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 hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 23
14
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by uva3021
 


Nice, I only needed the abstract.

1) Dna has a code - this was denied
2) Biology as Information science. - this was denied

It's that simple. Even the simple abstract puts that to rest.
edit on 29-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


A code doesn't automatically require an intelligent designer.




posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Then I'll repeat once again, provide proof. Name one!



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Then I'll repeat once again, provide proof. Name one!


Do you even realize the amount of things you can express in code?? Code is nothing but us humans trying to bring order to things. It's how we process information. In the case of DNA chemical processes are expressed in code. You can also express a ton of other things in code. The way electricity moves for example. Or how data is transmitted. Or species evolve.

If you claim a creator is necessary, you need to prove that creator in the first place.

What you're doing is equal to a baby seeing his first car...and it's blue. Now it would be STUPID for the baby to now believe all cars are blue (which is basically what you're doing), but of course it's a baby and doesn't know any better. I'd like to think grownups would at least try to apply some logic and not jump to conclusions that are clearly not proven.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
It's a specific type of information, look at the diagrams I posted on the previous page and see where you examples fit in, they don't. it is not shannon inforamtion. See how we try to avoid the issue.

So you can't name one then? No one else can.
edit on 4-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
It's a specific type of information, it is not shannon inforamtion. See how we try to avoid the issue.

So you can't name one then?
edit on 4-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


I just gave you a whole list you muppet and explained why your entire argument is complete and utter nonsense. Read my reply again



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You need an encoder, transmission medium and decoder. For the type we are talking about. Which example was it again? Try to understand the concept.

Muppet? that's cute. Geez, we resorted to that stuff pretty quick.
edit on 4-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I'm quite familiar with Karl Poppers black swan analogy dealing with falsification.

So show me the black swan?

Fact is we have a very good grasp of chemistry and physics. According to one excuse maybe we can find the answer on another planet


To use the defense that is being attempted we have to appeal to unknown laws of chemistry and physics. Not good science I'm afraid. Inference is used to make discoveries in these cases but there must be logic behind it. All built on what we do know as facts in the here and now.

Unkown laws and unseesn causes have been discovered through inference, much of science wouldn't exist without it. Neutrino, Gravitational mechanics, relativity and many more... and now the higgs. All through inference.

edit on 4-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
What is obvious is that atheism is illogical, it is simply the fundamentalist view of materialism. The atheists version of religion. It must rely on what cannot be known as many have shown here. It's completely Ok to say we don't know. If that is the case you have then stepped up to agnosticism. The more humble position.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
"The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a 'chance' act."

Harold Blum.

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

Sir Frederick Hoyle

"The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."

Robert Shapiro

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an
event would that be?

This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros!”

Francis Crick

"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities:

Creation or spontaneous generation. There is not a third way.

Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!"

George Wald

Atheism chooses to believe the impossible ! Random chance is the new spaghetti monster!

edit on 4-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
You aren't addressing my points. You are simply claiming I denied yours.


Originally posted by squiz
Dna as a digital code - denied
Bioinformatics and Information theory -denied
Scientific use of inference - denied.

If you want to consider DNA digital, you need to prove it objectively. Do you understand what digital means? The definition says that digital code is created by technology, so you need to demonstrate technology that has made DNA. If not you have absolutely 0 argument. Are you honestly trying to tell me that information theory is an objective science that applies to anything more than computer software or databases? And scientific inference? Really? Let me explain something to you about scientific inference because it does NOT involve assumptions.

1. All men are mortals
2. I am a man
3. I am mortal

1. All deer have hoofs
2. Bambi is a deer
3. Bambi has hoofs

That is how inference works. Statement 1 is a fact. Statement 2 is a fact. Statement 3 is a fact. Notice that nowhere does is say anything about "KNOWN" information. That is an appeal to ignorance, speaking about what science doesn't know yet. Obviously Bambi isn't real, but you could use the example for any name of any given deer.

1. DNA contains a code
2. All known code comes from intelligence
3. DNA came from intelligence.

Statement 1 is a fact. Statement #2 is not a scientific statement. All KNOWN code is not ALL CODE. Statement 3 is a guess, based on #2 which is not scientific. I explained it multiple times, clear as day. How are you not seeing this? You fail at scientific inference.


You are simply trying to avoid the argument with all sorts of nonsense because you cannot provide an example of a functional code not coming from a mind. It's a typical defense.

Please explain what I avoided? A statement like this shows you aren't even paying attention to my points. You can't demonstrate a single functional code (or anything in the universe) that was created by any entity besides humans. Not a single one. How about this?

1. DNA contains a code
2. No known code has ever been created by higher intelligence (or non human entity)
3. DNA was not created by higher intelligence or a non human entity.

We can go back and forth on this and list numerous examples, but it is faulty logic and not scientific. This is exactly the same as what you are arguing. Anybody can flip words and debate semantics. I care about science. You have been thoroughly demolished in this argument.


Mathematics, bioinformatics, cybernetics, and inference are psudeo science now are they? Wow. Just amazing.

Stephen Meyer and ID is pseudo science, which uses non objective sciences like information theory and theoretical physics as the primary arguments. Are you denying this?


Instead of giving your opinion why don't you back your claims with some peer reviewd evidence?
I don't think I've ever seen you post anything scientific at all. I've seen you fumble with even basic reading comprehension. I'm guessing your a high school student.

Give some proof. Some papers demonstarting the above and how it is false. So far it's nothing but strawmen.

You never respond to my points. That's the problem. What do you need me to back up that I have claimed? I've asked you this before and you didn't give a response. See, I have responded to each of your points one by one, in almost every response, which something that you have not yet done. Each time I make a point against your argument, you dismiss it as denial and go back to your original argument.


If you can falsify my claim provide a code that doesn't come from a mind?

Your claim is not falsifiable, which is necessary in science. Your claim is "all known codes come from intelligence". That will be falsified as soon as science discovers one that is not, and certainly does not equal "all codes come from intelligence". You need to prove that any code ever generated came from a non human source. If you can't, you have no argument other than appeal to ignorance.


The appeal to unknowns is not a scientific option. We have a good understanding of physics and chemistry, your Earth has life analogy is just another strawman. I almost wet myself when I read your "breaking it down" argument. Hillarious! That's quite a talent you have there!

Please explain in detail how the logic used in my comparison is ANY different from yours. Good luck. They are both appeals to ignorance and the unknown, which was my point. It's not a strawman. A strawman is a false definition constructed to be easily debunked. What I did was make a comparison using the same exact logic as you, and in this response I completely put it to bed with my "not created" comparison. A strawman would be something like calling evolution Darwinism, or quoting Darwin's "mentor" and claiming his reasoning applies to modern synthesis in any way shape or form, or that his reasoning is infallible.

So now it's on you. Please respond to my points this time. Don't just generalize what I said. The burden of proof is on you, here. You need to provide one single code or piece of matter in the entire universe that can be demonstrated to have arisen from a non human designer, in order for your hypothesis to hold weight. All it takes is one, but this evidence does not exist.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
What is obvious is that atheism is illogical, it is simply the fundamentalist view of materialism. The atheists version of religion. It must rely on what cannot be known as many have shown here. It's completely Ok to say we don't know. If that is the case you have then stepped up to agnosticism. The more humble position.


Atheism is illogical?

1. The universe contains energy, which cannot be created or destroyed
2. No known god or entity capable of breaking this law exists
3. The energy in the universe was not created.

By Meyer logic, it's a slam dunk.

edit on 5-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
How the hell did information theory get dragged into an evolution debate?
Seriously, squidz, please stop talking out of your other orifice. Information theory is strictly the domain of man-made signal processing. What next? Mpeg layer 3 explains biodiversity?



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You need an encoder, transmission medium and decoder. For the type we are talking about. Which example was it again? Try to understand the concept.

Muppet? that's cute. Geez, we resorted to that stuff pretty quick.
edit on 4-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


For crying out loud, I listed examples that clearly don't require intelligence


Read my original post again...slowly this time



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
What is obvious is that atheism is illogical, it is simply the fundamentalist view of materialism. The atheists version of religion. It must rely on what cannot be known as many have shown here. It's completely Ok to say we don't know. If that is the case you have then stepped up to agnosticism. The more humble position.


That funny coming from the guy who's using one of the most common argumentative fallacies: Hasty Generalization



edit on 5-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
"The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a 'chance' act."

Harold Blum.

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

Sir Frederick Hoyle

"The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."

Robert Shapiro

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare an
event would that be?

This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros!”

Francis Crick

"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities:

Creation or spontaneous generation. There is not a third way.

Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!"

George Wald

Atheism chooses to believe the impossible ! Random chance is the new spaghetti monster!

edit on 4-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


Question: Do you have any recent sources form people who aren't either dead or in their 80s and not conducting any up to date research anymore?

Just asking because your post is akin to me claiming the earth is flat based on a scientist from the middle ages



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
How the hell did information theory get dragged into an evolution debate?
Seriously, squidz, please stop talking out of your other orifice. Information theory is strictly the domain of man-made signal processing. What next? Mpeg layer 3 explains biodiversity?


I doubt logic is high up on his list of priorities



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 
How could 'spontaneous generation' be proven wrong when the experiments started but 50 years ago? If you are thinking of Pasteur, he proved micro-orgranisms settle on rotten meat by drifting with the air, rather than through "spontaneous generation." What does that have to do with molecules catalyzing their own synthesis? Nobody in the history of genetics has ever thought molecules form from nothing. They bond with what is already there. Obviously you see the term "spontaneous generation" and your deluded mind can only see that phrase implying one thing and one thing only. Not to mention using a phrase 180 degrees out of context and claiming it to be evidence against molecular evolution. This is a clear sign you only see and hear what you want to believe.


edit on 5-7-2012 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
To even further elaborate, you are leaving one very important element out of your "inference"; the human element. This is how I can tell that it's just a word game. Here is what your statement should say:

1. DNA contains codes.

2. All known codes come from HUMAN intelligence.

3. DNA came from human intelligence.

So essentially humans created DNA before they existed. See, there's a reason why people like Meyer avoid presenting things honestly. It's because nothing would make sense at all. They have to use metaphors and deceptive terminology to argue their case. Meyer does this numerous times. "Miniature machines, nanotechnology and digital code" This is exactly what Meyer claims is inside the cell, I'm not taking it out of context. All you have to do is look up the terms to know this is false. Why can't he call it like it is? Yes, it is highly complex and performs various functions, but nanotechnology and miniature machines? Stop speaking in metaphors and generalizations.

Meyer gets an official:


The biggest problem with intelligent designists, is that they are not doing anything whatsoever to actually search for god or a creator. They are going about their business in a poor way, attacking stable fields of science and butting heads with the wrong people. They need to put their minds together and look in the right place. The evidence may be out there. Go find it. Do more experiments. Help us all figure out the answer to the big question. Why is Meyer preaching and doing public appearances rather than working in the lab and experimenting with the nanotechnology and digital code? Fighting with science and education is a problem. Don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution. The evidence could be staring you right in the face and you wouldn't even realize it because you're all too busy butting heads over evolution and other red herrings.
edit on 5-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Like Aunicornism...

You are obviously an Aunicornist because you dont believe that purple unicorns from another dimension have been stealing our underware.

or Astantaism because you dont believe that a magical fat man delevers presents to children at night after keeping a detailed history of their actions.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Thanks for the terrific replies; I'll try to answer as much as I can. Guess I'm playing the fool.

Maybe we could drop the sniping and insults so we can discuss it scientifically? I've done my share as well regrettably.
We are going to need honesty though, because denying hard facts established without challenge for decades (such as DNA's coded and language like nature) makes it impossible.

There is no scientific answer.
You may think it is forthcoming, we could look out what has been done, what problems remain and why. I don't think you realise what you’re we're up against.

The challenge is scientific in that it can be falsified. No answer, means we should seek to find out, the very spirit of science!
It' also scientifically valid because it can be falsified 'simply' by proving that programming language can spontaneously arise through the fundamental four forces and related properties. Gradually or however you want to do it.

I'll be back later to answer the most valid.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join