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: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 
wow, i'm dumbfounded

people actually think like this, edmc^2, OP et al, are like the tone-deaf contestants on american idol

no wonder i avoided this place for years




edit on 28-1-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Perhaps the underlying notion behind the OP's assertion may be illuminated by this quote from Heisenberg?

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning."

The theory of evolution rests on the foundation of the scientific method of observation, which is regarded by many proponents of evolution to be the only valid way of knowing reality.

Abiogenis is also confined to the same limited assumptions of reality.

To the extent that theories of evolution and abiogenesis are all products of the scientific method, they share the identical assumption of one particular view of reality.

Personally, I do not agree with the OP, as I see the theory of evolution as a useful scientific tool which can stand in isolation to abiogenisis, but I think I do sense the intent behind the assertions.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





So I guess a simple farmer in a remote area has no chance of understanding it let alone a child.


Of course not, how could he unless he studied some sort of science. He can do other stuff I can't do, like milk a goat (I tried), or actually grow something useful. Different skills...

What's your point? Buhuuuu poor farmer should have the right to know and understand...and evolution is so difficult, he should have the right to just be content with "god did it" even if there's zero objective evidence hinting at that?? WHY???

Nothing wrong with not knowing! But refusing to know because it goes against doctrine is IGNORANCE, and that's wrong...


edit on 28-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


Originally posted by chocise


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
We know quite a bit, so please don't use your personal ignorance as a contradiction of that.



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
You've just been spewing nonsense. Please, get out of this thread if you're not going to actually contribute anything but more name calling.


Name calling? Pot - kettle I think.


Did I call you any name? I said you were contradicting the claim that we know things with science with your personal ignorance after I demonstrated it. I didn't say you were stupid, I said your arguments were founded in ignorance.

I also said you were spewing nonsense. I didn't call you nonsense, because a human being cannot be nonsense. Unless you can show me where you applied reason in your posts, I'm not taking that back.



'We know quite a bit', of course you do.


Condescension? I pointed out the great chunk of knowledge we have. Hell, I'm currently pressing pieces of petroleum products which have ink on them to set off an electrical input that translates the physical action to a digital signal which then is translated into a letter which I'm forming into words on a screen...you know, I could just keep explaining to you how the very process of typing and then submitting a post takes more knowledge than we had just two centuries ago to accomplish, but I don't think you'd listen.

We might not know everything, but the fact that you're using the internet to say that we know nothing is sort of...ironic.

You're using the internet for crying out loud!



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 





So I guess a simple farmer in a remote area has no chance of understanding it let alone a child.


Of course not, how could he unless he studied some sort of science. He can do other stuff I can't do, like milk a goat (I tried), or actually grow something useful. Different skills...

What's your point? Buhuuuu poor farmer should have the right to know and understand...and evolution is so difficult, he should have the right to just be content with "god did it" even if there's zero objective evidence hinting at that?? WHY???

Nothing wrong with not knowing! But refusing to know because it goes against doctrine is IGNORANCE, and that's wrong...


edit on 28-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


No just saying the elegance and truthfulness of Creation that even a simple farmer and a child can understand.

That's all - peace man!

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


But since it isn't based on evidence, it's about as useful to the farmer as telling him about Santa...he can take moral lessons from it, but in no way should he trust this is how everything came to be



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2
 
wow, i'm dumbfounded

people actually think like this, edmc^2, OP et al, are like the tone-deaf contestants on american idol

no wonder i avoided this place for years




edit on 28-1-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)


thanks for participating!


ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


But since it isn't based on evidence, it's about as useful to the farmer as telling him about Santa...he can take moral lessons from it, but in no way should he trust this is how everything came to be


peace man!

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
No just saying the elegance and truthfulness of Creation that even a simple farmer and a child can understand.


The average human has the capacity to learn.

Creation might be easier to understand, but then again you don't have the evidence to support it, thus less to explain.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   


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."

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

You may consider it a nonsene question, but I think it helps keep in perspective the extent of our scientific knowledge.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by edmc^2
No just saying the elegance and truthfulness of Creation that even a simple farmer and a child can understand.


The average human has the capacity to learn.

Creation might be easier to understand, but then again you don't have the evidence to support it, thus less to explain.


Of course there's evidence - but it takes humility to understand and accept them. Thus it's easy for a humble simple farmer or a child to understand the simplicity and beauty of Creation. Without this humility then it's impossible to beleive and accept it. It takes more than knowledge to believe and accept Creation - even a great deal of humility is needed especially for someone who thinks he/she can explain the mysteries of life and the universe.

Besides in the end - knowledge is nothing when humility and the spritual side are non-existent. For knowlege makes a person puff_up with pride.

Also, it's not the simplicity that makes Creation easy to understand but it satisfies the needs and fills the void within us as it answers the why. Again it takes humility to understand this.

Honestly piemaker - does the theory of evolution satisfy your needs - the meaning of life? If it does, good for you.
For me - it's empty - for it gives no real meaning to our existence. I see no difference between me and the worm.

I know that you don't accept the Bible for what ever reason - but if you give it a chance then you will understand what I'm saying.

Please let me know if you have any question - u2u.

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I'm curious where and how it all started, but no matter what the answer is, it's not what gives my life meaning. I'm sorry you apparently feel empty inside without believing in something that has zero objective evidence as backup.

Not knowing doesn't have to be scary, it changes absolutely nothing. Like, if I told you that a giant space turtle farted the universe into existence, and then evolution took over...and I had 100% solid undeniable proof. How would that make you worse off...apart from having spent all those hours at church for nothing but to compare clothing?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Honestly piemaker - does the theory of evolution satisfy your needs - the meaning of life? If it does, good for you.
For me - it's empty - for it gives no real meaning to our existence. I see no difference between me and the worm.


That's not the purpose of the Theory of Evolution. It's not supposed to give any meaning to our existence, and it doesn't have to.

And honestly, I don't depend on things to apply a meaning to my life, I can do that perfectly on my own. That's a conversation for another time though.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
The absolute arrogance being displayed in this thread is utterly astounding. We are being accused of astounding ignorance, 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.

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.

Organic evolution depends on a starting point, people keep saying no it doesn't, maybe in purely scientific terms you can separate them. 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.
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.
2)Those espousing an intelligence behind the energy conversion to matter in the universe all the way to two humans living on this earth.

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

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

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:


The thesaurus says

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


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

I am stating in my thread title that it is a "false disagreement" or "false separation" that is a statement of opinion, so it has nothing to do with the grammar.

edit on 28-1-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Of course there's evidence - but it takes humility to understand and accept them. Thus it's easy for a humble simple farmer or a child to understand the simplicity and beauty of Creation. Without this humility then it's impossible to beleive and accept it. It takes more than knowledge to believe and accept Creation - even a great deal of humility is needed especially for someone who thinks he/she can explain the mysteries of life and the universe.

Besides in the end - knowledge is nothing when humility and the spritual side are non-existent. For knowlege makes a person puff_up with pride.

Also, it's not the simplicity that makes Creation easy to understand but it satisfies the needs and fills the void within us as it answers the why. Again it takes humility to understand this.

ciao,
edmc2
Maybe this will make more sense:

Love is nothing and nothing is love. Without attending to God's purpose we can not be true to our Savior, for He is the holy Trinity, and is the meaning of life. The material world and the spiritual world are two distinct worldly creations by our Creator, the father of All mankind. God is testing us. Faith and humility is the pathway to eternity, and only God knows the way. In order to fulfill our bodily responsibilities, we must acknowledge original sin and live life in a total state of self-actualization. For only one who is saved can see the light. Pray for our brothers who contribute adequately to our local church, even though a kid just probably got eaten by a lion in Kenya, pray for the sinners of our local town, who don't believe in the omnipotent and omniscient being that only showed himself during a time of oppressive heat, starvation, and widespread use of peyote. Because it makes me feel better about myself.



















posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
You are right, arrogance abounds . . . but that aside, I had to go back to try to figure out just what you are trying to prove . . . What's the point?



To disregard the Abiogenesis as part of the foundation of evolution sidesteps and conveniently avoids a major issue that confronts a person that life came from nothing. It's just too easy. It's really intellectually dishonest


You know, to advance the argument, I'll concede. Abiogenesis cannot be "proven", as you claim, so Evolutionary Theory begins to unravel. Your creater is a much stronger foundation to the creation and formation of lifeforms, on this planet, and I eagerly await your thread on the strong foundation of what led to the creator.



Now it needs to evolve into eukaryotes


This has always bothered me too. Please provide me with your data invalidating endosymbiosis.


Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are actually the descendents of separate prokaryotic cells that joined together in a symbiotic union.

source

And, please also provide for me the evidence of your creator being responsible for the process of endosymbiosis.



So even those that will dispute and argue that Abiogenesis is not part of evolution, are still by their own definition of evolution, left with the nearly infinite gap between prokaryotes and humans.



For instance, the cells of many algae (e.g., the green alga Volvox) associate with each other to form multicellular colonies (Figure 1.11), which are thought to have been the evolutionary precursors of present-day plants. Increasing cell specialization then led to the transition from colonial aggregates to truly multicellular organisms. Continuing cell specialization and division of labor among the cells of an organism have led to the complexity and diversity observed in the many types of cells that make up present-day plants and animals, including human beings.

source

While not satisfactory "evidence" for you, at least there is evidence that these process do occur in nature . . . the physical world. Where is your evidence for a creator or designer. Don't tell me about feelings or emit bronze age mythology.

I could continue to do this and ask for the evidence of how your creator was responsible for the changes in life, but it's not just that you are pleading for a creator. You've admitted you don't believe in Evolutionary Theory. So conceding to the title of your OP, what's really your point? At some point, you have to stop talking smack and beat down your opponent.

Proverbs 25:23
- As a north wind brings rain, so a sly tongue brings angry looks

Stop looking for speck in your neighbor's eye and prove to all why ID should be on equal footing with evolution. Because if you can't you're simply practicing the ol' god of the gaps argument. You can't prove a case for intelligent design through pointing out flaws in evolution. So conceding your assertion about "false seperation", how much closer are you to proving ID? Who are you trying to convince that evolution is just as fantastical, as ID, therefore just as valid a "theory" (although ID isn't even a hypothesis) . . . "evolutionists" or yourself?








edit on 1/28/11 by solomons path because: formatting



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Actually perhaps you misunderstand, I am not trying to get people to believe ID in this particular thread, just showing them the door to the I don't know category, because of the numerous questions that can't be answered by the abiogenesis hypothesis which logically leads to evolution. Also this thread exists because they keep saying over and over and over they are totally separate, well they can keep saying it, I get it, scientifically speaking yes, conceptually no.

It's like saying somebody is a surgeon, but they also have a specialty perhaps, a Cardiothoracic surgeon or an Orthopaedic surgeon. We get the concept from the word surgeon, but we can break it down into more specifics by adding another word.

So again we get down to verbiage, to me and many others, abiogenesis is a specialty topic, embedded within the larger concept of evolutionary development itself.

This dictionary definition of evolution is widely held by many today.

Life on Earth is thought to have evolved in three stages. First came chemical evolution, in which organic molecules were formed. This was followed by the development of single cells capable of reproducing themselves. This stage led to the development of complex organisms capable of sexual reproduction. Evolution is generally accepted as fact by scientists today, although debates continue over the precise mechanisms involved in the process.


This entire thread people have been saying no to the first two stages of this definition. And I fully expect somebody to quote a different definition that supports their perspective.

At the very least that definition, helps with the validity of the title of this thread.


edit on 29-1-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 




The absolute arrogance being displayed in this thread is utterly astounding.


If you explained a concept that a third grader could understand 30 times repeatedly to someone and they still refused to accept the obvious truth you too would grow frustrated, sarcastic, and yes maybe even arrogant.


There is no false dichotomy here. Evolution happened, is happening and will continue to happen. Scientists are still trying to figure out how the first life formed on this planet but once genetics and reproduction were in place Evolution took over. It is irrelevant to Evolution how those first single-celled life-forms came into existence. As has been said likely more than a dozen times in this thread already even IF an intelligence or deity were involved in that initial spark it would not change all that we've learned about Evolution.

Simply because we don't have the answer doesn't mean we get to put God in the gaps in our knowledge. Some of us are content with saying we just don't know quite yet. Putting God in place of the unknown answers just ruins the mystery by placing an arbitrary supernatural cause where none is evident.

edit on 29-1-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





I get what you’re saying rnaa, the only thing I’m trying to clarify which is somehow (I don’t know why) difficult for evolutionists to admit is that:

Abiogenesis is the foundation of Organic Evolution Theory/Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

What is so hard with that concept?


There is nothing hard about that concept. It just isn't true.

The ultimate foundation of "Organic Evolution Theory/Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" is the PRE-EXISTENCE OF LIFE.

Evolution depends on the existence of life not how that life came to be.

What is so hard about that concept?



What can’t you (or anybody) just say – in plain English somethin like this:

Life started through the process called “abiogenesis” then once life started – organic evolution took over?


That is exactly what we are saying, and have been saying, repeatedly, in this thread and others.



Meaning, again – I hope this is crystal clear: Organic Evolution/ Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is founded on Abiogenesis (or Exogenesis).


No. It doesn't mean anything of the sort. It means exactly what it says: the scientific study of the beginning of life is called Abiogenesis; the scientific study of how life, once it exists, changes over time is called Evolution. Nothing more, nothing less. Evolution 'is founded on' the pre-existence of life.



What is so hard with that concept? Why the dance?


Again, there is nothing hard about the concept. It is just wrong. You are the one dancing to the wrong beat.



Dr. Sagan plainly explained it clearly – why are proponents of evolution here unable to agree with him?


Sagan's documentary, while exemplary, are at least 20 years out of date. He used the best information available to him at the time. Knowledge expands. There are better abiogenesis hypotheses available today, and better ones will be available tomorrow. Some day they well be synthesized into a theory, but until then nobody can say they have the one true answer.



Why so much dancing around a very simple question?

Might it be that noone (evolutionists) wanted to agree with the OP? That he is right?


The OP contention that the separation of study between Abiogenesis and Evolution is a false dichotomy is wrong, it is a true dichotomy. There is no dancing going on, we are just trying to educate him/her and you.



Just askin…


Just answerin'...



Ciao,
edmc2



Hasta luego.
rnaa



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



just trying to educate him/her and you


and indeed it's quite an education - for that I thank you (muchas gracias) rnaa.

ciao,
edmc2



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join