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: 29
14
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 





EXACTLY my point. It's laughable because it can't be proven and have no basis, no logic and NO common sense whatsoever can be attached to it.


You do realize we were talking about your claim that life cannot come from non-life and not the hypothesis of angiogenesis, right?


So for once I agree with you, there's ZERO logic behind your claims



edit on 12-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Let's see according to biology-online.org:


Abiogenesis (Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.


yeah, it's the same silly idea or if you prefer the same silly hypothesis that I'm talking about.


the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.


what else do you think I'm talking about?

As for:



Once again you entertain all of us with another example of an argumentative fallacy...the argument from complexity


OK let me update my list of your circular counter argument tactic when you can't refute something.

First you use just an "OPINION"

if this doesn't work use "ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY"

if this doesn't work use "ARGUMENT FROM FALLACY"

then the latest - "ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY"

anything you want me to add?

Let me know so that I can finish my flow chart of circular counter arguments from atheistic POV.




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
OK let me update my list of your circular counter argument tactic when you can't refute something.

First you use just an "OPINION"

if this doesn't work use "ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY"

if this doesn't work use "ARGUMENT FROM FALLACY"

then the latest - "ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY"

anything you want me to add?


Look up each fallacy and you will understand why it is blatantly obvious that you are using them. You forgot equivocation, and god of the gaps. Those are also a huge part of your faulty arguments. I think you could also throw in appeal to magic and hasty generalization. Did I miss any of them? You may also want to look up "circular reasoning". That is pretty much saying that the bible is the infallible word of god, and then when someone asks how you know it, you say "because the bible says it". That is circular reasoning; not accusing you of committing logical fallacies when it's true.

If you can't prove your statement that life cannot arise from non life you have no argument.
edit on 12-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
OK let me update my list of your circular counter argument tactic when you can't refute something.

First you use just an "OPINION"

if this doesn't work use "ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY"

if this doesn't work use "ARGUMENT FROM FALLACY"

then the latest - "ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY"

anything you want me to add?


Look up each fallacy and you will understand why it is blatantly obvious that you are using them. You forgot equivocation, and god of the gaps. Those are also a huge part of your faulty arguments. I think you could also throw in appeal to magic and hasty generalization. Did I miss any of them? You may also want to look up "circular reasoning". That is pretty much saying that the bible is the infallible word of god, and then when someone asks how you know it, you say "because the bible says it". That is circular reasoning; not accusing you of committing logical fallacies when it's true.

.
edit on 12-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


hehehe...keep it coming...

So Atheist and Evolutionists alike when you can't refute something factually and scientifically accurate - do the following circular arguments:


First you use "IT'S JUST AN OPINION" to hide the facts.

if this doesn't work use " IT'S AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY"

if this doesn't work use "IT'S AN ARGUMENT FROM FALLACY"

if this doesn't work use - "IT'S AN ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY"

if this doesn't work use "equivocation"

if this doesn't work use "god of the gaps"

if this doesn't work use "because the bible says it"

BTW - forget about the facts and don't even mention it.

Stick to this pattern - go back n forth or in circular motion, who knows it might work.

OK.

Of course it doesn't work on me as you can see...so keep throwing the * ping pong balls.

As for:




If you can't prove your statement that life cannot arise from non life you have no argument


So you want me to do your job? Trying to turn the table on me ehh?- hmmmm.

It's obvious you have nothing to stand on but on a silly idea


the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.


Let me EMPHASIZE the KEY WORDS:

-->>> Spontaneous Generation of life from Non Living matter by Unguided Process.

Okay.







edit on 12-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: changed "dagger" to "ping pong" ball - more accurate description.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Again, please do yourself a favor (if you care about not looking stupid that is) and learn what "circular argument" means, because from your post it's clear you don't


Me highlighting your never ending argumentative fallacies isn't a "circular argument"





So Atheist and Evolutionists alike when you can't refute something factually and scientifically accurate


No, that's not what we're doing...we're merely pointing out what NONSENSE you spread around by using argumentative fallacies


You make ZERO factually or scientifically correct arguments...quite the opposite frankly, you're a prime example of an uneducated (or ignorant, take your pick) worshipper of pseudo-science.




Spontaneous Generation of life from Non Living matter by Unguided Process.


Yes, and that's a real possibility scientists need to explore...especially given that we know for a FACT that today's biodiversity didn't require an divine intervention. They aren't even saying "that's what happened", because if they did, it would be called a THEORY and not a HYPOTHESIS.

But whatever, you don't care about facts if they go against your fantasyland religion

edit on 12-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by HappyBunny
 



I've already stated I do know for a fact. However subjective my eveidence is. I believe I have a soul that will leave this body when I die. As it has in the past no question about it.

Very simply yes or no ? It won't cost you a thing. Sept maybe some snickers from your peers if you say yes.

Heaven forbid.


Was going to ask you to define "soul" I'll take the definition as shown above.

No I dont have a soul, neither do you, nor anyother living things on this planet. Obviously I expect you to tell me I'm wrong, so questions for you.

Does me beleiving I dont have a soul, mean I dont have one? Do you beleive I have a soul?

Does all life have a soul? (Yes, I beleive I just asked if all dogs go to heaven
)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

edit on 12-7-2012 by idmonster because: double post



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Again, please do yourself a favor (if you care about not looking stupid that is) and learn what "circular argument" means, because from your post it's clear you don't


Let's see - which one is silly:

You believe that Spontaneous Generation of life from Non Living matter by Unguided Process is a "real possibility". Yes, that is bright.

While I believe that:

Life and the Universe have the signs, the hallmarks, the evidence of Intelligence and Design.

From macro to micro - they all show great intelligence of a masterful design.

These macro and micro designs are so masterfully designed that we can predict the outcome of any endeavor we to venture into, whether space flight or genetics.

For instance - the laws in universe are so precise that we can predict the travel of planets, asteroids and even far distant Galaxies. It's precise that we can send men to the moon and back and space probes in far flung planets.

Rocket expert Wernher von Braun:


“The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by somebody. - . National Enquirer, February 10, 1976.


The DNA code is so precise that we can actually copy it in order to create synthetic-designer genes. The precision and most of all the amazing design and complexity of the DNA is mind boggling that even Prof. Dawkins said the following:


“There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopædia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.-- The Blind Watchmaker - page 116”



Of course Prof Dawkins like you - believe that these intricate instructions just came to by pure chance event.

In any case like I said if it makes you happy like a happybunny - more power to you because it takes more blind faith to believe on what YOU DON' KNOW.

I can show you more but I don't wanna to embarrass your intellect as you're not able contemplate and understand the implications of the evidence.


Besides you'll just revert back to the old tired circular counter argument that I just listed.

hmm - let's see you're going to use:

"IT'S JUST AN OPINION" to hide the facts.

if this doesn't work use " IT'S AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY"

if this doesn't work use - "IT'S AN ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY"

tata...

edit on 12-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: space



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Well, you are making an excellent example for the argument of complexity with the above post...so what do you expect me to say?


You are essentially using one argumentative fallacy after the other, and then go "but you can't say I'm using them"


You're not even trying to argue, you're simply preaching the same nonsense over and over again without ever providing even a shred of objective evidence. The sad part is, you delude yourself by pretending your fantasyland belief and argumentative fallacies are facts





Also I can show you more but I don't want to embarrass your intellect as you're not able understand the implications of the evidence.



That's ironic coming from the guy who seemingly doesn't have the slightest clue what facts, evidence, or funny enough circular arguments are

edit on 12-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Well, you are making an excellent example for the argument of complexity with the above post...so what do you expect me to say?


You are essentially using one argumentative fallacy after the other, and then go "but you can't say I'm using them"


You're not even trying to argue, you're simply preaching the same nonsense over and over again without ever providing even a shred of objective evidence. The sad part is, you delude yourself by pretending your fantasyland belief and argumentative fallacies are facts





Also I can show you more but I don't want to embarrass your intellect as you're not able understand the implications of the evidence.



That's ironic coming from the guy who seemingly doesn't have the slightest clue what facts, evidence, or funny enough circular arguments are

edit on 12-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Like I said - it's hard for you to contemplate the implications of the evidence.

Hey if makes you happybunny - more power to you because it takes more blind faith to believe on something you don't know.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Admitting you don't know something isn't a "belief"


And you should be the last person to talk about evidence given that you've presented none whatsoever


Here, there's even a video explaining how exactly you're wrong:


edit on 12-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Admitting you don't know something isn't a "belief"


And you should be the last person to talk about evidence given that you've presented none whatsoever


Here, there's even a video explaining how exactly you're wrong:


edit on 12-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


OK - let's play your game and use Prof. Dawkins' statement below as proof of an Intelligent Creator.

He said:


“There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.-- The Blind Watchmaker - page 116”


I'm sure we both agree with that statement. SO there's no issue there.

Now we all KNOW that Encyclopaedia Britannica is not just a random useless book of information but a collection of meaningful INFORMATION from the simplest to the complex like the DNA Code.

Agree so far?

OK -

Now here's where it gets crucial because the implication of the evidence shows whether I'm wrong and your correct.

Based on experience from time immemorial:

Can a simple meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?

If yes, do we have any proof?

If NO then --

What about the complex INFORMATION contained in the DNA.

Can such complex meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?

I submit to you - IMPOSSIBLE based on objective verifiable evidence.

The ONLY way to write something meaningful is through INTELLIGENCE.

The DNA code is such as explained by Prof. Dawkins

specifically:


“There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.-- The Blind Watchmaker - page 116”


In fact Prof Leslie Orgel Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code


“the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.” -- New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p. 151.


So what say you:

Can such complex meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?

BTW - here's a small portion of a DNA code:



This just but one out of thousands of proof of burden.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 

DNA is a molecule.

Essentially you are saying because DNA molecules are really small, that means Intelligent Design is proven!!!

Nucleotides are not literally packets of information, they are molecules that fortuitously conjoined in a fashion that could serve as a unit of natural selection. You are data mining from a quote from the most raging atheist in the world, and possibly of all time, and expect what he said to be proof of a designer?

Leslie Orgel published some of the most pivotal papers on protein evolution and he coined the famous phrase "evolution is cleverer than you are." In other words, random mutations and a filtering process (selection) is better than a systematic design process, aka intelligent design.

I urge you to watch the video that XYZ posted. i know its 11 minutes long, and 11 minutes is a long time to think continuously for some people.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2


Wow, what an amazingly complex language! It has a grand total of 4 letters that repeat over and over again. This intelligent designer must be amazing to make a language so diverse with so many variations... NOT. That doesn't even come close to the complexity of computer code. That is not any discernible language at all. If it were broken down into phrases and commands it would be different but the fact of the matter is Qbasic had a more complex code than that does. C++, VB, all of them. Imagine if the English language only had 4 letters. How complex would it be? Not so much.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Dear edmc, PLEASE LEARN TO READ!!

You are using the same argument from complexity over and over and over and over again...and guess what, it remains an argumentative fallacy no matter how often you repeat it


Do yourself a favor and click the link to the definition, because you're starting to look a bit stupid rehashing the same silly arguments over and over again.

And no, Dawkins saying DNA contains a lot of information isn't proof of a creator


Which brings me to another point: Look up what "proof", "objective evidence", and "facts" are, because YOU DON''T SEEM TO HAVE A CLUE! I also suggest you watch the video I posted because it made it abundantly clear why your entire thread is pretty much garbage

edit on 13-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2


Wow, what an amazingly complex language! It has a grand total of 4 letters that repeat over and over again. This intelligent designer must be amazing to make a language so diverse with so many variations... NOT. That doesn't even come close to the complexity of computer code. That is not any discernible language at all. If it were broken down into phrases and commands it would be different but the fact of the matter is Qbasic had a more complex code than that does. C++, VB, all of them. Imagine if the English language only had 4 letters. How complex would it be? Not so much.


Sorry to say this Barcs - but this is the most pathetic answer I've even read about the DNA code. It almost reads like a grade school reply.

But all is not lost as I'm about to explain to you the SIGNIFICANCE of the four letters.

You see - it's NOT the four letters (what they stand for matters), IT'S THE WAY THEY ARE PUT TOGETHER - in layman's terms - MATTERS. In other words, IT'S THE SEQUENCE OF THESE FOUR LETTERS THAT COUNTS!!

In other words it's the way the letters - codes - are arranged - sequenced - together that GIVES them MEANING.

If you still don't get this - let me give you a very simple example.

This word: udmb - if the letters are NOT properly SEQUENCED it doesn't mean a squat. But by arranging them properly the meaning of the letters will be revealed.

So what do you think udmb means - if I arrange the four letters this way: DUMB

Now if you're so smart as you're portraying yourself to be - smarter than the Creator of Life.

Can you please tell me in your vast knowledge of genetics does the DNA contain the codes for making ear, nose, white cell, proteins, insulin, etc.?

Yes or NO

Based in your response above - I'm expecting NO - they don't exist because the DNA code is just a bunch of FOUR LETTERS.




Wow, what an amazingly complex language! It has a grand total of 4 letters that repeat over and over again.


And one more thing with your vast wisdom of genetics can you address my original Question to Mr. XYZ.

Can such complex meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?

Please show us how smart or udmb you are.

tata..


edit on 13-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: dumb as udmd - MATTERS



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Please address my question:

So what say you:

Can such complex meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by edmc^2
 

DNA is a molecule.

Essentially you are saying because DNA molecules are really small, that means Intelligent Design is proven!!!

Nucleotides are not literally packets of information, they are molecules that fortuitously conjoined in a fashion that could serve as a unit of natural selection. You are data mining from a quote from the most raging atheist in the world, and possibly of all time, and expect what he said to be proof of a designer?

Leslie Orgel published some of the most pivotal papers on protein evolution and he coined the famous phrase "evolution is cleverer than you are." In other words, random mutations and a filtering process (selection) is better than a systematic design process, aka intelligent design.

I urge you to watch the video that XYZ posted. i know its 11 minutes long, and 11 minutes is a long time to think continuously for some people.


Please address my simple question:

So what say you:

Can such complex meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Please address my question:

So what say you:

Can such complex meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?





WE DON'T KNOW!! For crying out loud, get it into your brain, you are using the argument from complexity over and over and over again...which is laughable given that we simply don't know.

We don't know how first life started...and that's the only FACT there is.

Your entire argument is complete and utter nonsense



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Please address my question:

So what say you:

Can such complex meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?





WE DON'T KNOW!! For crying out loud, get it into your brain, you are using the argument from complexity over and over and over again...which is laughable given that we simply don't know.

We don't know how first life started...and that's the only FACT there is.

Your entire argument is complete and utter nonsense


You ask for burden of proof - the answer to my simple question:

Can such complex meaningful INFORMATION write itself - without any intelligent guidance?

Based on experience, objective evidence, logic and common sense is: NO.

But if you're happybunny with "I DON'T KNOW" - good luck with that.

tata...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


There are plenty of examples of information not requiring any intelligence


Take light from the sun for example, it transmits plenty of information like the composition of it's source for example. Zero intelligence required. A plant's flower transmit information when it blooms to attract birds and insects to carry away pollen. Zero intelligence required...well...unless you now start arguing plants are intelligent. Hell, that wouldn't even surprise me


All this doesn't matter though because you are simply using the old argument from ignorance and argument from complexity over and over and over and over and over and over again. And every single time I point it out, you reply with another example of an argumentative fallacy.

It's really quite stunning




top topics



 
14
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join