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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Incorrect. But you know better, don't you.

The problem here, and it's a universal one, is arrogance. But you can be forgiven yours as it's a singular human trait and one of which we're all guilty of from time to time. Your absolute faith in our Grand Science astonishes me, but carry on.
edit on 27-1-2011 by chocise because: (no reason given)



FINALLY, somebody new to this discussion speaks the truth, thanks for joining the discussion chocise, and a star for you too.


Starring someone for an ad hominem attack...why am I not surprised?


As has mentioned before, science doesn't require faith as it either has backup evidence for theories, or it clearly states things as hypothesis if they aren't completely sure.



In in other words we really don't know how. They are just hypotheses. I scientific guess, at around the level that people of science once thought that the earth was flat.


And science admits whenever they don't know...which is why they call it a hypothesis. Which makes it clear why it's different from religion that just states random stuff without ever backing it up with evidence.

As for the whole "the earth was flat" thing: I hope you realize that it was SCIENTISTS who discovered the earth was round, and it took decades for the church to stop murdering those scientists because they were telling the truth the church didn't like because it contradicts their belief




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
A question for the proponents of "intelligent design":

How do you know when something is, in fact, designed?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

parasites. The biggest check to a population growing exponentially is fever and parasites

in optimal conditions a species will reproduce at a rate beyond that which is necessary to sustain their numbers

conditions are scarcely optimal, however, due to obvious reasons (predators, competition, famine, fever, ...)

where sex has the advantage is the chromosomal crosser during meiosis, then merging of two distinct gametes (sperm and egg) rather than direct multiplication of genetic material, thus shaking up the genetic makeup of the offspring, which in turn is better equipped to fight off parasites

all but one group of asexual organisms are or have been living an ephemeral existence, because they can't fight off parasites

any tendency for an early eukaryote to undergo genetic recombination would on average increase in the population

again gradual, cumulative process of selection

of course one single cell didn't undergo a mutation and then turn human, I'm not sure what theory that is but its not evolution, its whatever people want the theory of evolution to be in order to refute it



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Just like you can explain how a window frame is made when building a house doesn't require you to know about the foundation of the house...


Interesting, so based to that logic then i suppose geology does not necessary needs earth?? Is that what you are suggesting?? Don´t you think is a bit silly to separate out geology and the origin of the Earth.?

Peace



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I can't see an ad hominem attack on anyone, so far... I'm merely trying to guide your poor understanding of what we know, to what we actually know: which is very little. If anything that's a humbling and open acknowledgment of where mankind stands at this present time. It demonstrates an openness of mind, not a closed one – which is what I'm seeing in a lot of posts here.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
It demonstrates an openness of mind, not a closed one – which is what I'm seeing in a lot of posts here.


I'm open to the idea of Invisible Magic Man creating everything once it can be demonstrated as such. Until then we have good evidence supporting an idea that doesn't involve Invisible Magic Man.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Fine, and good for you if that perception works for you.

I'd have to say it does nothing for me.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
delete multi post
edit on 27-1-2011 by chocise because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
delete/double post
edit on 27-1-2011 by chocise because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise

Fine, and good for you if that perception works for you.

I'd have to say it does nothing for me.


What exactly does nothing for you? That fact that explanations not involving Invisible Magic Man can be demonstrated?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

I'm open to the idea of Invisible Magic Man creating everything once it can be demonstrated as such.



Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

What exactly does nothing for you?


The idea of an Invisible Magic Man creating everything at once
edit on 27-1-2011 by chocise because: quote inclusion



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seed76
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Just like you can explain how a window frame is made when building a house doesn't require you to know about the foundation of the house...


Interesting, so based to that logic then i suppose geology does not necessary needs earth?? Is that what you are suggesting?? Don´t you think is a bit silly to separate out geology and the origin of the Earth.?

Peace





Not sure what you're getting at. Geology is a field of science...and the earth...well, is something material. Your analogy fails



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise

The idea of an Invisible Magic Man creating everything once.


That does nothing for you?

Me either. But if someone can demonstrate it I'm willing to listen.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


But then we'd be going so far off topic we'd need to start, or add to, a thread in the Metaphysics/Philosophical section... it's beginning to drift that way as it is.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


But then we'd be going so far off topic we'd need to start, or add to, a thread in the Metaphysics/Philosophical section... it's beginning to drift that way as it is.


I'm not sure we're drifting that far off topic. There are intelligent design proponents here arguing in favor of the Invisible Magic Man explanation.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


Philosophical "proof" of god isn't "proof"



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Whoever said it was?


While you're on it, I cannot prove you exist either, does that make it any clearer?



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Finally! Oh wait, you didn't address the thread topic...again. You just made an 'attaboy' post while ignoring legitimate critique.

I'm just going to repeat myself:

Please demonstrate how evolution would fall apart as a theory if there were a supernatural explanation for origin of the first life forms.

If you cannot demonstrate this than you have no reason to unify abiogenesis and evolution as the two theories function independently. Since the whole point of this, your own thread, is the claim that you cannot separate evolution and abiogenesis, it would be awfully nice of you to actually advance the discussion on the topic you presented.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

Since the whole point of this, your own thread, is the claim that you cannot separate evolution and abiogenesis, it would be awfully nice of you to actually advance the discussion on the topic you presented.

You have to admit that's a difficult task in this case.
The use of "false dichotomy" in the title makes no sense at all, and does nothing except illustrate the OP's lack of understanding of the term.


A dichotomy is a choice between two mutually exclusive or contradictory ideas or opinions.
A false dichotomy is when two such ideas or opinions are said to be mutually exclusive or contradictory, but are not.
As the theories of abiogenesis and evolution have never been said to contradict each other they cannot be a dichotomy, let alone a false dichotomy.
However an even worse grammatical mistake is being made by the OP.
Grammatically, the words,"false dichotomy," in the title refer to a single subject, abiogenesis, and dichotomy can only refer to a dualistic situation, never to a singular one.


A person might suspect you are keeping up your side of the discussion so well because you're accustomed to debating people who have no understanding of the terms they use.




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Finally! Oh wait, you didn't address the thread topic...again. You just made an 'attaboy' post while ignoring legitimate critique.

I'm just going to repeat myself:

Please demonstrate how evolution would fall apart as a theory if there were a supernatural explanation for origin of the first life forms.

If you cannot demonstrate this than you have no reason to unify abiogenesis and evolution as the two theories function independently. Since the whole point of this, your own thread, is the claim that you cannot separate evolution and abiogenesis, it would be awfully nice of you to actually advance the discussion on the topic you presented.


This is interesting,

Why are you trying to get off topic madness?

Just to remind you the title of the thread:

"Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy."

NOT "Please demonstrate how evolution would fall apart as a theory if there were a supernatural explanation for origin of the first life forms.


Anyway - here's why I agree with Blue_Jay that "abiogenesis" and "organic evolution" go hand in hand - because they are just two peas in a pod - one can't exist without the other - you know horse and carrage.

It's like this: If evolution is a fact then how did it start? What is ITS foundation? How did it began? Where's the horse?

Like what Blue_Jay said already - you can't build a house without a foundation (simple logic).

Now if you don't believe me - can I refer you to the video by the late Dr. Sagan - how life came to be "spontaniously" and how it "evolved" to the present? If that's not enuff - may I refer you to the book by Prof. Dawkins - The Selfish Gene? If that's not enuff - try watching the BBC ani-docu called "walking with monsters"

If you can't see where "abio" is explained in the sources that I just mentioned then please let me know and I'll gladly show them to you.

So madness - where did "abiogenesis" got it's start?

On a premitive earth, primordial soup or outer space (exogenesis) as some claim?

ciao,
edmc2


btw - why do evolutionists like to use the word "magic" a lot when talking about creation - yet when applied to evolution - evolutionists go up in arms as if the sky is falling.

If you're not sure what I'm talking about - check my (simple test) past post when I mentioned "poof" and "magic".



edit on 27-1-2011 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join