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.

 

Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
btw - I can sum up and explain the entire "Creation" in just 10 words - that even a first grader can understand it.

Because explaining things that have no basis in reality is much easier than explaining things that are.




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


It's my good ol' friend the argument from authority again!



Originally posted by mysticnoon



I pointed out the great chunk of knowledge we have
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


In response to this, I can't resist posting another Heisenberg quote:

"The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite."


I'm sorry, but quoting Heisenberg to make a point is the argument from authority. Secondly, we have no way evidence that there is an infinite amount of knowledge to be gained or that the majority of knowledge to be gained is worth having.

Sure, we might not know everything, but there is quite a bit of information in this universe that would not cover that which is applicable to humanity.

Heisenberg did have a point that what we know is only a limited chunk, but it's not a limited chunk versus and unlimited body.



How "great a chunk of knowledge" is it compared to infinity?


Considering that infinity exists only in abstraction...



You may consider it a nonsene question,


...you've realized my answer. Yes, it is a nonsense question.



but I think it helps keep in perspective the extent of our scientific knowledge.


We can split apart or fuse together atomic nuclei to produce desired effects.

You know what, screw it, I'm just going to say that CERN is enough of a rebuttal to the idiocy that we don't know much about the universe that I'm not going to bother doing anything but writing it in big letters:

CERN

Do we know everything? No. Do we know a lot? Hell yes!

Or is a billionaire not all that rich considering the trillions of dollars worth of currency currently circulating around the world?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The absolute arrogance being displayed in this thread is utterly astounding.


Yes, your arrogance is quite astounding.



We are being accused of astounding ignorance,


Because we are demonstrating how you are ignorant with quite a bit of help from you.



well then the level of ignorance we display on this topic from your perspective is equal to the level of arrogance you display on this topic from our perspective, that is the reality for both sides.


I'm sorry, but there's nothing arrogant about pointing out how we're right and you're wrong. What is arrogant is that you keep insisting that you're right without demonstrating it. Your entire argument rests on simply stating your position repeatedly and emphatically.



We have a few posters in the middle which I really do appreciate how they keep the dialogue going and fresh, but really we have two sides that are dug in and entrenched like soldiers during World War 1. Some will just never budge no matter what.


I'll budge readily if someone provides me with evidence that I'm wrong. I do it quite often, though I must admit that I strive to be more open to correction.



Organic evolution depends on a starting point, people keep saying no it doesn't, maybe in purely scientific terms you can separate them.


Evolution (because "organic evolution" would simply mean the evolution of carbon-based life...which is the only life that I'm aware of) depends on there being any sort of starting point, it doesn't have to necessarily be abiogenesis.

How would a supernatural starting point preclude evolution?



And that's ok, the Cosmology issue comes before the Abiogenesis issue, and that needs to be answered too, but that is for a different thread.


And a supernatural origin of the cosmos would also not change the truth of evolution.



It comes down to two basic concepts in the end.
1) Those espousing the no matter in the universe all the way to two humans living on this earth had no help whatsoever from anything.


Well, we can see that energy and matter are interchangeable things, we've known this for a while. Hell, the equation for this is a username of someone in this thread!

..and nobody in the biological community thinks that we had two humans living on this planet as the first example of it. This is displaying your ignorance of genetics and evolutionary biology.



2)Those espousing an intelligence behind the energy conversion to matter in the universe all the way to two humans living on this earth.


And yet we could have your God (because frankly, you can't just call it intelligence because intelligence on its own has no means to act, stop being dishonest) create the universe, personally convert some energy into matter, go through the whole cosmological process, and seed life on this Earth in its modern forms including two humans living on Earth...
...and evolution would still be something that happens.

I'm sorry, but how would any of that second option preclude evolution from happening?



Of coarse there are many variation of beliefs, theories and hypothesis within those two concepts.


Well, the second one is not a theory nor does it contain any sort of theory. It doesn't even have a working hypothesis, it's simply a religious belief.



And perhaps I should have used "disingenuous concept" verses "false Dichotomy" in the thread title


It would at least make sense as a thread title, but it would still be wrong.



However in my defense, I was using the word with this dictionary definition in view

division into two parts or classifications, esp when they are sharply distinguished or opposed:



Yes, but a false dichotomy is a version of the 'excluded middle' fallacy in which we are given two opposing view points without a second option. Calling abiogenesis separated from evolution a false dichotomy would be saying that others are saying that it was either evolution or abiogenesis and that the two are irreconcilable.



The thesaurus says

difference, difference of opinion, disagreement, disunion, separation, split


We have seen by the expressions in this thread this exists.


There's is a separation of evolution from abiogenesis, but you have not demonstrated that it is false.

Bottom line, my question still stands (in bigger letters now):
How would a supernatural origin of life prevent evolution from happening?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Common use dictionaries are no place to get scientific terms from. Now, if you can find this definition somewhere in the scientific literature, I'll listen to it and this argument.

Also, thanks for admitting to your intellectual dishonesty.
I knew this thread was never about what you actually said in the title.

Of course, I don't know why we need this thread when I actually started a thread that has a lot of hits called Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT! several months ago...and you didn't bother proving ID there.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 
Proof of ID:

1. i don't understand
2. the world is pretty
3. it makes me happy

Of course I am not humble enough to understand



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 
Proof of ID:

1. i don't understand
2. the world is pretty
3. it makes me happy

Of course I am not humble enough to understand

You forgot:

4. I am so egotistic I believe my "kind" of animal is the most important thing in the world and consequently this whole universe was specifically created as a home to my kind.

Of course it takes great humility to understand that concept.
- the kind of humility people give themselves awards for.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

Let's try again, as obviously The Happy Couple and the Steam-roller went right over your head.


If you were learning the art of tailoring, would it be necessary for you to know the origin of the fabric you are using in order to learn how garments are constructed from it?


Evolution is about the tailoring of life by natural phenonemon. Just as the art of tailoring is the same whether his fabric was tree bark, animal skin, woven or matted fibres, fermented sheets of goo or was created by a divine entity, evolution is the same whether the beginnings of life on earth spontaneously came into being from non-life, were accidentally seeded by a meteor, were "planted" by aliens, or were created by a divine entity.

Evolution is the process by which lifeforms have changed genetically.
One cannot reasonably argue that evolution does not happen, as it is easily observed.
The theory of evolution is the description of how these processes do, and have, worked.

Naturally, evolution cannot exist without a pre-existing lifeform, as it is about what happens to lifeforms. However the origin of the lifeform is of no consequence to evolution; it's all the same whether life was created or just happened. Because the origin of the evolving life is of no consequence to evolution, there is no intrinsic relationship between the theory of evolution and the theory of abiogenesis.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



I'm sorry, but quoting Heisenberg to make a point is the argument from authority.


That may be so, but I thought that Heisenberg said it better than I could, and, well, with more authority. lol



Secondly, we have no way evidence that there is an infinite amount of knowledge to be gained or that the majority of knowledge to be gained is worth having.


How can science possibly have evidence of a body of knowledge of which it has no evidence? I don't follow your reasoning.




Do we know everything? No. Do we know a lot? Hell yes!


To quote Einstein (yes, I know, another quote from authority...):

"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike."



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


We know a fair amount.
We know how to split atoms, to produce electricity, to send space craft on a planned mission outside of the solar system.
We can gauge and extrapolate rates of radioactive decay in elements.

We understand the relationship of gravity to time, and some idea of how the universe came into being.

These are very real, very solid discoveries. Some, like Newton's Laws, have survived mostly unchanged, with fine tuning added in by people like Einstein.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


CERN

Did I not mention that before?

Now, I must point out that there isn't any evidence of infinite anything. There is no infinite except in abstractions we can create. Thus, there is no infinite body of knowledge.

Again, I'm not saying that we know everything, or even that we know most things. I'm saying we know a great deal about things that apply to the portion of space we occupy on the scale we occupy it.

Or is a billionaire still not a rich guy because he doesn't have most of the world's money?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 



We know a fair amount.
We know how to split atoms, to produce electricity, to send space craft on a planned mission outside of the solar system.
We can gauge and extrapolate rates of radioactive decay in elements.


No doubt that the advances of science are very impressive, I have no argument on that account.

However, what I am trying to suggest is that while scientific theories may be very useful in helping us understand how things work in the material world, they are necessarily confined to that aspect of reality which can be accessed through our senses.

Scientific theories, such as abiogenesis and evolution, only pertain to the limited part of material reality which is exposed to the scientific method of questioning.

Ironically, any claim that science is the only valid method of obtaining knowledge of reality lies outside the very bounds of the the scientific method.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon

Ironically, any claim that science is the only valid method of obtaining knowledge of reality lies outside the very bounds of the the scientific method.
Not ironic at all, its called the scientific method, not the philosophical method or the idealistic method, or the religious method. Science is a field devoted to obtaining knowledge through observation, and following a set of guidelines for discovery to maintain integrity, objectivity, and a sense of reality.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



CERN
CERN

Did I not mention that before?


Yes, CERN is a magnificent achievement of science, but in the final analysis it can only reveal what is knoweable of the material aspect of reality using the scientific method of observation.





There is no infinite except in abstractions we can create. Thus, there is no infinite body of knowledge.


If infinite is understood as something without limitations, then I do belive that an infinite body of knowledge exists. But perhaps that is food for another topic.




'm saying we know a great deal about things that apply to the portion of space we occupy on the scale we occupy it.


That is a more precise way of putting it, and I would not disagree if you further refine the "space" as physical reality, and "scale we occupy it" as our perception of our sensory participation in this material universe.




Or is a billionaire still not a rich guy because he doesn't have most of the world's money?


No, but if his money is compared to all the money in the world, it is very insignificant, is it not?


edit on 29-1-2011 by mysticnoon because: hm

edit on 29-1-2011 by mysticnoon because: typo



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 



Science is a field devoted to obtaining knowledge through observation, and following a set of guidelines for discovery to maintain integrity, objectivity, and a sense of reality.


A sense of reality? I think that extends the scope of the scientifc method beyond its own boundaries.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 
Making a grand assumption about an existence outside of our "material universe"

Its idealistic nonsense. There is nothing in this world that we know based on unobserved or unevaluated data.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 



Originally posted by mysticnoon
Yes, CERN is a magnificent achievement of science, but in the final analysis it can only reveal what is knoweable of the material aspect of reality using the scientific method of observation.


I'm sorry, but there is no evidence of anything beyond the material world. There is no 'aspect of reality' here, all the reality that has any basis in fact is material.





There is no infinite except in abstractions we can create. Thus, there is no infinite body of knowledge.


If infinite is understood as something without limitations, then I do belive that an infinite body of knowledge exists. But perhaps that is food for another topic.


The infinite is understood as something that is unending. Infinite anything would be something that is logically impossible.



That is a more precise way of putting it, and I would not disagree if you further refine the "space" as physical reality,


Reality. There is no 'physical' about it because it's an unnecessary qualifier unless you can pinpoint the existence of any other reality.



and "scale we occupy it" as our perception of our sensory participation in this material universe.


Sensory participation? I'm sorry, but that's not something that makes any sense at all.





Or is a billionaire still not a rich guy because he doesn't have most of the world's money?


No, but if his money is compared to all the money in the world, it is very insignificant, is it not?


Insignificant? I'm sorry, but the equivalent of the lifetime income of 278 individuals with a doctorate is still not insignificant.

You can have a significant amount of something without having even a notable percentage of the total amount of it in existence when there's so damn much of it.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   


Its idealistic nonsense. There is nothing in this world that we know based on unobserved or unevaluated data.
reply to post by uva3021
 


Your assertion lies in the domain of scientism.

Scientism maintains that science is the only way for obtaining valid knowledge of reality. However, as it is impossible to verify this statement scientifically, it has no rational basis.




Making a grand assumption about an existence outside of our "material universe"



Aren't you also making a "grand assumption" that nothing exists outside our material universe?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


why should i assume something that doesn't exist?

I can make up stories with the best of them, doesn't mean the world I can create transcends the "material" world, a devastating tautology btw



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Thank you "mysticnoon" for balanced posts

As for Madness
I acknowledge your posts, however due to numerous past encounters on ATS, I choose not address your posts and pursue an exercise in utter futility that always end in a arrogant, "you are wrong" from you.

When you tone down the "you are wrong" rhetoric then and only then will I re-engage.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   


I'm sorry, but there is no evidence of anything beyond the material world. There is no 'aspect of reality' here, all the reality that has any basis in fact is material.
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


And I am sorry to see that you also appear to subscribe to scientism.




The infinite is understood as something that is unending. Infinite anything would be something that is logically impossible.


It may be a logic impossibility, agreed, but I think this only reflects the limitations of the mind's ability to conceive of something without end.




There is no 'physical' about it because it's an unnecessary qualifier unless you can pinpoint the existence of any other reality.


It is a necessary qualifier if we are considering the materialistic assumptions about the nature of reality.




Sensory participation? I'm sorry, but that's not something that makes any sense at all.


I admit that is a clumsy phrase. I do struggle with clarity in expression, which is one reason why I resort to quoting from authority.




You can have a significant amount of something without having even a notable percentage of the total amount of it in existence when there's so damn much of it.


Look, I am not trying to diminish the significant amount of scientific knowledge available today, I think I have said on more than one occasion that it is very impressive.

Rather, it is more along the lines of trying to say that if you think scientific knowledge is so very vast, your mind would be truly blown away if you glimpsed even an iota of the knowledge which may be revealed to you through alternate avenues of investigation.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join