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: 36
14
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It was an EXPERIMENT!!


You can't simply say "well, that experiment wasn't conclusive...let's just fill that little gap in knowledge with magic and claim god did it". Sadly, that's EXACTLY what you claim. And as I posted a gazillion times before, that's a prime example of "god of the gaps".

Please do yourself a favour and read the link I posted above, it explains perfectly how you are wrong. You don't seem to understand what it means because you keep on using the same argumentative fallacy over and over and over and over again in your threads.

And again, it's a HYPOTHESIS. That basically means they make a claim, and then have to prove that claim.

For example "god did it" is a hypothesis too. Once you provided OBJECTIVE positive evidence that that's really the case it turns into a theory, like evolution. In the case of abiogenesis results aren't conclusive (yet), so it's still a hypothesis. In the case of "god did it", there's ZERO objective evidence...so it's still a hypothesis too.


edit on 23-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It was an EXPERIMENT!!


You can't simply say "well, that experiment wasn't conclusive...let's just fill that little gap in knowledge with magic and claim god did it". Sadly, that's EXACTLY what you claim. And as I posted a gazillion times before, that's a prime example of "god of the gaps".

Please do yourself a favour and read the link I posted above, it explains perfectly how you are wrong. You don't seem to understand what it means because you keep on using the same argumentative fallacy over and over and over and over again in your threads.

And again, it's a HYPOTHESIS. That basically means they make a claim, and then have to prove that claim.

For example "god did it" is a hypothesis too. Once you provided OBJECTIVE positive evidence that that's really the case it turns into a theory, like evolution. In the case of abiogenesis results aren't conclusive (yet), so it's still a hypothesis. In the case of "god did it", there's ZERO objective evidence...so it's still a hypothesis too.


edit on 23-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Didn't I say EXPERIMENT? and that abiogenesis a hypothesis?

Here it is again.

Also don't forget this ONE glaring FACT - using the Urey-Miller experiment:

If the apparatus they used to produce the non-living organic materials correspond to the Earth's primitive atmosphere, and the organic materials correspond to the building blocks for life, who do the scientists - Miller/Urey / people in your examples,

i.e.: (Shin Miyakawa,
Hiroto Yamanashi,
Kensei Kobayashi,
H. James Cleaves,
and Stanley L. Miller
D M Raup and
J W Valentine
Zofia Borowska and
David Mauzerall
Eugene V. Koonin
Vera Vasas,
Eörs Szathmáry,
and Mauro Santos )

et al correspond to in the abiogenesis hypothesis world?

Blind Chance Event or Intelligence?

Address the question.

who do the scientists correspond to in the abiogenesis hypothesis world?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The experiment was obviously designed by humans...so it required intelligence.

But you can't simply say "look, that required intelligence, ergo it all does!"


But that's what you're doing...and it's a great example the ARGUEMENT FROM IGNORANCE.

So in just the last few posts you used god of the gaps, ad hominem attacks, and now the argument from ignorance...all argumentative fallacies.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The experiment was obviously designed by humans...so it required intelligence.

But you can't simply say "look, that required intelligence, ergo it all does!"


But that's what you're doing...and it's a great example the ARGUEMENT FROM IGNORANCE.

So in just the last few posts you used god of the gaps, ad hominem attacks, and now the argument from ignorance...all argumentative fallacies.


hehehe....

Intelligence...so there is Intelligence involved in the Urey-Miller experiment!

Exactly what I'm saying.

If this is the case, why do atheists and evolutionists refer to this experiment then since abiogenesis hypothesis states that Life spontaneously generated, life arose by accident, blind chance?

Shouldn't they refer to something DESIGNED / CREATED INTELLIGENTLY by blind chance - since Intelligence is NOT required?

Is this credulity?

To me it is and it's the pinnacle of ignorance to believe that blind chance can create Intelligent life and to say it does not require INTELLIGENCE to create INTELLIGENT life.

TATA...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
God is just as much blind chance as spontaneous generation is, yet even more unlikely since it has ZERO evidence behind it. At least abiogenesis has a few experiments that duplicate parts of the process. You can call abiogenesis silly, unscientific or whatever you want, but the fact remains that you can apply the same if not more scrutiny to the existence of god. As little as the evidence is for abiogenesis, it is still substantially greater than the objective evidence for god (which doesn't exist).
edit on 23-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   


If this is the case, why do atheists and evolutionists refer to this experiment then since abiogenesis hypothesis states that Life spontaneously generated, life arose by accident, blind chance?


Firstly, those chemical reactions don't require intelligence to happen. It's irrelevant if they come together naturally or by being tossed together by you, me, or anyone else. 2ndly, it's far less likely for the existence of a conscious state than for the existence of simple and unconscious living organisms. Cognitive systems are far more complex than reactionary systems, and it's even worse that a cognitive system would be unable to function or exist without a reactionary system, or even more importantly, without complex adaptive system to which has feedback in the system. Hence the funny part is, the same processes that are involved in evolution are required to have any hope of having a cognitive system, much less one capable of a conscious state. What that means is that, yep you guessed it, conscious entities such as ourselves can not exist without cause. It's almost hilarious to see people try and argue that the most complex thing, a conscious state, magically needs no cause while arguing to the highest levels of intentional ignorance in suggesting that the lesser complex magically needs an intelligent cause.. It's so ass backwards it's actually hilarious.. It's like asking a theist how snowflakes form, or if they realize that life is electromagnetic phenomenon and is largely governed by electromagnetism. And that of course gets into how organisms interact with their environment and how environmental pressures drive evolution.. It's chaotic complex adaptive system with feedback in the system. The very same system you need to have a working computer, or any hope of having a conscious state..

Thus since a conscious state can't exist without cause.. Science and evolutionary theory and it's principles remain correct and that which reflects the truth of reality.


edit on 24-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Like I said...you're simply using the argument from ignorance over and over and over and over again



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern


If this is the case, why do atheists and evolutionists refer to this experiment then since abiogenesis hypothesis states that Life spontaneously generated, life arose by accident, blind chance?


Firstly, those chemical reactions don't require intelligence to happen. It's irrelevant if they come together naturally or by being tossed together by you, me, or anyone else. 2ndly, it's far less likely for the existence of a conscious state than for the existence of simple and unconscious living organisms. Cognitive systems are far more complex than reactionary systems, and it's even worse that a cognitive system would be unable to function or exist without a reactionary system, or even more importantly, without complex adaptive system to which has feedback in the system. Hence the funny part is, the same processes that are involved in evolution are required to have any hope of having a cognitive system, much less one capable of a conscious state. What that means is that, yep you guessed it, conscious entities such as ourselves can not exist without cause. It's almost hilarious to see people try and argue that the most complex thing, a conscious state, magically needs no cause while arguing to the highest levels of intentional ignorance in suggesting that the lesser complex magically needs an intelligent cause.. It's so ass backwards it's actually hilarious.. It's like asking a theist how snowflakes form, or if they realize that life is electromagnetic phenomenon and is largely governed by electromagnetism. And that of course gets into how organisms interact with their environment and how environmental pressures drive evolution.. It's chaotic complex adaptive system with feedback in the system. The very same system you need to have a working computer, or any hope of having a conscious state..

Thus since a conscious state can't exist without cause.. Science and evolutionary theory and it's principles remain correct and that which reflects the truth of reality.



One big gaping flaw in your analogy:

"reactionary systems, cognitive system, function, reactionary system, complex adaptive system and feedback in the system" - points to some sort of programming, i.e intelligence.

Like you said:



The very same system you need to have a working computer


"a working computer" - a system made intelligent due to INTELLIGENT INPUT!

As such. my question to you is simple:

Where did the programing, the INFORMATION present in the SYSTEM came from?

Did the "system" created the program by itself for itself?

Or was there a programming CAUSE?

Which one makes sense?

And contrary to what you said:




those chemical reactions don't require intelligence to happen


it's a false statement because reality does not support such unproven hypothesis.

Without INTELLIGENCE - mixing lifeless chemicals randomly no matter how long it takes will NEVER transform itself into a living cell let alone an INTELLIGENT Conscious Life form.

But if you're able to prove your statement then please cite one or two experiments.

And like I said - using the Urey-Miller experiment is pointless and useless since INTELLIGENCE was involved in creating lifeless chemicals.



those chemical reactions don't require intelligence to happen


Show me - without INTELLIGENCE:



how environmental pressures drive evolution[?]



edit:

But if you insist in using the Urey-Miller experiment, Q is -

If the apparatus they used to produce the non-living organic materials correspond to the Earth's primitive atmosphere, and the organic materials correspond to the building blocks for life, who do the scientists - Miller/Urey / people in your examples,

i.e.: (Shin Miyakawa,
Hiroto Yamanashi,
Kensei Kobayashi,
H. James Cleaves,
and Stanley L. Miller
D M Raup and
J W Valentine
Zofia Borowska and
David Mauzerall
Eugene V. Koonin
Vera Vasas,
Eörs Szathmáry,
and Mauro Santos )

et al correspond to in the abiogenesis hypothesis world?

Blind Chance Event or Intelligence?



edit on 24-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: edit:



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why do you rehash the same argument from ignorance again? You've already done that multiple times?

The definition is linked on the previous page, and it explains perfectly why it's a nonsense argument



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Science has CONCLUSIVELY eliminated abiogenesis. finished, kaput, bupkus, nada, (i.e., THAT DOG DOES NOT HUNT!!! STICK A FORK IN IT!!!)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why do you rehash the same argument from ignorance again? You've already done that multiple times?

The definition is linked on the previous page, and it explains perfectly why it's a nonsense argument


Since you've already admitted that -



The experiment was obviously designed by humans...so it required intelligence.


Will you now admit that without INTELLIGENCE - mixing lifeless chemicals randomly no matter how long it takes will NEVER transform itself into a living cell let alone an INTELLIGENT Conscious Life form?

And if a human experiment like the Urey-Miller EXPERIMENT



required intelligence.


why doesn't the real thing - the Universe - with all its precise mathematical laws - require one?


let me guess - you don't know.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   


"reactionary systems, cognitive system, function, reactionary system, complex adaptive system and feedback in the system" - points to some sort of programming, i.e intelligence.


You clearly didn't comprehend anything I said.. Intelligence can't happen until their is an aware state. Please try again.. Intelligence is only the ability to apply knowledge, and knowledge must be gained through a complex system with feedback.. Sensory systems alone are highly complex..



"a working computer" - a system made intelligent due to INTELLIGENT INPUT!


Sorry you can't create that which yourself is slave to require in order to exist, to have a conscious state, or even function.. A computer was only used in my argument to tell you that they couldn't work without that which I outlined above.. You didn't seem to grasp the point what-so-ever regarding that neither a computer nor a conscious state would work, function, exist, or operate without that which I had outlined above.



Where did the programing, the INFORMATION present in the SYSTEM came from?


Existence itself... All we did was make use of it.. And the problem is, without the inertia of information, there is no possibility of any of us existing to make a computer in the first place.



Did the "system" created the program by itself for itself?


Giving a conscious mind can't exist without "CAUSE", yes existence itself did all the work by itself and for itself. Existence creates us, and we being of existence can go on to create other things. At the end of the day, Existence itself is the first cause, and the totality of causality to which governs everything including the conscious state.



Or was there a programming CAUSE?


There certainly was and is..



Which one makes sense?


Mine.



it's a false statement because reality does not support such unproven hypothesis.


It's a false statement? Really? Show us how chemical reactions magically need an intelligence to react. You seem to know absolutely nothing about Chemistry. According to your logic, you need magic elves making snowflakes for snowflakes to form.



Without INTELLIGENCE - mixing lifeless chemicals randomly no matter how long it takes will NEVER transform itself into a living cell let alone an INTELLIGENT Conscious Life form.


Thats a bold claim.. You have a peer reviewed journal to back that up? And we do it all the time in making synthetic life. In fact life is entirely made of non-life.. Perhaps you can show us a living organism here that has no atoms to back up your argument.



But if you're able to prove your statement then please cite one or two experiments.


To back up my statement? Which statement do you want me to back up? That consciousness can't exist without cause? Quote me which statement you want me to back up..



And like I said - using the Urey-Miller experiment is pointless and useless since INTELLIGENCE was involved in creating lifeless chemicals.


And yet those chemicals are necessary for carbon based life.. Nice to know your ignorance continues to project itself.



Show me - without INTELLIGENCE:


Show me where the humans are hand controlling all the individual atoms in a chemical reaction. Sorry kiddo, but the chemicals do not require any intelligence to react. If they came together naturally, the reaction would still occur. Hell, spend a day at Yellow Stone and then tell me how all those volcanic chemical reactions need you, or any entity to react. Sorry son, but scientists only need prove it chemically possible.. Your ignorance of that fact isn't an excuse.



Blind Chance Event or Intelligence?


Again you're building a straw-man argument.. Blind chance is the same thing as probability, and since we are here, that's a meaningless argument. Especially when the formation of non-conscious / intelligent life is far more likely that the emergence of any form of intelligent or conscious entity / life. You don't even comprehend the problem of your argument and why your argument is a self-refutation. Hence blind chance is far more probable than Intelligence since intelligence would have to evolve first to which is far less likely than non-intelligent living organisms/ life/ or entities evolving first. And what part of the fact of me telling you that cognitive systems are highly complex, and far more complex than the base reactionary systems? What part of that do you not understand? Maybe I can help you here..:

You think intelligence is the simple answer to everything right? A conscious being right? it's sooooo simple and has no complexity right? Ok, build me something conscious.. If its that simple, even a 1 year old baby should have no problems building one.. Heck, I can sit here all day building unconscious things. I can go outside and build a tree house. Can you build me a conscious robotic dog?

edit on 24-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
And just so you know regarding your argument on information.. Information is the material physical cause of causation to where energy and information are two sides of the same coin as both substance and value. So let me explain this to you in regards to information science and theory as these two posts of mine might greatly interest you on the subject in dealing with information theory, information science, cognitive systems, the brain, and why consciousness can't exist without cause:

technology-science.newsvine.com...

Put into the context and relation to time:

technology-science.newsvine.com...

Abstract:

TIME & Information:



Time is the successive instances of now. The flow of time is the inertia of information. And without the inertia of information, there can be no means to support things like cognitive systems capable of producing a conscious state or self-awareness. Without the inertia of information there can be no system with feedback, no interactions, or actions to which could drive a force to causation. In simple terms, time is an expression of process, existence, and duration of.

So in giving that time is the instance of now, and the inertia of it, we often think it's the conscious instant of now. However this is wrong because it takes time for information to process. This means that a source of inquiry, such as a baseball that has been pitched to you in order for you to try and hit it. It is here that the ball must first be sensed and then processed before any state of awareness of the ball can be realized, put into a consciously aware state, or in a conscious time frame of reference. This means that the conscious state is literally a reflection and the processing of the past to where the actual instant of now is before the conscious state ever emerges...


The above links are highly detailed and well supported.. But lets abstract the basics here:

there are 3 fundamental laws that govern cause and effect, information, and energy. These same 3 laws, principles, or attributes govern consciousness, morals, ethics, laws, emotions, and feelings, or any Complex Adaptive system with feedback. So what are they?





* POSITIVE
* NEGATIVE
* NEUTRAL




These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything we know of is made of energy. thus it's considered under information theory and information science that Energy =/= information as both substance and value (as previously noted above). Thus the 3 fundamental properties, attributes, and laws are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause".




There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral;


Action
Reaction
Process
Mathematical equation
Answer
Choice
Decision
Intent
Purpose
Moral
Ethic
Emotion
Feeling
Piece of information
State
Function
Ability
Response
System
Feedback
Opinion
Phenomenon
Condition
Ability
Power
Electric Charge
Selection
Adaptation
Mutation
Transformation
Position
Point of view
Observation
Sensation
Perception
Or the relativity of anything above



So to sum up the conclusion:


Existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, or anything with mass possible. "A universal set of all sets"... As we can see this applied in modern understanding of the conscious state:


* Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization


Abstract




The evolution of consciousness is seen in the context of energy driven evolution in general, where energy and information are understood as two sides of the same coin. From this perspective consciousness is viewed as an ecological system in which streams of cognitive, perceptual, and emotional information form a rich complex of interactions, analogous to the interactive metabolism of a living cell. The result is an organic, self-generating, or autopoietic, system, continuously in the act of creating itself. Evidence suggests that this process is chaotic, or at least chaotic-like, and capable of assuming a number of distinct states best understood as chaotic attractors


Continued ---> : Learning your ABC'S



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Here we learn that energy and information are two sides of the same coin as both substance and value, and without information or the energy capacity of information, there can't be the possibility of you, me, or any conscious state or being.:




Energy =/= information =/= cause



This is unarguable:


A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without information
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S:
Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.




edit on 25-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: conveted XHTML to BB Code



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
And since you wanted to harp on me about a computer regarding information science and theory about "CAUSE".. Well I thank you because I actually understand it...So this ought to be fun:



The conscious state is like the image displaying on your computer screen. The image is an emergent property of all the processes in the background to which happen before the image is ever displayed. These processes are what produce the image being displayed.


So to understand this, you must realize that this deals with time frames of reference to where these processes must be sustained in order for the image, or your conscious state to continuously be displayed or continuously be an emergent property. There is no other possible way as this is the only way it can happen as it is a chronological consequence in such processes. Hence, break the computer, or disrupt the back ground unconscious processes that produce the displayed image or the conscious emergent property and they will both cease to function, display, or be. And thus so for every time frame instance of an image displayed, or frame state of awareness, there are several before them to which produces them.

And if you need a real world example:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
edit on 25-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Will you now admit that without INTELLIGENCE - mixing lifeless chemicals randomly no matter how long it takes will NEVER transform itself into a living cell let alone an INTELLIGENT Conscious Life form?





why doesn't the real thing - the Universe - with all its precise mathematical laws - require one?


let me guess - you don't know.


Because drawing that conclusion would be based on the ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. You clearly haven't even clicked the link explaining what the argument from ignorance is...otherwise you wouldn't keep on using it over and over and over and over again.

Do yourself a favor and check out those argumentative fallacies...because your posts start to look really stupid using the same fallacies over and over again



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Barcs
 


Science has CONCLUSIVELY eliminated abiogenesis. finished, kaput, bupkus, nada, (i.e., THAT DOG DOES NOT HUNT!!! STICK A FORK IN IT!!!)


Really? You got a link on that or you just making stuff up again? Last I checked, they were able to duplicate 2 or 3 parts of the process.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
oops wrong thread..
edit on 25-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: deleted response in wrong thread.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
oops wrong thread..
edit on 25-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: deleted response in wrong thread.


They're very similar



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
oops wrong thread..
edit on 25-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: deleted response in wrong thread.


They're very similar


Actually I hit quote instead of reply..
Decided to edit it thinking I was editing to fix typos while I was at it, and then after posting realized I quoted myself and edited it, and what I wanted to reply to was actually in a different window ..
lol.. what a mess..



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join