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.
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.
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.
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).
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 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.
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?.
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?
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!
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.
Did chance event created intelligence or did a mind created intelligence?
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?
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?
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.
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"??
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).