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: 34
14
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz]


We did not create life from scratch: we transformed existing life into new life. Nor did we design and build a new chromosome from scratch. Rather, using only digitised information, we synthesised a modified version, a copy of the M. mycoides genome with 14 of its genes deleted and a "watermark" written in another 5000-plus base pairs. The result is not an "artificial" life form; it is a living, self-replicating cell that most microbiologists would find hard to distinguish from the progenitor cell, unless they sequenced its DNA.



What do you think this means?




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

As far as science goes, all I'm saying is it possible to detect design? not asking who is the designer. That can remain theological or philosophical.



Well you don't really detect design, you conclude design by the effects one detects/observes. For example, someone detects the inner workings of the cell (notice how I already used the word "workings"), when describing the inner workings of the cell one has to use words that accurately describe what's going on, this automaticly forces you to make comparisons whith what is known (words in our language), some may say that you're already making conclusions here but I still count this as part of the observation, cause how else are you going to translate the visual observation in words/sensible information. So when someone like the person you quoted says "biological machinery" then he's not drawing a conclusion but making an observation.

So the effect/observation/detection becomes:

more sophisticated machinery than human machinery but still similar (anyone denying this observation by saying it's already a conclusion is denying his own eyes, denying reality, denying human language and communication skills)

Cause:

a source of intelligence that was more effective at interacting with its environment than human beings are at this point in time and thinking similar as us when faced with certain challenges


I just did that quickly, you can probably argue a bit about the wording, I was thinking about the word "effective", I'm not quite happy with that one, sophisticated again? not that important, nvm.

Note that I haven't even adressed DNA information yet, the machinery alone already proves an intelligent designing source, as long as there is no viable hypothesis that matches the above one in terms of logic I'm not even going to bother trying to convince evolutionists (who believe in abiogenesis as well even though sometimes they like to lie to themselves about that fact, seperate the 2 but still call the forming and expanding of the universe "the evolution of the universe". They act as if by renaming the part of general natural evolution where all the observations point in the direction of intelligence, they can hide that part from those who want to find out whether any type of evolution happened or not, what they've done here is rename several words we used like mutation, adaptation, forming, expanding, changing, etc. into one word "evolution", that's done when one wants to spread confusion, check the history of language and compare them with the political situations, I'm not gonna go there, too off-topic, all I'm saying, it's been done before).



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by whereislogic
 


That's the argument from ignorance


When you say human machinery is designed, and therefore everything is...well...you are like the baby who sees a car for the first time, and because the car is blue it concludes that all cars are blue.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by whereislogic

Originally posted by squiz

As far as science goes, all I'm saying is it possible to detect design? not asking who is the designer. That can remain theological or philosophical.



Well you don't really detect design, you conclude design by the effects one detects/observes. For example, someone detects the inner workings of the cell (notice how I already used the word "workings"), when describing the inner workings of the cell one has to use words that accurately describe what's going on, this automaticly forces you to make comparisons whith what is known (words in our language), some may say that you're already making conclusions here but I still count this as part of the observation, cause how else are you going to translate the visual observation in words/sensible information. So when someone like the person you quoted says "biological machinery" then he's not drawing a conclusion but making an observation.

So the effect/observation/detection becomes:

more sophisticated machinery than human machinery but still similar (anyone denying this observation by saying it's already a conclusion is denying his own eyes, denying reality, denying human language and communication skills)

Cause:

a source of intelligence that was more effective at interacting with its environment than human beings are at this point in time and thinking similar as us when faced with certain challenges


I just did that quickly, you can probably argue a bit about the wording, I was thinking about the word "effective", I'm not quite happy with that one, sophisticated again? not that important, nvm.

Note that I haven't even adressed DNA information yet, the machinery alone already proves an intelligent designing source, as long as there is no viable hypothesis that matches the above one in terms of logic I'm not even going to bother trying to convince evolutionists (who believe in abiogenesis as well even though sometimes they like to lie to themselves about that fact, seperate the 2 but still call the forming and expanding of the universe "the evolution of the universe". They act as if by renaming the part of general natural evolution where all the observations point in the direction of intelligence, they can hide that part from those who want to find out whether any type of evolution happened or not, what they've done here is rename several words we used like mutation, adaptation, forming, expanding, changing, etc. into one word "evolution", that's done when one wants to spread confusion, check the history of language and compare them with the political situations, I'm not gonna go there, too off-topic, all I'm saying, it's been done before).


Excellent post!




posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by whereislogic
 


That's the argument from ignorance


When you say human machinery is designed, and therefore everything is...well...you are like the baby who sees a car for the first time, and because the car is blue it concludes that all cars are blue.


Once again an ignorant argument Mr. XYZ.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

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.


Like I said - abiogenesis hypothesis is not only a silly idea but to quote you "factless" idea.

It can't be done and it will never happen - life arising from non living matter by chance event.

As for factS on what I believe - there are thousands but I'll just leave you with this one question:

Did chance event created intelligence or did a mind created intelligence?

what do the FACTS SHOW?.



end.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Like I said - abiogenesis hypothesis is not only a silly idea but to quote you "factless" idea.

It can't be done and it will never happen - life arising from non living matter by chance event.

As for factS on what I believe - there are thousands but I'll just leave you with this one question:

Did chance event created intelligence or did a mind created intelligence?

what do the FACTS SHOW?.


How many times throughout history have we taken the 'impossible by nature' and learned that it was possible?
Every step of the way logic has erased the gods from earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, lightning...

Now, the religious think they have upped their game by following science and declaring that the information that formed the very first living cell could not have come from nature. I admit I have no idea how the first living cell got its start, but consider this:

We know how rocks came into existence. Suns exploded and sent carbon all over the universe. The carbon mixed with other elements and formed rocks. There must also be very specific information in these rocks because there are so many different kinds. The information formed one way, and we got granite. Formed another way, and we got marble, sand, quartz, diamonds.... There is very specific information in iron, else that same information would also form platinum and gold.

All of the information in non-living matter didn't come about by mystery and magic. We know how these things were formed (well, not me personally), so why is it so hard to accept that life occurred naturally, only we just don't know how yet?



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by edmc^2

Like I said - abiogenesis hypothesis is not only a silly idea but to quote you "factless" idea.

It can't be done and it will never happen - life arising from non living matter by chance event.

As for factS on what I believe - there are thousands but I'll just leave you with this one question:

Did chance event created intelligence or did a mind created intelligence?

what do the FACTS SHOW?.


How many times throughout history have we taken the 'impossible by nature' and learned that it was possible?
Every step of the way logic has erased the gods from earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, lightning...

Now, the religious think they have upped their game by following science and declaring that the information that formed the very first living cell could not have come from nature. I admit I have no idea how the first living cell got its start, but consider this:

We know how rocks came into existence. Suns exploded and sent carbon all over the universe. The carbon mixed with other elements and formed rocks. There must also be very specific information in these rocks because there are so many different kinds. The information formed one way, and we got granite. Formed another way, and we got marble, sand, quartz, diamonds.... There is very specific information in iron, else that same information would also form platinum and gold.

All of the information in non-living matter didn't come about by mystery and magic. We know how these things were formed (well, not me personally), so why is it so hard to accept that life occurred naturally, only we just don't know how yet?



Excellent post!




posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by edmc^2

Like I said - abiogenesis hypothesis is not only a silly idea but to quote you "factless" idea.

It can't be done and it will never happen - life arising from non living matter by chance event.

As for factS on what I believe - there are thousands but I'll just leave you with this one question:

Did chance event created intelligence or did a mind created intelligence?

what do the FACTS SHOW?.


How many times throughout history have we taken the 'impossible by nature' and learned that it was possible?
Every step of the way logic has erased the gods from earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, lightning...

Now, the religious think they have upped their game by following science and declaring that the information that formed the very first living cell could not have come from nature. I admit I have no idea how the first living cell got its start, but consider this:

We know how rocks came into existence. Suns exploded and sent carbon all over the universe. The carbon mixed with other elements and formed rocks. There must also be very specific information in these rocks because there are so many different kinds. The information formed one way, and we got granite. Formed another way, and we got marble, sand, quartz, diamonds.... There is very specific information in iron, else that same information would also form platinum and gold.

All of the information in non-living matter didn't come about by mystery and magic. We know how these things were formed (well, not me personally), so why is it so hard to accept that life occurred naturally, only we just don't know how yet?



Excellent post!



Thanks!



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by whereislogic
 


That's the argument from ignorance


When you say human machinery is designed, and therefore everything is...well...you are like the baby who sees a car for the first time, and because the car is blue it concludes that all cars are blue.


Once again an ignorant argument Mr. XYZ.







How is pointing out the FACT that he's using the "argument from ignorance" somehow "ignorant"??


Glad to see you don't have any real arguments against that assessment





Did chance event created intelligence or did a mind created intelligence?


WE DON'T KNOW!!!!!

3...2...1...until edmc uses the old god of the gaps argument as a "genius" comeback

edit on 22-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Like I said - abiogenesis hypothesis is not only a silly idea but to quote you "factless" idea.

It can't be done and it will never happen - life arising from non living matter by chance event.

As for factS on what I believe - there are thousands but I'll just leave you with this one question:

Did chance event created intelligence or did a mind created intelligence?

what do the FACTS SHOW?.



As per the following post, was an intelligent mind needed to create rocks?


How many times throughout history have we taken the 'impossible by nature' and learned that it was possible?
Every step of the way logic has erased the gods from earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, lightning...

Now, the religious think they have upped their game by following science and declaring that the information that formed the very first living cell could not have come from nature. I admit I have no idea how the first living cell got its start, but consider this:

We know how rocks came into existence. Suns exploded and sent carbon all over the universe. The carbon mixed with other elements and formed rocks. There must also be very specific information in these rocks because there are so many different kinds. The information formed one way, and we got granite. Formed another way, and we got marble, sand, quartz, diamonds.... There is very specific information in iron, else that same information would also form platinum and gold.

All of the information in non-living matter didn't come about by mystery and magic. We know how these things were formed (well, not me personally), so why is it so hard to accept that life occurred naturally, only we just don't know how yet?



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by edmc^2

Like I said - abiogenesis hypothesis is not only a silly idea but to quote you "factless" idea.

It can't be done and it will never happen - life arising from non living matter by chance event.

As for factS on what I believe - there are thousands but I'll just leave you with this one question:

Did chance event created intelligence or did a mind created intelligence?

what do the FACTS SHOW?.


How many times throughout history have we taken the 'impossible by nature' and learned that it was possible?
Every step of the way logic has erased the gods from earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, floods, lightning...

Now, the religious think they have upped their game by following science and declaring that the information that formed the very first living cell could not have come from nature. I admit I have no idea how the first living cell got its start, but consider this:

We know how rocks came into existence. Suns exploded and sent carbon all over the universe. The carbon mixed with other elements and formed rocks. There must also be very specific information in these rocks because there are so many different kinds. The information formed one way, and we got granite. Formed another way, and we got marble, sand, quartz, diamonds.... There is very specific information in iron, else that same information would also form platinum and gold.

All of the information in non-living matter didn't come about by mystery and magic. We know how these things were formed (well, not me personally), so why is it so hard to accept that life occurred naturally, only we just don't know how yet?



The problem here is, I don't think me edmc2 is arguing from the same table as the rest of us. Or, not exactly anyway.

What he is saying, in essence, is that spontaneous generation (that is, maggots are produced by rotting meat, and then turn into flies...not that maggots are the result of fly eggs hatching) was disproven a few hundred years ago. Basically.

What his arguing accidentally seems to do is support "God is Creator". I don't think that is what is meant. But perhaps I am wrong.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Coming to conclusion that all cars must be blue does not equal a conclusion of design. Your argumentation is specious.

reply to post by jiggerj
 


All matter has an origin.
*****

Good OP



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


It's exactly the same


In both cases you draw a conclusion without having the facts, ergo being able to make an informed statement. We simply don't know...so edmc's argument is (as so often) the old "god of the gaps" argument. He's filling a gap in knowledge with magic.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Color is not a matter of design. Color is a matter of light. Therefore, your argument is not the same and does not serve as an accurate paraphrasing of the question at hand.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Color is not a matter of design. Color is a matter of light. Therefore, your argument is not the same and does not serve as an accurate paraphrasing of the question at hand.


Yes...and a car isn't "life"...it's an analogy, look it up



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I know a "car," is not life and I also know the design of the car was utilized as an analogy to imply all things mechanical have been designed since the car was designed. Please explain how your offering up your statement of color is "the same," type of argument. It clearly is not. Color exists where there is light, absent a perceiver.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by whereislogic
 


That's the argument from ignorance


When you say human machinery is designed, and therefore everything is...well...you are like the baby who sees a car for the first time, and because the car is blue it concludes that all cars are blue.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
How is pointing out the FACT that he's using the "argument from ignorance" somehow "ignorant"??


Maybe because you adressed your own logic ("when you say human machinery is designed", etc.) instead of my hypothesis (recheck my comment, you won't find the verb "design" in there). I gave an effect and a possible cause, i like what you did with the car-color analogy though, it shows that you're at least looking for an observation/effect that shows the hypothesis to be false (that's how science works baby), too bad though, the color of a car is not machinery as pointed out in other words by the person before me. You'll need to try again with an observation of an effect that can be worded as "machinery" (preferrably, something that HAS actually been worded as "machinery" by someone on this planet at least).



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by whereislogic

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by whereislogic
 


That's the argument from ignorance


When you say human machinery is designed, and therefore everything is...well...you are like the baby who sees a car for the first time, and because the car is blue it concludes that all cars are blue.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
How is pointing out the FACT that he's using the "argument from ignorance" somehow "ignorant"??


Maybe because you adressed your own logic ("when you say human machinery is designed", etc.) instead of my hypothesis (recheck my comment, you won't find the verb "design" in there). I gave an effect and a possible cause, i like what you did with the car-color analogy though, it shows that you're at least looking for an observation/effect that shows the hypothesis to be false (that's how science works baby), too bad though, the color of a car is not machinery as pointed out in other words by the person before me. You'll need to try again with an observation of an effect that can be worded as "machinery" (preferrably, something that HAS actually been worded as "machinery" by someone on this planet at least).


It's funny how both of you completely misunderstood XYZ's point. The point is that science doesn't know the answer yet. We haven't discovered the origin of DNA and lots of other stuff. But just because science doesn't know the answer, doesn't mean the answer is intelligent design. This is the path of logic you guys are taking here. XYZ was offering an analogy that is similar to the ignorance in science on the origin of life. Science hasn't yet discovered this, but you are claiming that because they haven't, that it had to have been designed, which is similar to only seeing a blue car and assuming the rest are blue as well. Since you've only seen complex or coded information come from human intelligence, you assume that something that contains a code is automatically designed. It's assuming an unknown cause as well as equating human intelligence to a higher intelligence. Both are faulty logic.
edit on 22-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
i think the argument for abiogenesis makes more sense to how science is showing how the world works i.e a naturalistic way without the need for an intelligence to guide or create life and i have nothing against people who beleive that an intelligence guides life but i think science has proven that evolution is reposnsible for the devolopment for all the myriad of complex lifeforms that inhabit the planet and that every argument for design in current lifeforms has been disproven

so i think beleiving life has to be designed is just placing the argument for design in a time that isnt cannot be studied as well as other eras and cannot be as thoroughly proven as other theories because the mere existence of life on this planet over the eras has changed the conditions in which the first lifefroms arised

i think people may lean towards the design idea as they cant beleive in dna arising from nothing but development of dna based organisms wouldnt of just happend by change but after the right set of conditions over million of years for the right set of organic molecules to form into lifeforms that can copy itself or that some precursor to dna just as rna based lifeforms existed first allowing the eventual change to dna based life to arise



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join