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: 32
14
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by squiz
 


No, what you've done is misapplying Godel's statements

edit on 18-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



The bottom line IMO. If you claim god/creator exists in any scientific sense, back it up. Inferring gods existence, assuming his existence or interpreting phenomena as needing his existence, seems the best anyone can come up with.

The only thing always missing when a creator is claimed to exist, is anything of the actual creator or any way of observing it directly.

He/she/it is always noticeably absent. Always. No genuine means of observing such a creator are ever put forward.

The reasons for this always end up amounting to the supernatural, magic. Perhaps there is a simpler reason for such shyness, perhaps a more obvious reason why he gives every impression of something that doesn't exist ? A feat he seems to accomplish quite naturally, without even trying....


edit on 18-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.




posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

The bottom line IMO. If you claim god exists, back it up. Inferring gods existence, assuming his existence or interpreting phenomena as needing his existence, seems the best anyone can come up with.

The only thing always missing when proof for god is offered, is any genuine proof for god itself.


And that's the best you can come up with?

Once again we just go in circles. Yes that is your opinion fair enough. The fundamental aspects of Godels theory are easy to grasp, the fullness of it is not so simple. Yes it is very easy to simply state it's a misinterpretation and leave it there. If that works for you then fine. Your genuine proof line shows you've missed the entire point regarding Godel. And the fact that most of science would not exist without inferrence.

Godel and Compton received the same attitude you are displaying . Yet the truths they discovered remain intact.

I've only just read your previous post on the previous page, it was much more thoughtful. But you are misinterpretating my points. I do not know the nature of God. What I believe is that consciousness is the primary fabric of the universe and it is singular. So in that view there is no separate God. As far as religion goes it's more in line with Vedic thought. I cannot prove it. EdMc^2 would disagree with me here I think. That's OK I respect his views. Who knows perhaps he is correct.

When I say outside the universe, it is an abstract, meaning outside of matter, energy and time. Outside of these is immaterial the quantum foam of pure infinite possibility we know this. This is unbounded, no circle can be drawn around that which is not matter/energy and is outside of time.

Also just between you and me
I have had experiences that could be called transcendental, states of mind I never could have imagined possible. Ecstatic states that are difficult to even conceive in the everyday consciousness. Many of my views are from personal experiences, the experiences actually led me to the science that confirmed what I discovered in these states. I KNOW there is something beyond this reality. Take it or leave it. To me it is not hidden at all. Western society and materialism has inflicted the blindness. For others, like my teachers, it is their daily bread and butter they walk in both realms freely.
edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Godel didn't state that just because unknowns exist everything (like god) is suddenly true or proven. You are taking his statement out of context and mix it with a healthy dose of pseudo-science



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's quite a strawman there MrXYZ. No one has said that. You made it up all by yourself. Well done.

Let me ask YOU a question, since you are so up on Godels work.

Is the universe illogical and inconsistent, or is it logical and consistent?

I await your answer.
edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's quite a strawman there MrXYZ. No one has said that. You made it up all by yourself. Well done.

Let me ask YOU a question, since you are so up on Godels work.

Is the universe illogical and inconsistent, or is it logical and consistent?

I await your answer.
edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


Only an action or opinion can be logical, you can't characterize the universe like that. Not sure where you're going with this, but if you're implying that consistency or order is somehow proof of a creator, that would be an argument from ignorance.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Ha, your mind truly baffles me. Super natural is a term of ignorance, when the mechanisms of a supposed super natural effect are known it then becomes natural so it was never super natural to begin with. It's a relative term to current understanding. And no it has not been falsified by "super natural cause" . What does that even mean? If we could falsify it with a "super natural cause" then that in itself is proof of "super natural cause". We'd be stuck in an infinite loop without anyway way to resolve it. How can something be falsified with an unknown?

Back to semantics again, I see. You pretty much said I can't prove its natural, and I said you can't prove that it's not, hence the term supernatural. But as usual you are playing word games, rather than acknowledging the fact that you can't prove DNA or anything else is a result of intelligence or a creator.


You claimed that DNA is not natural, did you not? You need evidence beyond, "it appears complex and has a code". Maybe I should have said intelligence rather than super natural.

I'll state this FACT again.

Neither of us know the exact answer about the true origin of DNA.

DO YOU DENY THIS?

Will you ignore the question and all of my points yet again?
edit on 18-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



And nobody has been able to falsify the origin of code with a super natural cause.


That was your great refutation.

Sorry buddy, you can't falsify anything with the unknown. You can replace it with intelligence if you like, it then becomes completely false.

That's not so hard is it?

Logic demands an intelligent cause. Intelligence is the ONLY source of symbolic code. Full stop.

Is it God? I don't know. What IT is I do not know. This I cannot deny.

I only address valid points, and sometimes MrXYZ

edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Logic demands an intelligent cause. Intelligence is the ONLY source of symbolic code. Full stop.

You keep stating this like every person in the world understands this as being common sense and without flaw. This statement means absolutely nothing. It literally has no meaning. You and emdc2 rest your whole idea on the concept of DNA being too complex to appropriate itself into a hereditary mechanism on its own, and try to use Godel and information theory to prove your point. Like I said, this is absurd, philosophical drivel that takes an arbitrary quantitative approach to researching molecules and turns it into a description inherent to the molecules themselves. Does the fact that we say "2 plus 2 equals 4" imply that numbers were intended to be described in English?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs
 



And nobody has been able to falsify the origin of code with a super natural cause.


That was your great refutation.

Sorry buddy, you can't falsify anything with the unknown. You can replace it with intelligence if you like, it then becomes completely false.

That's not so hard is it?

Logic demands an intelligent cause. Intelligence is the ONLY source of symbolic code. Full stop.

Is it God? I don't know. What IT is I do not know. This I cannot deny.

I only address valid points, and sometimes MrXYZ

edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


Prime example of an argument from complexity...an argumentative fallacy



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

So there's only one logical answer - the Creator must be uncreated - always existing. Otherwise the alternative is nothing created everything.

So the real question is - which one make sense?

Like I said before - if we can accept things that are beyond our understanding like "quantum entanglement", black holes, event horizon and many more phenomenon.

Why is it hard to accept an always existing supernatural Being?

Know what I mean?



How can you call abiogenesis a silly idea, and create two HUGE posts of evidence to prove it, yet accept with NO evidence whatsoever the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible being that created the WHOLE universe, who creates miracles, and lives in another dimension called heaven?

If abioGenesis is silly (and I'm not saying it isn't silly) then your factless leap to this type of god existing isn't just silly, it's insane.

Yes, no matter how brilliant the scientists are, I will continue to scream "You can't get something from nothing! You can't get something from nothing! You can't get something from nothing!"

While at the same time, I will continue to scream, "Show me EVIDENCE that a god exists! Show me EVIDENCE that a god exists! Show me EVIDENCE that a god exists!"

Do you want to know what makes more sense than either of your offerings? How about the first living thing being a non-celluar super-simple life form that evolved into a complicated life form made of cells? Maybe it was slime - a big ole gob of prehistoric jell-o. I'm not saying this is true, I'm just saying it makes WAY WAY more sense than getting something from nothing, or a god.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Sorry buddy, you can't falsify anything with the unknown. You can replace it with intelligence if you like, it then becomes completely false.

I've been trying to tell you this for the past 20 pages. You are appealing to the unknown claiming an intelligence is responsible for DNA, with no evidence to indicate this intelligence even exists. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?


Logic demands an intelligent cause. Intelligence is the ONLY source of symbolic code. Full stop.

Nope. Logic does NOT demand this and I've clearly explained it in several posts that you have chosen to ignore. I'm not repeating it again. Logic is based on facts, not an appeal to what science hasn't yet discovered. You can't prove ANY advanced intelligence even exits beyond human beings so there's no logical reason to assume that an external or higher intelligence is required or even necessary for the origination of DNA.


I only address valid points, and sometimes MrXYZ :lol

You can't just dismiss a counter point as invalid in a debate without demonstrating why and you've ignored just about every one that I made. I completely dissected your "DNA code came from intelligence" argument, and the logic (lack of logic really) behind it.

You have not provide any evidence to suggest DNA is non physical. It is a man made code, based on the structure and arrangement of the atoms. Your entire argument has been an appeal to the unknown, but now that I say you can't prove your side either, you get up in arms about it as if you can prove it... but you can't. It's just wishful thinking. Your method of inference is invalid as I clearly already showed. If you can't argue against this fact without changing the topic or ignoring counterpoints then repeating your original claim, you have nothing.

For the last time:

I do not know the origin of DNA code

YOU do not know the origin of DNA code

We both do not know. Stop dodging this and acting like you do. You do not, and you have no clue how science actually works. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And for the last time stop equating human intelligence with a higher intelligence. They aren't the same thing and only one of which we know exists. I don't know why its so difficult to just admit it's your personal opinion instead of making up all these "inferences" and other nonsense that dodges the truth and specifics of the situation in favor of word games.
edit on 18-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I'm actually enjoying it a great deal that believers try to now justify their belief with word games and semantics...just shows how desperate they are and how much their world is shrinking. Just a few hundred years ago people still believed nonsense like the literally interpretation of Genesis, or a god causing floods/disease...and just look at how few people believe that garbage nowadays.


Religions have a choice, they can either insist on being taken literally (and die off in the process), or become flexible enough to accept that those stories aren't to be taken literally. Buddhism does a good job at that, fundamentalist Christianity/Islam clearly not.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I'm also amazed at how often believers talk about "logic" given how illogical their beliefs and scriptures often are:








posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021

Originally posted by squiz

Logic demands an intelligent cause. Intelligence is the ONLY source of symbolic code. Full stop.

You keep stating this like every person in the world understands this as being common sense and without flaw. This statement means absolutely nothing. It literally has no meaning.


It's a statement of fact. Computer scientists know it. electrical engineers know it as far as information systems go. Information scientist know it. Even Origin of life researchers have commented on this problem. The origin of life problem is an origin of information problem. The meaning is clear as day.

There is no chemical or physical reason why the a particular arrangement that creates codons should dictate a particular polypeptide. It is symbolic.

It's not an argument form complexity, it' as simple as can be.The statement is not meaningless. That's just denial.


edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
I've been trying to tell you this for the past 20 pages. You are appealing to the unknown claiming an intelligence is responsible for DNA, with no evidence to indicate this intelligence even exists. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?


I'm not appealing to an unknown, I'm appealing to a known. Code only comes from a mind.
Why is it so hard for you to understand. The above is a clear misrepresentation. YOU must apeal to an UNKNOWN because there are no other known sources. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp. Your in bizzarro land.


Nope. Logic does NOT demand this and I've clearly explained it in several posts that you have chosen to ignore. I'm not repeating it again. Logic is based on facts,


You've only provide logical fallacies and misrepresentations. You do not understand logic as far as I can see. With statements like "no one has falsified code with the super natural" Yeah that's really logical.

You also claimed that DNA was not a code, that it is simplistic, which goes against everything science has discovered. That's logic? No it's denial. It's embarrassing in light of your self proclaimed understanding of science.
How you can continue to post in light of such critical errors is amazing. You then claim I don't understand science.

Your arguments were based on the reasoning of the inference, you made several dozen BS twisted arguments on the simple 1,2,3 inductive logic. I restated the inference and UAV backed it up.

What KNOWN causes can best describe the phenomena we are trying to explain?

Go on, disect that statement and explain why it is not logical. It the same argument. If you like I'll go back and disect your logical fallacies for you?

Code comes from Mind = Fact.



You can't just dismiss a counter point as invalid in a debate without demonstrating why and you've ignored just about every one that I made. I completely dissected your "DNA code came from intelligence" argument, and the logic (lack of logic really) behind it.


Ha, you really have a high opinion of yourself don't you. All your examples were complete twaddle and not worth a response. UAV said himself, we can only apply what we know. I agree. We know codes come from a mind and YOU CANNOT SHOW OTHERWISE.



You have not provide any evidence to suggest DNA is non physical. It is a man made code, based on the structure and arrangement of the atoms. Your entire argument has been an appeal to the unknown, but now that I say you can't prove your side either, you get up in arms about it as if you can prove it... but you can't. It's just wishful thinking. Your method of inference is invalid as I clearly already showed. If you can't argue against this fact without changing the topic or ignoring counterpoints then repeating your original claim, you have nothing.


This is what I mean, you lack even the simplest of comprehension. DNA is physical (you can't even grasp the problem). It's a man made code? What? really? It's not the arrangement of atoms. It's the arrangement of nucleotides. A Truly stunning display of self dillusion. You debunk yourself with these rediculous statements.

Once again my argument stems from what is known. You've invalidated nothing except perhaps in your twisted understanding as you just clearly just demonstrated.



For the last time:

I do not know the origin of DNA code

YOU do not know the origin of DNA code


I know the origin of code.



and you have no clue how science actually works. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Haha, Oh boy, That's rich given you denied the code in the first place, as well as few other things that have been known for decades. The DNA is physical line, man made code, it's too simple etc... What a joke.

You can falsify my logic by showing an example of a code that does not come from a mind.
The inference is purely scientific, it can be falsified.
You cannot use logical fallacies and misrepresentations. Ask UAV, we can only apply what we know, he unwittingly perfectly rounded out the inference pretty much exactly how I have stated it.

edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Ah MrXYZ, Science by memes. How appropiate.

It's also another strawman, I believe in evolution and an old Earth. Your simply used to arguing against YEC's It's all you know. Easy prey, I bet it makes you feel all smug and superior doesn't it?

Methods of evolution include transposition, horizontal gene transfer, genome doubling, natural genetic engineering, symbiosis and adaptive mutation.

How about my question. Are you afraid to answer? You don't have any concept of Godels work at all do you?

Let me guess it's an argumentive logical fallacy.


Why don't you save some time and just have it as your signature?



I'm actually enjoying it a great deal that believers try to now justify their belief with word games and semantics...


Pfff. That's the only line of defense that has come from the challenge of not being able to provide a code that does not come from a mind. You can't answer so all you have is word games and semantics, even then they are clearly intentional side tracking, fallacies etc... This is what happens when BELIEVERS have no answers.

Denial is apparent when you can't even admit simple things like these.

You BELIEVE everything came from nothing. The absolute height of incredulity.
edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Let's simplify.

What is the KNOWN source of symbolic code people? answer the question. It only requires a simple answer.

Why can't we infer from what we know? That's very very basic scientific principle. Thanks again to UAV for clarifying this point.

You see, you HAVE to deny it, don't you? You will never answer these in simple terms without all the twisting and misrepresentations can you?

You don't have to agree that the conclusion is correct. But seriously you are not being honest with yourselves because you refuse to acknowledge even these very simple things.

Science has no answer for the origin of life for good reason. The origin of information. The RNA hypothesis was thought to provide an answer even though it begins with information. 30 years later and only more and more problems with it have emerged.

Neo-Darwinism will not survive the infusion of bioinformatics, it's days are numbered, It's already outdated. When the last die hard darwinists die off. The new biologists of the information age will provide real answers, and in turn propel us technologically and medically forward in quantum leaps by using and understanding what is inherent in nature. Wait and see it's already begun.
edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz


It's a statement of fact. Computer scientists know it. electrical engineers know it as far as information systems go. Information scientist know it. Even Origin of life researchers have commented on this problem. The origin of life problem is an origin of information problem. The meaning is clear as day.

There is no chemical or physical reason why the a particular arrangement that creates codons should dictate a particular polypeptide. It is symbolic.

It's not an argument form complexity, it' as simple as can be.The statement is not meaningless. That's just denial.


edit on 18-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)
Please share some of these facts. What's clear is you for some reason take pride in cherry picking from abstracts and from scientists who believe the exact opposite of what you claim (Please quote more Szostak).

Amino acids do not violate the laws of chemistry. The "code" you speak of is not something that exists outside the molecules involved. GAA means glutamine because the molecules that make up guanine and adenine form glutamine when attached to a ribosome. We've known all this empirically for about 60 years, nothing is happening outside the laws of chemistry.


There is no chemical or physical reason why the a particular arrangement that creates codons should dictate a particular polypeptide. It is symbolic.


This is absurd, it actually made me laugh out loud. Where are you getting this from. I would assume from some creationist website, even though you've said time and time again you are not a creationist, despite having linked multiple times to a creationist website. LMAO the genetic code does not violate the laws of chemistry.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


Yes the building blocks of the information is defined in the molecules themselves like you are saying but it is the arrangement of these that forms the code. This is the semantic part. Just as letters form words that form sentences etc.. We have already created artificial genes this way. We could theoreticaly build life by using the code. Perhaps that is why evolution produced a being that could do just that?

mitpress.mit.edu...


The relationship between law and chance in the early evolution of life is the guiding theme of this provocative study. The author explores modern ideas about the origin of life from the standpoint of philosophy of science, emphasizing the contribution made by information theory.

Küppers asserts that all life phenomena are steered by information and that this information is already defined materially in a universal form at the level of the biological macromolecule. The question of the origin of life turns out to be the question of the origin of biological information

Information and the Origin of Life takes up the fundamental problems of whether and, if so, to what extent the origin of semantic information during evolution can be explained as a general phenomenon within the framework of physics and chemistry. The results could have far-reaching consequences for such fields as the philosophy of mind and artificial intelligence.

Bernd-Olaf Küppers has long focused his attention on basic questions of natural science and the philosophy of science at the borders of physics, chemistry, and biology. He has been engaged since 1971 in research at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, and from 1979 to 1984 he held lecture courses in philosophy at the University of Göttingen


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


The last universal common ancestor of contemporary biology (LUCA) used a precise set of 20 amino acids as a standard alphabet with which to build genetically encoded protein polymers. Considerable evidence indicates that some of these amino acids were present through nonbiological syntheses prior to the origin of life, while the rest evolved as inventions of early metabolism. However, the same evidence indicates that many alternatives were also available, which highlights the question: what factors led biological evolution on our planet to define its standard alphabet? One possibility is that natural selection favored a set of amino acids that exhibits clear, nonrandom properties-a set of especially useful building blocks. However, previous analysis that tested whether the standard alphabet comprises amino acids with unusually high variance in size, charge, and hydrophobicity (properties that govern what protein structures and functions can be constructed) failed to clearly distinguish evolution's choice from a sample of randomly chosen alternatives. Here, we demonstrate unambiguous support for a refined hypothesis: that an optimal set of amino acids would spread evenly across a broad range of values for each fundamental property. Specifically, we show that the standard set of 20 amino acids represents the possible spectra of size, charge, and hydrophobicity more broadly and more evenly than can be explained by chance alone.


www.newscientist.com...


"All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions," said Venter. "We are now using computer software to design new DNA software."

The digital and biological worlds are becoming interchangeable, he added, describing how scientists now simply send each other the information to make DIY biological material rather than sending the material itself.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

The bottom line IMO. If you claim god exists, back it up. Inferring gods existence, assuming his existence or interpreting phenomena as needing his existence, seems the best anyone can come up with.

The only thing always missing when proof for god is offered, is any genuine proof for god itself.


And that's the best you can come up with?


I didn't simply "come up" with it. It does appear to be an unavoidable, though possibly inconvenient, fact. Denying it's relevance, doesn't make it less so. It seems quite a fundamental problem for those who feel that their version of a creator is valid, scientifically.


I would be happy enough if it was different, if you could rectify this situation by offering more than your own personal beliefs and interpretation of things.


You may feel I am simply closed minded, yet not all who disagree with you (including myself) will necessarily be this way de facto. I don't doubt your experiences. I doubt your interpretation of them, if you think they are proof of a creator. From what I now read, I have some inkling of doubt that even the interpretation of what these personal experiences mean, is genuinely your own.


I have similar experiences, from too long a time searching for some truth of existence. I found it necessary to shun teachers of this type because somewhere along the way, they all ask for belief in some form without genuinely substantiating it. I have never found one that wasn't limited by some form of dogma. It always seems fascinating that basically the same type of experience can give birth to so many different and sometimes conflicting versions of "truth".


I have known too many mystical teachers. The wise, the enlightened. Yet I had cause to doubt them and their knowledge, having had the same experience, sometimes surpassing them and knowing I was always the same ignoramus as before, albeit with some experience. That without taking anyone's word on what these things mean, in each instance they seemed to only illustrate further the extent of my ignorance, rather than genuinely enlighten. As Socrates rightly pointed out, there is no better place to start, than from the humble realisation of ignorance ie. "I don't know". Humility and an open mind are a scarce commodity, particularly among the religious, the ascetics and mystics. "I could be wrong" are words you will never be likely to hear.


Yet I find I can't be an atheist, due to such personal experiences. I don't doubt there are great possibilities. Consciousness appears to hold some mysteries that could eventually bring some surprises. Though exactly how and why I feel this way, I can only say that some experience is beyond what can be explained to another. I still study and experiment this way. Yet I would never claim it has to be a certain way, or that science should accept it, or that I am above simply being wrong. That would lack honesty.


The end result for me is studying them from the point of view of the phenomena known as religious delusion, the how and why of certain beliefs and the dogmas cults that form as a result. It also gives me a healthy appreciation of science. It might not be perfect, but it is the best method we have of being able to separate fact from fiction.


There are obviously limits to what can be "inferred" from any data, phenomena or experiment. At some point it starts to resemble mere speculation. We don't need Godel, to be able to understand that. This is (rightly or wrongly) how I personally view the basis on which your perceived creator rests, speculative. A possibility at best, construed as fact.





edit on 18-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join