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.

 

The probability of life

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
Just a clarification: the theory of how life originated on earth is called abiogenesis. It is different to the theory of evolution
Can you explain to everyone where evolution began?




posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
I'm not arguing from incredulity. I'm arguing from a standpoint of science. Biogenesis is repeatable. Their are no exceptions to this observation of science. Believing in abiogenesis is the exact opposite of science.


There's no evidence newton existed either, believing in him is unscientific?

Simply, when we've only scratched the surface of our understanding of biology, it is completely scientific to examine things we aren't capable of reproducing yet. We would never recreate abiogenesis(making it observable), if we decided it was a fruitless venture because we hadn't seen it before we tried.

You're definition of science is made of straw.

And, by your definition of science, god creating man out of dirt, could never be considered scientific, even in a hypothetical world where all the evidence supported it.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 



Can you explain to everyone where evolution began?


When self replicating RNA molecules appeared most probably. Natural selection would favour those molecules that were more efficient at replication.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by addygrace
 


The number of players does not change the chance of any given entrant winning. Regardless, life played the lottery for billions of years. Evidently it one, because we're around to witness it.
No it doesn't change, one ticket winning. If you were the only one buying one ticket each week, on a 12 million to 1 lottery, then you would have a point about the lottery being improbable. The only improbability in the lottery is one person winning the lottery, playing by themsleves. It's not improbable for the totality of all ticket buyers to win the lottery If you brute force a certain intended outcome, then not only is it probable but you don't even need to be lucky.

As for life winning the lottery. I guess your right because you think anything that can happen will happen. The odds of it happening are 1 to 1. But this isn't science at all. What information does it give us to say, we're here so it happened. Abiogenesis breaks the law of biogenesis. There are no known exceptions to life coming from life.


Apparently you don't know what the definition of ignorance is.


Regardless, I was making the comparison to the odds of winning the lottery, not the fact that you play against multiple people. I think you need to go back and read a science book. Biogenesis isn't even concerned with Abiogenesis, so your claim that it breaks the "law of biogenesis" is also quite laughable.


There are no known exceptions to life coming from life


This makes absolutely no sense and sums up your arguments nicely.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by seedofchucky
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch
 


"Originally posted by seedofchucky
lets just admit it the aliens kicked started it


And then you're back to status quo, since, they also had to originate somewhere. So please keep the discussion on topic, and retain from posting random stuff"



but then.....


"1. It is well established in science, that the expected first molecules with catalytic activity were RNA "\





but where did the RNA come from Mr. keep discussion on topic ?


Double standards much ?

Or scientism at its finest




Would be much easier to read if you learn how to use tags.

And I don't see what the problem is? Wether you talk the appearance of the first "life" on Earth, or RandomAlienPlanet101, doesn't really matter. It still boils down to the same - RNA. If you don't understand the concepts of this discussion, then don't take part of it, but go read a few books on the subject instead.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by Griffo
Just a clarification: the theory of how life originated on earth is called abiogenesis. It is different to the theory of evolution
Can you explain to everyone where evolution began?

The Great Ju-Ju under the ocean could have created life for all it matters, it doesn't change the overwhelming evidence for evolution one bit because evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. You've had this pointed out to you on a number of occasions so trying to use this flawed argument to try and muddy the waters is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty on your part.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
 
Apparently you don't know what the definition of ignorance is.


Regardless, I was making the comparison to the odds of winning the lottery, not the fact that you play against multiple people. I think you need to go back and read a science book. Biogenesis isn't even concerned with Abiogenesis, so your claim that it breaks the "law of biogenesis" is also quite laughable
Biogenesis isn't concerned with Abiogenesis? Abiogenesis actually came from the word Biogenesis. Break the word down. Abiogenesis=Not Biogenesis Do you still believe Abiogenesis and Biogenesis are not related?

I'm not sure how reputable Biology Online is but their definitions are as follows;
Biogenesis
Definition
noun
(1) The process in which life forms arise from similar life forms.

(2) It asserts that living things can only be produced by another living thing, and not by a non-living thing.

I'm not sure what your definition of Biogenesis is, but it doesn't seem to be the same as these defintions. So if you would like to, maybe you could post the defintion you're using.

Originally posted by novastrike81
 

This makes absolutely no sense and sums up your arguments nicely.

How does, "There are no exceptions to life coming from life.", make no sense? I will spell it out. Life is only born from other life. It's never been observed differently. Biogenesis has no exceptions. Does that make sense? If not, I don't know what to tell you.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
There's no evidence newton existed either, believing in him is unscientific?
Believing he was a real person isn't even something that's questioned. Maybe you should start a scientific inquiry on the validity of Isaac being a real person.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.newton.ac.uk...




Simply, when we've only scratched the surface of our understanding of biology, it is completely scientific to examine things we aren't capable of reproducing yet. We would never recreate abiogenesis(making it observable), if we decided it was a fruitless venture because we hadn't seen it before we tried.
It's actually a fruitless ADventure, because it actually props up biogenesis. Yet people believe abiogenesis is a fact because someone tried to falsify biogensis. They won't let the facts speak for themselves.



You're definition of science is made of straw.
Well, if repeatable and observable are made of straw, then I love that kind of science.


And, by your definition of science, god creating man out of dirt, could never be considered scientific, even in a hypothetical world where all the evidence supported it.
God creating man out of dirt isn't scientific, It's spiritual.

Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Romans 1:20-25 shows man would deny God and would worship the living world as his God.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

It seems Science will break it's own rules, to deny God. I'm here to tell you, look around and be truthful to your heart. There will be no doubt.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


Biogenesis is the study of the diversity of life; life from life as you like to call it. Abiogenesis is the study of how life originated from from non-living matter. It seriously has nothing to do with the diversity of life.

How many users have to spell this out for you before the light bulb turns on? Do you even have a light bulb upstairs?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by Griffo
Just a clarification: the theory of how life originated on earth is called abiogenesis. It is different to the theory of evolution
Can you explain to everyone where evolution began?

The Great Ju-Ju under the ocean could have created life for all it matters, it doesn't change the overwhelming evidence for evolution one bit because evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. You've had this pointed out to you on a number of occasions so trying to use this flawed argument to try and muddy the waters is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty on your part.
What are you getting at? Putting words in my mouth. I asked Griffo where evolution began. He answered it. I haven't even replied.
Flawed argument? I wasn't arguing anything, yet? I guess maybe your practicing your high school debate tactics out on ATS. My intellectual dishonesty is a part of your imagined world, where asking a question is a kin to dishonestly arguing about ju ju in the ocean. Your passion is very telling, thanks.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by addygrace
 


Biogenesis is the study of the diversity of life; life from life as you like to call it. Abiogenesis is the study of how life originated from from non-living matter. It seriously has nothing to do with the diversity of life.

How many users have to spell this out for you before the light bulb turns on? Do you even have a light bulb upstairs?
Are you confusing Biology with Biogenesis? Bio=life logy=the study of
Bio=life Genesis=beginning
Abiogenesis A=not Bio=life Genesis=begining
I gave you the definition in an earlier post.

So, Biology is the study of life. Biogenesis is life being the origin or beginning of life. Abiogenesis is life not being the origin or beginning of life.

Are there other posters that disagree with me? If so, where are they?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
Believing he was a real person isn't even something that's questioned. Maybe you should start a scientific inquiry on the validity of Isaac being a real person.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.newton.ac.uk...


What differentiates Newton from abiogenesis?

If enough people questioned his existence, and came up with alternate explanations for every effect he was a cause to, would that make believing in newton unscientific?

If it would still be scientific reasoning to believe in him, the fact that religious people want to stop, deny abiogenesis, and state their alternate explanations, doesn't stop abiogenesis from being scientific reasoning.

And do you know how few people, actually put forward explanations that fit with our current understanding of science? It'd have to be like "An all powerful god, who can do anything, had to 'spark' us into existence as incredibly simple lifeforms, and then mold us into who we are, using an otherwise naturally occuring process over, billions of years"


It's actually a fruitless ADventure, because it actually props up biogenesis. Yet people believe abiogenesis is a fact because someone tried to falsify biogensis. They won't let the facts speak for themselves.


A fruitless adventure, eh? Proof of this? Or do you have access to some kind of divination to know this?

Biogenesis isn't in competition to abiogenesis. Biogenesis is like saying disease comes from bacteria, Abiogenesis is like saying disease comes from viruses. Both are true, life comes from life oftenly, and life comes from non-life in the right circumstances.


Well, if repeatable and observable are made of straw, then I love that kind of science.


Science can predict unique future events though other understandings without repeating and observing the event first. Same with the past.

Repeatable and observable are good, but science can do a lot more than that.


God creating man out of dirt isn't scientific, It's spiritual.

*Wall of irrelevant scripture*

It seems Science will break it's own rules, to deny God. I'm here to tell you, look around and be truthful to your heart. There will be no doubt.


And what if I said Abiogenesis is also spiritual? Defining things as you see fit and arguing from those definitions doesn't convince anyone.

And, the only rules science breaks, are the ones you made up for it. Defining how you see fit, again. That's what I mean by made of straw.

You're the one who should look around and be truthful with yourself. I don't bend reality around to fit any preconceived notions before accepting it. I see things how they are, then define my understanding.

Personal question; Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe it to be scientific? If you rationalize even the most scientifically proven things to instead go with your faith, I will say now, you have no credibility to me to say anything else is or isn't scientific. Especially with as poor points you've already made regarding abiogenesis.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


You ask a loaded question that you have had explained to you before. You're not asking to expand your knowledge, like pretty much every creatonist on these boards you hope you can stump posters so you can go "ha! God dunnit!". It gets very tedious.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

Originally posted by addygrace
Believing he was a real person isn't even something that's questioned. Maybe you should start a scientific inquiry on the validity of Isaac being a real person.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.newton.ac.uk...


What differentiates Newton from abiogenesis?

If enough people questioned his existence, and came up with alternate explanations for every effect he was a cause to, would that make believing in newton unscientific?

If it would still be scientific reasoning to believe in him, the fact that religious people want to stop, deny abiogenesis, and state their alternate explanations, doesn't stop abiogenesis from being scientific reasoning.

And do you know how few people, actually put forward explanations that fit with our current understanding of science? It'd have to be like "An all powerful god, who can do anything, had to 'spark' us into existence as incredibly simple lifeforms, and then mold us into who we are, using an otherwise naturally occuring process over, billions of years"


It's actually a fruitless ADventure, because it actually props up biogenesis. Yet people believe abiogenesis is a fact because someone tried to falsify biogensis. They won't let the facts speak for themselves.


A fruitless adventure, eh? Proof of this? Or do you have access to some kind of divination to know this?

Biogenesis isn't in competition to abiogenesis. Biogenesis is like saying disease comes from bacteria, Abiogenesis is like saying disease comes from viruses. Both are true, life comes from life oftenly, and life comes from non-life in the right circumstances.


Well, if repeatable and observable are made of straw, then I love that kind of science.


Science can predict unique future events though other understandings without repeating and observing the event first. Same with the past.

Repeatable and observable are good, but science can do a lot more than that.


God creating man out of dirt isn't scientific, It's spiritual.

*Wall of irrelevant scripture*

It seems Science will break it's own rules, to deny God. I'm here to tell you, look around and be truthful to your heart. There will be no doubt.


And what if I said Abiogenesis is also spiritual? Defining things as you see fit and arguing from those definitions doesn't convince anyone.

And, the only rules science breaks, are the ones you made up for it. Defining how you see fit, again. That's what I mean by made of straw.

You're the one who should look around and be truthful with yourself. I don't bend reality around to fit any preconceived notions before accepting it. I see things how they are, then define my understanding.

Personal question; Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe it to be scientific? If you rationalize even the most scientifically proven things to instead go with your faith, I will say now, you have no credibility to me to say anything else is or isn't scientific. Especially with as poor points you've already made regarding abiogenesis.
Newton was real. This has nothing to do with abiogenesis. There is no correlation between the two.

Trying to change the definition of science doesn't help your argument. It makes it weaker. Science has to be observable, falsifiable and repeatable. Which one of those are used on the theory of abiogenesis. Well observation isn't used. It's not repeatable. It's not falsifiable because any result that negates it could be chalked up to the wrong conditions. It's just science of the gaps.

Show me how abiogenesis could be falsified.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
Newton was real. This has nothing to do with abiogenesis. There is no correlation between the two.

Trying to change the definition of science doesn't help your argument. It makes it weaker. Science has to be observable, falsifiable and repeatable. Which one of those are used on the theory of abiogenesis. Well observation isn't used. It's not repeatable. It's not falsifiable because any result that negates it could be chalked up to the wrong conditions. It's just science of the gaps.

Show me how abiogenesis could be falsified.


Newton isn't observable, falsifiable, or repeatable. That's the correlation.

My definition of science isn't the same as your straw science? That weakens the arguement? Alright, lets see what I can do with your straw science.

Abiogenesis has been observed in part, amino acids and even proteins being created from non-living organisms.

It could be falsified, by proving a different account. Again, there aren't any other accounts that make sense scientifically to be put on par with it. And while not falsifiable from scientific experiment, if we actually weren't making progress with it, it's merit would drop quickly.

Repeatable in the same way it's observable, only in part with modern science, very little doubts it'll be repeatable in whole in the not so distant future.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 




Life is only born from other life.


If that were true, it means there must have been life created in the big bang. Since we know there was absolutely no life then, and we know there is life now, we know abiogenesis (life coming from non-life environment) must have happened somewhere in between. Its basic causality and logic.

Life is NOW formed only from life, and thats because any organic matter is immidiately salvaged by now universaly present life, long before it could get into conditions that allow it to develop into new life through abiogenesis.

The Law of biogenesis is an empirical rule or principle, which may not be valid in some conditions or universal, just like Newtonian mechanics is only valid when velocities are not approaching c.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I must point out that probability goes out the window when you consider ∞ infinity ∞.

Iff the odds are 0 to anything then an event can be impossible.



Also, life is a natural process for matter. Just as how stars and planets form from smaller debris is the process in which something less complex becomes more complex.

Also, take into account the amount of failed stars there are in our universe. The process is complex. Its like a giant rube golderg project.



So much could go wrong at any step.

I guess this shows that the process for life being set up must be done by something..... right? God? Not if the 'set up' is merely physics itself. Physics sure isn't worth worshiping or sacrificing for. As I have said in other threads.... the sun gives us life and it continues its process whether we worship it or not.

To worship a god is anthropomorphism and to point out how improbable human life can be is meaningless because our own existence proves that improbable is not impossible.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by addygrace
 


You ask a loaded question that you have had explained to you before. You're not asking to expand your knowledge, like pretty much every creatonist on these boards you hope you can stump posters so you can go "ha! God dunnit!". It gets very tedious.
Nope. I asked that question because I wanted to know if the OP thought evolution starts at the first cell, or as soon as emergence occurs. I know you want an aha!! type of argument, but asking a simple question of where someone seperates the 2 isn't even conducive to that type of argument. Are you looking for a comment like, "I knew it you believe it's RNA, we know it could only be DNA."



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Repeatable in the same way it's observable, only in part with modern science, very little doubts it'll be repeatable in whole in the not so distant future.
Science of the gaps. This is what makes abiogenesis unfalsifiable.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by addygrace
I know you want an aha!! type of argument, but asking a simple question of where someone seperates the 2 isn't even conducive to that type of argument. Are you looking for a comment like, "I knew it you believe it's RNA, we know it could only be DNA."

Incorrect. You propose to fill the gaps of scientific understanding with "God dunnit!". It gets very tedious



Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Repeatable in the same way it's observable, only in part with modern science, very little doubts it'll be repeatable in whole in the not so distant future.
Science of the gaps. This is what makes abiogenesis unfalsifiable.

"Science of the gaps" ? Using science to explain gaps in human knowledge?

edit on 30-7-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join