Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 





How do you build a structure, a house, a building, a system, a theory with a very shaky or even a missing foundation?


That's a complete nonsense argument.


The theory of evolution makes no statement regarding how life started, so it doesn't matter how it did. If it was the mighty spaghetti monster, evolution would still be how biodiversity came to be. Same goes for abiogenesis, or "insert random god(s) you like".

We can also examine your grand grand grandfathers remains and accurately determine if he's related to you or not...and no, we don't need to know how life first started for that either. We have to understand how gravity works to build plains...yet we don't know how gravity came to be in the first place.

Do you see where I'm going with this and why the "house on shaky foundations" argument is silly?


Of course - you'll try your best to separate the evolution theory as far away as possible from abioGenesis hypothesis because to do so is to render the theory silly and weak.

You know, carriage without the horse or is it the carriage before the horse - see where I'm going with this?

Anyway are you saying that abioGenesis hypothesis is not related to evolution theory?

curious to know.




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's correct or not...because all it proves is that once life started (!!) the theory of evolution explains today's biodiversity.

Btw, good job at giving examples of other bad "shaky foundation" examples like yours



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by edmc^2
 





How do you build a structure, a house, a building, a system, a theory with a very shaky or even a missing foundation?


Do you realize that according to this logic, all of science is meaningless because we do not yet have the underlying theory of everything. But that is absurd. It is not the correct analogy to compare science to a building.

If first cells were created by God, biological evolution would still not be any less true.


weak analogy Maslo - Science is not being questioned here but the silly notion that you can create life from non-life, then in time it intelligently evolved into an intelligent entity having the ability to ponder the meaning of life and how all this came to be.

Question is - what was before evolution? Was it abioGenesis or something else?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





then in time it intelligently evolved


No one's saying intelligence is behind evolution...



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It was obviously abiogenesis.... we have several theories that explain in good detail how this is possible....

Have you educated yourself on these theories? if not, why?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's correct or not...because all it proves is that once life started (!!) the theory of evolution explains today's biodiversity.

Btw, good job at giving examples of other bad "shaky foundation" examples like yours


Thanks for confirming what I've been saying for a while now:

That is (OP)

"Sadly close minded and unreasonable evolutionists will ignore such basic scientific and logical questions and many will just fall back to the same old tired reply:

"It does not matter because we're here" and go on living their lives in a fantasy land of make believe, believing in such silly philosophical ideas as "abiogenesis" - the "spontaneous generation of life from non living matter". Many whether they know it or not just take it on FAITH hoping that someday an answer will present itself. In the meantime they go on deceiving themselves as well as others of what "coulda- woulda" occurred while ignoring the undeniable and established fact that:

L I F E comes only from pre-existing L I F E - from J e ho v a h God the Grand Creator!

"Furthermore, how would such structure, system, theory (if there's even one) be able to stand with a foundation that is so weak?

I guess one has to close ones mind to the truth and just pretend. Accept that which is impossible just because (like I said in the OP) "we're here".

And that's exactly what believers of evolution had done."

tc



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


In other news, in your little fantasy world we couldn't dig up your grand grand grandfather's remains and determine if he's related to you or not...because clearly, we don't know how life started. What a silly argument


We can also transplant hearts, even though we don't know how the first living cells formed. I guess they're just guessing correctly every single time



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Basically it goes like this, either you have God creating mankind ...

Or then you have the alternative, which says ... everything in the Universe is a thing that is evolving. Planets, suns, matter, life ....

And between thinking that there is an old man with White beard, hanging on clouds up there, and the Universe being an evolution ... I think I'll stick to the evolutionary idea, and not even waste my time at saying how utterly absurd the first one is. The fact that we stil have people claiming the first, is actually a sort of proof of the second ... we still have people, stuck at the lower evolutionary chain.
edit on 3/6/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Basically it goes like this, either you have God creating mankind ...

Or then you have the alternative, which says ... everything in the Universe is a thing that is evolving. Planets, suns, matter, life ....

And between thinking that there is an old man with White beard, hanging on clouds up there, and the Universe being an evolution ... I think I'll stick to the evolutionary idea, and not even waste my time at saying how utterly absurd the first one is. The fact that we stil have people claiming the first, is actually a sort of proof of the second ... we still have people, stuck at the lower evolutionary chain.
edit on 3/6/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)


Basically, you either believe that Life arose spontaneously from non-living matter by guidance chance event or Life was a product of Special Creation.

Since there's no scientific proof of the former then the ONLY logical answer to the origin of Life is the latter - Special Creation. An intelligently directed purposeful Creation.


To say and believe that all of these is the product of evolution - then what's the ultimate purpose of it all?

Surely you would not construct something without purpose, won't you? Yet that's what evolution is. An accident. In other words, you're a product of a blind chance event. Don't you agree?

Creation on the other hand brings purpose to that which is created.

And as for the "white bearded man" - that is funny. You have much to learn.

“Look! These are the fringes of his ways, and what a whisper of a matter has been heard of him!” (Job 26:14)


tc.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


In other news, in your little fantasy world we couldn't dig up your grand grand grandfather's remains and determine if he's related to you or not...because clearly, we don't know how life started. What a silly argument


We can also transplant hearts, even though we don't know how the first living cells formed. I guess they're just guessing correctly every single time


So is abioGenesis hypothesis related to evolution theory?

What's so hard about this question?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Since there's no scientific proof of the former then the ONLY logical answer to the origin of Life is the latter - Special Creation. An intelligently directed purposeful Creation.


Argument from Ignorance

It's really amazing, you seem to use this logical fallacy in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR THREADS





So is abioGenesis hypothesis related to evolution theory?


Related how?

The only thing the theory of evolution requires is "life exists". How that happened is irrelevant as the processes of evolution would still have happened. Just like we can dig up your grand grand grandfathers bones and determine you're related to him...even though we don't know bow first life started.

So yeah, evolution requires life...and the hypothesis of abiogenesis tries to figure out how that life started. So they're connected that way. But it's totally irrelevant how first life started. A magic giant yellow unicorn could have farted it into existence, it wouldn't make any difference for the theory of evolution.
edit on 3-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by edmc^2
 


It was obviously abiogenesis.... we have several theories that explain in good detail how this is possible....

Have you educated yourself on these theories? if not, why?


Why of course!!

here are just some of the many ideas or variations of the abioGenesis hypothesis:

The deep sea vent theory
Fox's experiments.
Eigen's hypothesis
Hoffmann's contributions
Wächtershäuser's hypothesis
Radioactive beach hypothesis
....

bottom line they all come down to life arising from inanimate things.

So just to make this clear as possible for Mr XYZ - abioGenesis occurred first then evolution followed correct?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





So just to make this clear as possible for Mr XYZ - abioGenesis occurred first then evolution followed correct?



No! Abiogenesis MIGHT have happened first, but hasn't been proven yet...that's why it's a HYPOTHESIS. Evolution came second, but has been proven...which is why it's a scientific THEORY. The first isn't a prerequisite for the second!

Just like we don't know how gravity came to be, yet we use the theory daily to build all sorts of things like planes.

You're using a logical fallacy...as always



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So yeah, evolution requires life...and the hypothesis of abiogenesis tries to figure out how that life started. So they're connected that way. But it's totally irrelevant how first life started. A magic giant yellow unicorn could have farted it into existence, it wouldn't make any difference for the theory of evolution.



Finally - a confirmation!!!!!


So if as you said:




It's a hypothesis, which means it hasn't been proven yet and not fully backed up by objective evidence. There's still much that hasn't been explained yet...which is why it isn't a theory like evolution.


Do you agree with what I said then - the evolution theory has either no foundation or has a very weak foundation!

Yes?

edit on 3-6-2012 by edmc^2 because: !



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Again: Abiogenesis (or creationism, or anything else) aren't "foundations" of the theory of evolution as for the theory, it doesn't matter how life started. It only details processes of LIFE that lead to changes in the allele frequency in genes, that's all. And it does so because it's fully backed up by objective evidence and we are actively using the theory to predict future outcomes. It's a scientific THEORY, and doesn't require abiogenesis as a "foundation" in the first place.

I really don't get your point. Abiogenesis is clearly not a prerequisite (aka "foundation") of evolution. The only prerequisite is "life exists"...what lead up to that is totally irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 





In response to binary, or hegelian questions...I will repeat the following.


Holy crap ! I'm gonna try for the last @#$%^&$$%^&**(()&%^^%*(*%$ time to get a yes or no answer out of you. I'll even rephrase the question.

Do you believe you have a soul ?

Yes or ^%^&^$$#%^&** no only please. It's a yes or no question ?
If you don't answer with either a yes or a no. I'll assume you don't.

Are you capable of anserwing yes or no as a follow up question ?
edit on 3-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Do you believe you have a soul ? Yes or ^%^&^$$#%^&** no only please. It's a yes oir no question ?
If you don't answer with either a yes or a no. I'll assume you don't.


I am honestly not trying to annoy you. Here is my best attempt at an answer...I do not view the idea of a "soul" in the same way as most.

So for you, yes I do believe in a soul. I hope you would be so kind as to view my definition/views on the idea though...The Holographic Principle.


The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region.

In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon.

The physical universe is widely seen to be composed of "matter" and "energy". In his 2003 article published in Scientific American magazine, Jacob Bekenstein summarized a current trend started by John Archibald Wheeler, which suggests scientists may "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals."


Source

Basically I view the soul/consiousness as a particular pattern of energy that exist on, or within this holographic boundry. We know the energy is there...I think it is the pattern that counts.

edit on 3-6-2012 by Shark_Feeder because: To add my source.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Science is not being questioned here but the silly notion that you can create life from non-life,

How is this notion silly? It has already been done in the laboratory. Google 'autocatalytic RNA' or search my old posts.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
Science is not being questioned here but the silly notion that you can create life from non-life,

How is this notion silly? It has already been done in the laboratory. Google 'autocatalytic RNA' or search my old posts.


It's silly because proponents of evolution still hang on to the silly notion that they can create life out of non-living materials. They keep repeating the same experiment over and over expecting that somehow life will appear from mixing chemicals.

As for the "autocatalytic RNA" - I thought I made this clear already! It's not LIFE but just one of the components for LIFE.

In fact, RNA is recognized as information carrier. It transmit/transcript information from the DNA. The coded Information that it receives from the DNA is then decoded to form various types of proteins. But it itself - the RNA - IS NOT LIFE.


How gullible must one be to be convinced that it is ALIVE? I guess it takes a gullible evolutionists to believe that it is.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Again: Abiogenesis (or creationism, or anything else) aren't "foundations" of the theory of evolution as for the theory, it doesn't matter how life started. It only details processes of LIFE that lead to changes in the allele frequency in genes, that's all. And it does so because it's fully backed up by objective evidence and we are actively using the theory to predict future outcomes. It's a scientific THEORY, and doesn't require abiogenesis as a "foundation" in the first place.

I really don't get your point. Abiogenesis is clearly not a prerequisite (aka "foundation") of evolution. The only prerequisite is "life exists"...what lead up to that is totally irrelevant.




In other words - what you're saying is:

Evolution theory is a baseless and foundationless theory.


Is the official belief of ALL evolutionists or just you?









 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join