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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by B.A.C.
They just have "faith" that life started somehow.
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.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Just don't tell me the Theory is a fact. That's a bad thing.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Anyway, we seem to have gotten sidetracked. Any thoughts on Abiogenesis?
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 .
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
the paradox still holds because you arrive at the evidence through logic.
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.
My exposition is more akin to C.S. Lewis. I’m not familiar with Plantinga.
Plantinga sucks.
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.
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 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.
Originally posted by JPhish
Descartes said, “I think therefore I am.”
You say, “I am therefore I think”
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 melatonin
I'd probably say something like 'I think because it was determined for it to be so', lol.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by JPhish
You obtain that evidence through logic; hence the paradox.
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.
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.
the paradox still holds because you arrive at the evidence through logic.
My exposition is more akin to C.S. Lewis. I’m not familiar with Plantinga.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by JPhish
You obtain that evidence through logic; hence the paradox.
Through empiricism and reason.
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.
You can’t build a house without a base.
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.
yes that is silly. I never said that though.
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.
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.
true
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.
that is all I am saying.
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.
Originally posted by melatonin
I'll leave this for now, must sleep.
It was a joke-like thing.
Originally posted by JPhish
I’m sorry but doesn’t Reason = Logic?
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.
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.
You can’t build a house without a base.
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.
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.
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.
Reason = Logic
Possibly
true
that is all I am saying.
Tempting :-)
It was a joke-like thing.
Sorry, wasn’t sure. I get trigger happy.
but you still insist that you have the power to change things
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....
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.