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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


JPhish....

According to Genisis, Life was 'created' from dust....or mud, if you accept that water was involved....

Watch the videos, and learn the truth!!!!!




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



“inorganic matter randomly became alive”


No not inorganic matter, regular organic matter.

A true simple cell is just two simple components and considering the vastness of the primordial oceans and the amount of time that arbitrarily went by. it was inevitable. It would only take one generation of a reproductive cell for life to takes it's first steps to today's natural world.

As for the "Naturalistic agenda", scientists follow the evidence as best they can. All evidence is naturalistic.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Scientists themselves recommend not attributing any animal behaviour to emotion. Although I do agree that possibly pets have some sort of quasi-emotion.


They have emotion. It is pretty clear in mammals. I don't think there are many in the area of affective neuroscience and psychology who think they don't have emotions. They issue is whether they are 'aware' of/ subjectively feel emotion.

Emotions are physiological processes. Fear is the best example. Of course mammals have the emotion 'fear'. The biological process is not much different between a rat or a human, they have comparable limbic areas and physiological response to threat. And if we lesion core emotion brain areas in monkeys, we get comparable disruption of social behaviour and emotional learning to that found in humans.

I would think this "not attributing any animal behaviour to emotion" is an effort to ameliorate anthropomorphism.

You seem to be relying on the distinction between 'affective states' and emotion. With emotion being the physiological process, and 'affective states' being the subjective feeling of emotion (we can also define 'mood', which is a tonic emotional state).

Look up the work of Jaak Panksepp for animals and emotions. Emotions are motivating physiological states - driving us away from punishment and towards reward. Highly adaptive and phylogenetically old.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
It’s a conspiracy against “religion” because saying that “inorganic matter randomly became alive” is just as credible as saying “the flying spaghetti monster created life.”


I think the 'randomly became alive' is really a strawman, J.

What you really mean is undirected by the hand of a magic man. For all we know abiogenesis might be inevitable under suitable conditions. We'd need to see what we find elsewhere in the universe.

Chemistry isn't really random. Each time I add HCl to NaOH, I keep getting tasty chips when I sprinkle the product on them.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to

Originally posted by flyindevil

From Wikipedia:

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection.


Ever heard of bacteria becoming resistant to certain chemicals over time? That's evolution.


Yes, certainly, a common example would be certain bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. That is provable, and so, would be a fact. Which is a big difference from the theory that everything in the world evolved from a common protoplasm into all the diverse forms that exist. I find THAT hard to believe.

It is just as easy to believe that God created all the separate different "kinds" or branches of living things, such as plants, reptiles, fish, birds, animals, and man, as it is to believe that life spontaneously came into existence from just the right combination of chemicals, climate, temperature, etc., one time only.........and that then everything evolved from that.

Even men, with all their brains and technology, haven't managed to regenerate missing limbs yet, much less create life out of nothing.
 



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


Even men, with all their brains and technology, haven't managed to regenerate missing limbs yet, much less create life out of nothing.


What do you mean, nothing?

Abiogenesis creating the first cell would be comparable to making a cart out of cart parts- parts that also have a natural affinity to combine together into all sorts of things.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by sezsue
 


Even men, with all their brains and technology, haven't managed to regenerate missing limbs yet, much less create life out of nothing.


What do you mean, nothing?

Abiogenesis creating the first cell would be comparable to making a cart out of cart parts- parts that also have a natural affinity to combine together into all sorts of things.


Yes, I understand that. I think the question is, does the cart assemble itself out of the pieces.....or does somebody put it together?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by sezsue
 


It seems to. The properties of organic chemicals make the compounds (parts) attracted to each other. And having these compounds free floating in liquid, they tend to bind in all sorts of ways. It would be like putting magnetix in the dryer, things are going to stick together.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Scientists themselves recommend not attributing any animal behaviour to emotion. Although I do agree that possibly pets have some sort of quasi-emotion.


Quasi-emotion?
What makes it 'quasi-emotion'?
Is it 'quasi-emotion' when a human charges at you in anger?
Of course not.
Then why would it be 'quasi-emotion' when a bull is clearly pissed off and charging at you with all his might?
What about when a dog goes mad and is driven solely on emotion?

You like to believe that humans are special.
In some ways we are, but then again, we are just one animal of many.
Many animals have abilities that make our jaws drop. We can not claim emotions, dreams, imagination, or creativity for our own - it's an after-effect of years of evolving and fitting the environment.

The reality is that we are diamonds made from coal.
It seems equally illogical that God should zap us in our present state as he should zap diamonds in their present state.

And even if God did make life, isn't it still abiogenesis?
Our world is a scientific one, cause/reaction, so wouldn't it make sense that a God would use scientific means of cause/reaction instead of pulling a rabbit out of a hat?
Don't you really believe in abiogenesis, simply a different form of it and one which requires God as one of its properties?


Originally posted by B.A.C.
I don't think there is any proof that dreaming is imagination.


Are you imagining certain instances while dreaming?
Yes.
Then it is, in itself, imagination.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Yes I do think Humans are special. I agree.

Look up Imagination.

It's a concious thing. Not a subconcious or unconcious thing.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Look up Imagination.

It's a concious thing. Not a subconcious or unconcious thing.


It's more of a right brain/left brain thing...
If you have the ability to dream, then why not day dream?
You really have no idea what you're talking about when you say that animals can't imagine things...



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Look up Imagination.

It's a concious thing. Not a subconcious or unconcious thing.


It's more of a right brain/left brain thing...
If you have the ability to dream, then why not day dream?
You really have no idea what you're talking about when you say that animals can't imagine things...


You're right. I can accept that statement.

I'll say I have about as much idea as you about how the imagination works. I've read all the latest research, we have some clues, but nowhere near a complete picture yet. Science doesn't know. But you do?

[edit on 6-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Imagination, I'm betting, is a characteristic of higher brain function. It can be, and often is, used in day to day use for much of what we do (obviously I'm not talking about fantasy). Imagination gives us a virtual world in which we can test ideas, it's like Gary's Mod.

But since we can't ask animals what they experience, we can't know how they think, what they dream or imagine. Saying that our imagination is greater than any other species foolish, since we just can't know. For instance Chimps are incredibly similar in brain function to us, so they likely have similar experiences- but we can't really know.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I'll say I have about as much idea as you about how the imagination works. I've read all the latest research, we have some clues, but nowhere near a complete picture yet. Science doesn't know. But you do?


How the imagination works?
That's not what we're discussing.
We're discussing if animals can imagine things.
They can.

Here's one example.

www.nytimes.com...

A chimp is imagining walking to control a robot and get a treat.



An hour into the experiment, the researchers pulled a trick on Idoya. They stopped her treadmill. Everyone held their breath. What would Idoya do?

“Her eyes remained focused like crazy on CB’s legs,” Dr. Nicolelis said.

She got treats galore. The robot kept walking. And the researchers were jubilant.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Scientists themselves recommend not attributing any animal behaviour to emotion. Although I do agree that possibly pets have some sort of quasi-emotion.


They have emotion. It is pretty clear in mammals. I don't think there are many in the area of affective neuroscience and psychology who think they don't have emotions. They issue is whether they are 'aware' of/ subjectively feel emotion.

Emotions are physiological processes. Fear is the best example. Of course mammals have the emotion 'fear'. The biological process is not much different between a rat or a human, they have comparable limbic areas and physiological response to threat. And if we lesion core emotion brain areas in monkeys, we get comparable disruption of social behaviour and emotional learning to that found in humans.

I would think this "not attributing any animal behaviour to emotion" is an effort to ameliorate anthropomorphism.

You seem to be relying on the distinction between 'affective states' and emotion. With emotion being the physiological process, and 'affective states' being the subjective feeling of emotion (we can also define 'mood', which is a tonic emotional state).

Look up the work of Jaak Panksepp for animals and emotions. Emotions are motivating physiological states - driving us away from punishment and towards reward. Highly adaptive and phylogenetically old.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by melatonin]


On this issue, I have to agree animals have emotions not a doubt in my mind they do. I have seen dolphins scream at the sight of their babies being slaughtered in a bay in Japan. The look on a dogs face when it is shamed but whether or not that has to do with imagination is another area. One of the best methods of survival humans have is our ability to imagine and gives us the ability to plan our tommorows something we don't see in animals to the extent we have.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I'll say I have about as much idea as you about how the imagination works. I've read all the latest research, we have some clues, but nowhere near a complete picture yet. Science doesn't know. But you do?


How the imagination works?
That's not what we're discussing.
We're discussing if animals can imagine things.
They can.

Here's one example.

www.nytimes.com...

A chimp is imagining walking to control a robot and get a treat.



An hour into the experiment, the researchers pulled a trick on Idoya. They stopped her treadmill. Everyone held their breath. What would Idoya do?

“Her eyes remained focused like crazy on CB’s legs,” Dr. Nicolelis said.

She got treats galore. The robot kept walking. And the researchers were jubilant.


Where in the quote provided did it say the chimp was imagining?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


You dragging this out into a debate about imagination is not exactly constructive.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
One of the best methods of survival humans have is our ability to imagine and gives us the ability to plan our tommorows something we don't see in animals to the extent we have.


Heh, we actually agree on something. I'd rather in a more academic sense view it as the ability to represent in mind future events. To see far into the future and use past experiences to represent consequences etc. It's quite possible that animals have some basic ability to represent and plan, but we have this big lumpy frontal lobe, and it appears to enable flexible complex behaviour.

There's a couple of studies now that suggest that some mammals might have the ability to know what they know or know what they're not sure of(metacognition). Time will tell how much they have going on in their little noggins.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Where in the quote provided did it say the chimp was imagining?


The chimp was not walking but was sending signals as if it were walking in order to get the treat.
It was walking in it's head but not in reality - that means it was imagining itself walking.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sezsue

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by sezsue
 


Even men, with all their brains and technology, haven't managed to regenerate missing limbs yet, much less create life out of nothing.


What do you mean, nothing?

Abiogenesis creating the first cell would be comparable to making a cart out of cart parts- parts that also have a natural affinity to combine together into all sorts of things.


Yes, I understand that. I think the question is, does the cart assemble itself out of the pieces.....or does somebody put it together?


Well its like a lego toy being assembled by shaking the pieces in a bag suze. Now if you think that is far fetched, then we have to figure that "spark" of life, just what is it exactly.




top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join