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 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)
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.
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?
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.
The very same system you need to have a working computer
those chemical reactions don't require intelligence to happen
those chemical reactions don't require intelligence to happen
how environmental pressures drive evolution[?]
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
The experiment was obviously designed by humans...so it required intelligence.
required intelligence.
"reactionary systems, cognitive system, function, reactionary system, complex adaptive system and feedback in the system" - points to some sort of programming, i.e intelligence.
"a working computer" - a system made intelligent due to INTELLIGENT INPUT!
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?
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.
Show me - without INTELLIGENCE:
Blind Chance Event or Intelligence?
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...
* POSITIVE
* NEGATIVE
* NEUTRAL
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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!!!)
Originally posted by TheJackelantern
oops wrong thread..edit on 25-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: deleted response in wrong thread.
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