed to have perfect logic. It’s the way it works.


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.
I’m not alluding to the possibility of perfection; I say “no real insight” because any and all truths you might stumble upon, you do so by chance.


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.
the paradox still holds because you arrive at the evidence through logic.


Plantinga sucks.
My exposition is more akin to C.S. Lewis. I’m not familiar with Plantinga.


Originally posted by JPhishYou 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.



Originally posted by melatoninNo, 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.
a greater capacity to respond to various stimuli is not proof of control Mel. “You”, meaning your biological entity within the naturalist universe is manipulating things, but “you” are only doing this as an affect to a cause. Nature is dictating everything. A rock has no more control than an ant, a bee, a cat a dog, an ape or a human. Just varying degrees of versatility.


Originally posted by JPhish
Descartes said, “I think therefore I am.”
You say, “I am therefore I think”



Originally posted by melatonin
I'd probably say something like 'I think because it was determined for it to be so', lol.
but the proof does not work because your consciousness is the precursor. Before any digression can take place, you must begin with “you think”. It is a priori. Edited: Your proof of existence is not that of naturalism if you are beginning with "i think".



Originally posted by JPhish
“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.



Originally posted by melatonin
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.
Then you’ll label what so? Much more than half of “your” body is water. It is a LARGE part of what you claim is “you”. It operates within your system the same way that you flow within natures system. We can normally understand what causes water to act the way it does because it is simple in comparison to a human body. But, if your philosophy is correct. Everything you do, like water, is instigated by a cause. The act of thinking itself is prompted and decided by such causes. Cause and effect.

[edit on 3/12/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
You obtain that evidence through logic; hence the paradox.


Through empiricism and reason.

Jeez, dude, we have lots of evidence that human reasoning is open to errors. Again, it does not mean it is always so. We're great at some things, and not so good at others. The ability also varies between people and over age etc.


again, you are using logic to analyze the evidence . . . If perfection were such a thing, it wouldn’t be a paradox if you claimed to have perfect logic. It’s the way it works.


lol

Logic is great fun, until we actually test the premises/assumptions. And the evidence is what tests the real-world validity of logical arguments. I could put together the most ridiculous logical arguments.


I’m not alluding to the possibility of perfection; I say “no real insight” because any and all truths you might stumble upon, you do so by chance.


No, I might do so by testing them against the real-world.

Again, just because I accept that human reason is not perfect, does not mean there is no ability for optimal human reasoning. It's like saying 'humans are not always perfect at maths, and therefore the mathematical proofs that humans produce are stumbled on by chance'. Silly.


the paradox still holds because you arrive at the evidence through logic.


Yawn. I arrived at the evidence by empiricism and reason. Again, just because logic and reason is not always perfect, does not mean it can't be so.

It does not necessarily lead to truisms, but it is sufficient to do so.

If I said, 'it is true that human reason is always erroneous' - that would be a paradox. Because I would have used reason to make a claim of truth whilst stating reason is always wrong.


My exposition is more akin to C.S. Lewis. I’m not familiar with Plantinga.


Plantinga is one of the latest to use such arguments from reason. They are pretty tedious.


a greater capacity to respond to various stimuli is not proof of control Mel. “You”, meaning your biological entity within the naturalist universe is manipulating things, but “you” are only doing this as an affect to a cause. Nature is dictating everything. A rock has no more control than an ant, a bee, a cat a dog, an ape or a human. Just varying degrees of versatility.


I'll leave this for now, must sleep.


but the proof does not work because your consciousness is the precursor. Before any digression can take place, you must begin with “you think”. It is a priori.


It was a joke-like thing.


Then you’ll label what so? Much more than half of “your” body is water. It is a LARGE part of what you claim is “you”. It operates within your system the same way that you flow within natures system. We can normally understand what causes water to act the way it does because it is simple in comparison to a human body. But, if your philosophy is correct. Everything you do, like water, is instigated by a cause. The act of thinking itself is prompted and decided by such causes. Cause and effect.


It is. But I am not just water. I thought we'd come to the conclusion that I was a complex rock or stardust. I guess I'm a complex wet rock, then.

Perhaps more like complex mud? Complex mud agent will answer the outstanding bit manana.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by JPhish
You obtain that evidence through logic; hence the paradox.


Through empiricism and reason.

I’m sorry but doesn’t Reason = Logic?


Originally posted by melatonin
Jeez, dude, we have lots of evidence that human reasoning is open to errors. Again, it does not mean it is always so. We're great at some things, and not so good at others. The ability also varies between people and over age etc.

I’m not saying that is not the case.


Logic is great fun, until we actually test the premises/assumptions. And the evidence is what tests the real-world validity of logical arguments. I could put together the most ridiculous logical arguments.
You can’t build a house without a base.


No, I might do so by testing them against the real-world.

Again, just because I accept that human reason is not perfect, does not mean there is no ability for optimal human reasoning. It's like saying 'humans are not always perfect at maths, and therefore the mathematical proofs that humans produce are stumbled on by chance'. Silly.
yes that is silly. I never said that though.


Yawn. I arrived at the evidence by empiricism and reason. Again, just because logic and reason is not always perfect, does not mean it can't be so.

Reason = Logic


It does not necessarily lead to truisms, but it is sufficient to do so.

Possibly


If I said, 'it is true that human reason is always erroneous' - that would be a paradox. Because I would have used reason to make a claim of truth whilst stating reason is always wrong.
true


Originally posted by JPhish
Logic is used to conclude that logic is flawed
If logic is flawed then it is unreasonable to believe the conclusion is correct because it was arrived at through the use of logic itself.
that is all I am saying.


Originally posted by melatonin
I'll leave this for now, must sleep.

Tempting :-)


It was a joke-like thing.

Sorry, wasn’t sure. I get trigger happy.

[edit on 3/12/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   
How, how is it possible to explain to closed minds???

trying to be simple. Facts are observed to be reapeatable.

A 'fact' is not a theory, it is not an hypothesis....it isn't really a 'fact' until it has been repeated enough to ascertain that there is no variation.

There are hundreds of examples of facts....in fact (smile) you use certain 'facts' in every day life, even if you don't realize it.

"Facts", accumulated within a certain discipline, can cause one to form an hypothesis....think of Pythagorus and Euripedes....well, Pythagorus was more of the mathematical bent, whilst Euripedes, at least in lore, had that certain 'Eureka' moment, as to the displacement of water, and how solids displace....etc, etc.

I know....third Grade science, but gotta start somewhere!!!

As to the concept of 'abiogenisis'....with all due respect, I just don't see any conspiracy here!

Life started somehow...lest we wouldn't be arguing behind computer screens about the topic!

From the various posts, including some compelling videos, I would imagine that life would prosper all over the Globe, in the early times....and need not be the same in all locations.

Please consider how adaptive 'life' is, just here on the one planet we know.

Life adapts to the depths of the sea, to the highest mountains....places where Humans would perish instantly.

WHY is that???

I certainly cannot explain, and I WILL not accept a simplistic answer such as 'Noah'....to explain millions of species that currently reside on Earth.

The science of Geology, of Plate Tectonics....etc....cannot simply be tossed aside as some sort of 'delusion'.

There was an article in the Washington Post, today, about field trips from the 'Liberty University'....founded by the late Jerry Falwell,... that descrbed how the students are brought to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History by a 'guide'....a person who is actually called a 'professor'....to show the students how the "Young Earth" theory is real and true.

A young mind is a terrible thing to waste.....to coin a phrase....



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
I’m sorry but doesn’t Reason = Logic?


I think it goes a bit further, it would include it. Logic is a particular method/form of reasoning. If you want to make it a synonym, you can. But the evidence stays the same.



Jeez, dude, we have lots of evidence that human reasoning is open to errors. Again, it does not mean it is always so. We're great at some things, and not so good at others. The ability also varies between people and over age etc.

I’m not saying that is not the case.


Cool. The evidence suggests it is the case.

It's fairly well established that reasoning abilities are not some sort of consistently perfect trait that applies in all instances. For example, the Wason task shows that we can have difficulity with logic in particular abstract forms, but if we make more concrete, then we can perform better (probably because we didn't evolve to solve abstract 'if P, then Q'). We have other evidence that emotions can readily infuse into our logical reasoning:


Reasoning about emotional and neutral materials: Is logic affected by emotion?
Publication: Psychological Science
Volume: 15
Page Numbers: 745-752
Year Published: 2004
Full text: dx.doi.org...

Abstract: In two experiments, we investigated whether people reason differently when they reason about emotional and neutral contents. We gave participants a conditional reasoning task ("If p, then q") and varied the emotionality of the items used as p and q. Participants were asked to draw inferences based on these statements. In Experiment 1, we compared statements including preexisting emotional and neutral words. In Experiment 2, we experimentally manipulated the emotionality of initially neutral words using classical conditioning. In both experiments, emotionality affected participants' responses. They were more likely to draw invalid inferences in response to emotional compared with neutral statements.


Therefore our reasoning abilties can be less than perfect. That doesn't mean we can only stumble on 'truths' by chance. There's some great studies out there on how we can easily show less than ideal reasoning. As Gigerenzer shows, we do better when we form information in particular formats.


You can’t build a house without a base.


Okie doke.



Again, just because I accept that human reason is not perfect, does not mean there is no ability for optimal human reasoning. It's like saying 'humans are not always perfect at maths, and therefore the mathematical proofs that humans produce are stumbled on by chance'. Silly.


yes that is silly. I never said that though.


We can apply the same structure and come to the same conclusions...


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 of people producing an incorrect answer to 223x675 leads me to believe that our mathematical abilities are imperfect (i.e., we can make errors). Hence we have to forfeit our (possible) ability of having any mathematical insight at all...


I’m not alluding to the possibility of perfection; I say “no real insight” because any and all truths you might stumble upon, you do so by chance.


...and any mathematical truths we might stumble upon, we do so by chance.


Reason = Logic


Reasoning would use the elements of logic. Logic is something that can be taught, and people can even improve over time. Some people are not great with it and it can be influenced by other variables.


Possibly


lol


true


It appears so.


that is all I am saying.


lol. Again, it's more than someone just creating some premises and forming a consistent argument. It's actually based on evidence. The next thing, if you are that bothered, would be for you to form the evidence into some sort of logically consistent argument.

I would assume it would end with something about accepting inferences tentatively with a dose of humility, and that we would keep validating/updating our inferences/premises to assess their veracity.


Tempting :-)


Yeah, I set myself a goal based on my aims and responsibilities for today, and made a firm decision, inhibiting any other behaviours.

If you pumped me full of barbs, then maybe I wouldn't have free will in finding slumber.



It was a joke-like thing.

Sorry, wasn’t sure. I get trigger happy.


No worries.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
So after directing my behaviour to complete tasks that were essential to reach a few goals, whilst inhibiting the other things that might be a bit more fun...

I think the paradox thing has been pretty well covered, it's actually just a distraction and not really even important. If you want to carry on going back and forth, cool. If you want to say it is a paradox, which I don't agree with, then it would be a paradox informed by evidence. But I don't think it's at all helpful to the main issue.

I think I've also pretty fairly outlined my position on the sort of free will I mean. What I want to ask though is what you mean by this?


but you still insist that you have the power to change things


I do. I earlier decided to change my plans for next week to make my week flow more effectively, lol. I sat and represented the potential consequences of my current plans, and determined that it would be less than optimal, so I changed them.

Is that not me using my power to change things (my future actions)? When I use my intentions and desires to stimulate another agent, is that not me affecting my environment? When I act in the world do I not change things? If I get the urge to do something special for my partner, then run through the possibilities, decide a cake would be nice, then later create a banoffee pie, did I not change basic food stuffs into a nice cake?

So what is meant by suggesting I don't have 'the power to change things'?


[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
How, how is it possible to explain to closed minds???

trying to be simple. Facts are observed to be reapeatable.

A 'fact' is not a theory, it is not an hypothesis....it isn't really a 'fact' until it has been repeated enough to ascertain that there is no variation.

There are hundreds of examples of facts....in fact (smile) you use certain 'facts' in every day life, even if you don't realize it.

"Facts", accumulated within a certain discipline, can cause one to form an hypothesis....think of Pythagorus and Euripedes....well, Pythagorus was more of the mathematical bent, whilst Euripedes, at least in lore, had that certain 'Eureka' moment, as to the displacement of water, and how solids displace....etc, etc.

I know....third Grade science, but gotta start somewhere!!!

As to the concept of 'abiogenisis'....with all due respect, I just don't see any conspiracy here!

Life started somehow...lest we wouldn't be arguing behind computer screens about the topic!

From the various posts, including some compelling videos, I would imagine that life would prosper all over the Globe, in the early times....and need not be the same in all locations.

Please consider how adaptive 'life' is, just here on the one planet we know.

Life adapts to the depths of the sea, to the highest mountains....places where Humans would perish instantly.

WHY is that???

I certainly cannot explain, and I WILL not accept a simplistic answer such as 'Noah'....to explain millions of species that currently reside on Earth.

The science of Geology, of Plate Tectonics....etc....cannot simply be tossed aside as some sort of 'delusion'.

There was an article in the Washington Post, today, about field trips from the 'Liberty University'....founded by the late Jerry Falwell,... that descrbed how the students are brought to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History by a 'guide'....a person who is actually called a 'professor'....to show the students how the "Young Earth" theory is real and true.

A young mind is a terrible thing to waste.....to coin a phrase....




Weed, what are you talking about? Can you explain where this post came from?

Are you scared of people learning? What's the matter with people learning about Creationism? What's the matter with people learning about Evolution?

What's the matter with people learning X? You can fill X in.

That's the most preposterous thing I've ever heard. People should be able to learn ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, unfortunately our Cranial Capacity just won't allow for that.

NO, according to the theory life DIDN'T start somehow. Life started with a COMMON ANCESTOR, the common ancestor started somehow, now how can a "Common Ancestor" be spread all around the globe as you say?.
You agree with the Theory, but then go on to argue against it's main foundation the "Common Ancestor"

The Theory can pick and choose? Oh, this just happened accept it. Where's the "Fact" in that? They don't want to touch where the "Common Ancestor" came from for one simple reason. It would cause an "unknown" in the Theory and they wouldn't be able to explain it. Then, they would lose funding, grants, etc...

Darwin observed what he observed. Was his theory right? Not at all, most of it was proved wrong. Does climate, diet and exercise, cause inheritable traits? NOPE. Darwinian Evolution is dead. We now have Post - Modern Synthesis.

But I agree we are here and that is proof life exists, so I'll use your logic and tell you God did it.



[edit on 12-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


BAC.....sometimes I use too many words.

In the scientific abiogenesis models I've seen it infers the events happening on a global scale....in the oceans.

The 'spark' of life would, therefore, have occured countless times, in countless different locations ... and not always succeeded.

BUT, one did....and then many, and then millions.....likely all over the Globe.

What I am trying to say is, life is somehow looked at as simplistic. Or, people want to have a simple, neat view on it. It is hard to encompass such vast complexities in one's mind.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What I am trying to say is, life is somehow looked at as simplistic. Or, people want to have a simple, neat view on it. It is hard to encompass such vast complexities in one's mind.


Absolutely.

We are just too 'finite" to even completely imagine how life was created. Whether from a Creator, or Naturally.

Although, The Theory of Evolution claims to know we have a "Common Ancestor". When in fact there may be millions of "Uncommon Ancestors" according to some peoples take on Abiogenesis.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join