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: 42
14
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by totallackey
 


Calm down dude. You don't have to get so emotional. The problem with Squiz's sources is that they don't actually back up or prove what he's trying to claim. If you read any of the actual experiments and conclusions, you'd see they have nothing to do with ID. We have already conclusively debunked most of what he's claiming and he ignores my counterpoints that prove him wrong every time. You cannot prove ID, it's that simple. There is no science to back it. There is filling in unknown gaps with a designer and that's pretty much it. Science doesn't fully understand X: Therefor DESIGNER. Science is science, faith is faith. Keep them separate. Find god or this designer for yourself. Don't come in here spouting nonsense about methodology that's trying to learn the answer, Mr. Lackey. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

I can read just fine there, copernicus...I know what the claims are...it appears squiz' source material does support his position in the argument. squiz claims he knows:


Originally posted by squiz
Physics an (sic) chemistry are incapable of organizing a language.

Intelligence is the ONLY cause.

It's that simple really. You say I have a "desired answer". Equally it can be said that you refuse to ackowlwdge (sic)the facts, in fact it is definately (sic) the case. It's right there in your face and you can't deal with it. The only thing we have is to expect some unknown laws of physics and chemistry. You have a "desire" to find a soluton (sic) beyond the known laws of physics. So let me ask, where is your example? It doesn't exist.

It's now up to the critics to prove that physics and chemistry can create symbolic meaning beyond the physical. This won't happen because it cannot happen. It definately(sic) hasn't happened here.

The Atheists here have failed the challenge. They pick on anything to avoid the challenge, that pattern is clearly evident in this thread. As well as word games. You know what I'm talking about.

No personal attacks or insults! Which thread have you been reading? All they can do is what has been demonstrated here, not much but whine and switch subjects. Just wait, more whining to come. I assure it will not contain an answer in any form.
edit on 8-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



These are some of the claims he's making.

- Information science and information theory are more valid than biology, chemistry and genetics and actually apply to physical DNA.

He has made no such claims. He claims information science and theory are just as valid and necessary to the study of the subject as are biology, chemistry, and genetics. To paraphrase, "One facet of the diamond is just as important as the other."

- Since we've never seen a code that's naturally arisen, it couldn't have happened.

I have not seen this claim. Care to point it out? I have seen squiz ask for an example. None yet presented.

- There is nanotechnology and miniature machines inside the cell.

In my perusal of the material, I have not seen this claim. Care to point it out? I have read what I could perceive as an allegorical comparison.

- It is too complex to arise naturally.

He claims there is no evidence it has.

- DNA is digital.

I will quote his statement. "Logic demands an intelligent cause. Intelligence is the ONLY source of symbolic code. Full stop. Is it God? I don't know. What IT is I do not know. This I cannot deny. " I am unsure if this means digital or not...

- Not knowing the answer of DNA origin somehow negates it arising naturally.

Of course, as of right now, it does negate it. Unless of course, you can provide an example. Once you do, then the case is closed.


Which one of those statements is valid and can be proven? Most of it is personal opinion and the rest is flat wrong. I'll say it now. I think Squiz is Stephen Meyer or somebody he pays to promote his ideas. He uses a similar style of citing various scientific facts and then drawing ridiculous conclusions from them that in reality have nothing to do with the facts themselves. I don't care if I get blasted for that, it's probably the truth.

edit on 29-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Leap of faith and argumentation from ignorance. Why would you possibly chastise someone for engaging in the same behavior concerning things we do not know and are not personal in nature and yet readily choose this behavior when it comes to fundamental aspects of the person?




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by totallackey
 


You seem to be missing the rather unsubtle point that non-pertinent citations that do not actually offer any support to your argument are not in any shape or form valid. The one's that do "support" his arguments are from creationist resources. Does this compute?


Creationist resources? I have them listed. Please make an identification of the ones that are creationist resources. Further, out of the list I presented, it appeared a vast majority were peer reviewed. Even further, the ones posted in opposition are simply from a different belief set...back to the "dick measuring," are we?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by totallackey
 


You seem to be missing the rather unsubtle point that non-pertinent citations that do not actually offer any support to your argument are not in any shape or form valid. The one's that do "support" his arguments are from creationist resources. Does this compute?


Creationist resources? I have them listed. Please make an identification of the ones that are creationist resources. Further, out of the list I presented, it appeared a vast majority were peer reviewed. Even further, the ones posted in opposition are simply from a different belief set...back to the "dick measuring," are we?


The point is that the correctly sourced papers don't actually support his claims...only the pseudo-scientific "Abelesque" sources do



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

We will use your bases, balls, bats, and gloves...

The one making the extraordinary claim will post evidence to support the claim. You are making the extraordinary claim cited material does not support a position within a debate.

To support your position the sources presented by squiz do not support the squiz position, kindly reference:
  1. the source writing directly and point out contradictions.
  2. Explain why "peer-reviewed," no longer meets the rules of the game.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

? Apparently, yes, unless life and nonlife could somehow work together to oxygenate the planet from the atmosphere to the deep sea.
…..Historians of oxygen have always agreed on one thing: Earth started out with no free oxygen--that is, diatomic oxygen, or O2. It was all tied up in rock and water. For half a century, researchers have vacillated over whether the gases that were there favored the formation of life's starting materials (see sidebar, p. 1732). Without free oxygen, in any case, the first life that did appear by perhaps 3.5 billion years ago had to "breathe" elements such as iron, processing them to gain a mere pittance of energy. For decades, scientists have argued about just how long the planet remained anoxic, and thus home to nothing but tiny, simple, slow-living microorganisms. (p 1730—1732) "


Ok, lets review some things here:

Early Earth Atmosphere:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Abstract:


"We show that the escape of hydrogen from early Earth's atmosphere likely occurred at rates slower by two orders of magnitude than previously thought. The balance between slow hydrogen escape and volcanic outgassing could have maintained a hydrogen mixing ratio of more than 30%. The production of prebiotic organic compounds in such an atmosphere would have been more efficient than either exogenous delivery or synthesis in hydrothermal systems. The organic soup in the oceans and ponds on early Earth would have been a more favorable place for the origin of life than previously thought."


And it does get more interesting regarding free oxygen potential in Early Earth:

www.sciencedaily.com...


Deep-Sea Rocks Point To Early Oxygen On Earth

ScienceDaily (Mar. 25, 2009) — Red jasper cored from layers 3.46 billion years old suggests that not only did the oceans contain abundant oxygen then, but that the atmosphere was as oxygen rich as it is today, according to geologist


And what's even more interesting is that the deep sea mineral majarite can act as an oxygen reservoir. :
www.underwatertimes.com...
published in the journal "Nature" (doi:10.1038/nature06183).



Majorite normally occurs only at a depth of several hundred kilometres under very high pressures and temperatures. The Bonn researchers have now succeeded in demonstrating that, under these conditions, the mineral stores oxygen and performs an important function as an oxygen reservoir. Near the earth's surface the structure breaks down, releasing oxygen, which then binds with hydrogen from the earth's interior to form water.


And then we Have this:



www.sciencedaily.com...
ScienceDaily (Sep. 3, 2007) — A switch from predominantly undersea volcanoes to a mix of undersea and terrestrial ones shifted the Earth's atmosphere from devoid of oxygen to one with free oxygen, according to geologists.


So in regarding the the 3.4 billion year old rocks showing early oxygen, and mineral oxygen reservoirs, we can site Jim Kastings :



www.nature.com...

www.google.com...~hmc60533%2FCSUN_311%2Farticle_references%2FS c_Feb93_EarthEarlyAtmos.pdf&ei=O5oVUKDbEKXr0gGIwYHwCQ&usg=AFQjCNHlsgtNfNpsI8HOfesNUC_V2XMbew

(1) oxygen reacted with iron in seawater, and the resulting iron oxide precipitated onto the seafloor, then was buried deep within the Earth;
(2) oxygen-rich water in seafloor sediments was buried within the Earth, leaving oxygen in the mantle when the water's hydrogen was belched out by volcanoes; and
(3) oxygen-rich sulfates in undersea hot springs reacted with iron in seafloor sediments, which were buried to put oxygen into the mantle.


Burial of oxygen, in the form of oxides, in Earth's mantle had two effects. First, it allowed hydrogen to continue escaping into space. And second, the buried oxides reacted with hydrogen and other "reduced" gases such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide that also were present within Earth's mantle. That pulled the hydrogen out of circulation. The result: When these buried oxygen-rich sediments got recycled by the Earth, and their gases got burped out again by volcanoes, the gases contained less free hydrogen than previously.

So oxygen was able to build up in the atmosphere, causing perhaps the most dramatic shift in the history of life on the planet.



edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

the source writing directly and point out contradictions.
Explain why "peer-reviewed," no longer meets the rules of the game.


No is uses these to construct logical fallacies largely based on his pseudoscience sources while at the same time trying to use actual science as an authority argument through a method of equivalent to quote mining to make his pseudoscience sound as if it has any credibility.. He then misrepresents many key points I brought up, and chooses to intentionally ignore them. And sorry, when you try to mix peer reviewed material to support your pseudoscience and fallacy claims, it becomes a problem..



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

"research institute"


This almost made me laugh.. At the time I was too tired to notice that he claimed this as an academic resource.. You have to be kidding me. That alone tells me they are both trying to give pseudoscience sources some magical credibility by quote mining actual science to conform to their creationist religion and pseudoscience. It's even the same group of morons that try and claim light travels at an infinite speed so they can try and circumvent observations of supernova over distance exceeding 6,000 light years from Earth.. These people are absolute morons, and anyone citing them as a credible source and trying to pawn them off as such are dishonest twits, or gullible to no end. And let's face it, they are phishing for the gullible and ignorant here.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
Ok, lets review some things here:
Early Earth Atmosphere:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Abstract: "We show that the escape of hydrogen from early Earth's atmosphere likely occurred at rates slower by two orders of magnitude than previously thought. The balance between slow hydrogen escape and volcanic outgassing could have maintained a hydrogen mixing ratio of more than 30%. The production of prebiotic organic compounds in such an atmosphere would have been more efficient than either exogenous delivery or synthesis in hydrothermal systems. The organic soup in the oceans and ponds on early Earth would have been a more favorable place for the origin of life than previously thought."

How is it you simply post an abstract that POSTULATES the escape rate of hydrogen as being two orders of magnitude slower than previously thought?:

  1. What was the prior thinking regarding hydrogen escape rates
  2. What constitutes a "magnitude?"
  3. What were the reproducible conditions utilized in this experiment to establish this conclusion? I want to reproduce the results.


And it does get more interesting regarding free oxygen potential in Early Earth:
www.sciencedaily.com...


Deep-Sea Rocks Point To Early Oxygen On Earth
ScienceDaily (Mar. 25, 2009) — Red jasper cored from layers 3.46 billion years old suggests that not only did the oceans contain abundant oxygen then, but that the atmosphere was as oxygen rich as it is today, according to geologist


A suggestion is not an indication of truth. Where are the comparative analyses? I want to reproduce them.


And what's even more interesting is that the deep sea mineral majarite can act as an oxygen reservoir. :
www.underwatertimes.com...
published in the journal "Nature" (doi:10.1038/nature06183).


Majorite normally occurs only at a depth of several hundred kilometres under very high pressures and temperatures. The Bonn researchers have now succeeded in demonstrating that, under these conditions, the mineral stores oxygen and performs an important function as an oxygen reservoir. Near the earth's surface the structure breaks down, releasing oxygen, which then binds with hydrogen from the earth's interior to form water.

What quantities of oxygen are stored? In other words, how much majorite exists and how much oxygen is stored per volume of mineral. I want to reproduce this.


And then we Have this:
www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (Sep. 3, 2007) — A switch from predominantly undersea volcanoes to a mix of undersea and terrestrial ones shifted the Earth's atmosphere from devoid of oxygen to one with free oxygen, according to geologists.

So in regarding the the 3.4 billion year old rocks showing early oxygen, and mineral oxygen reservoirs, we can site (sic) Jim Kastings: www.nature.com...

www.google.com...~hmc60533%2FCSUN_311%2Farticle_references%2FS c_Feb93_EarthEarlyAtmos.pdf&ei=O5oVUKDbEKXr0gGIwYHwCQ&usg=AFQjCNHlsgtNfNpsI8HOfesNUC_V2XMbew

(1) oxygen reacted with iron in seawater, and the resulting iron oxide precipitated onto the seafloor, then was buried deep within the Earth;
(2) oxygen-rich water in seafloor sediments was buried within the Earth, leaving oxygen in the mantle when the water's hydrogen was belched out by volcanoes; and
(3) oxygen-rich sulfates in undersea hot springs reacted with iron in seafloor sediments, which were buried to put oxygen into the mantle.
Burial of oxygen, in the form of oxides, in Earth's mantle had two effects. First, it allowed hydrogen to continue escaping into space. And second, the buried oxides reacted with hydrogen and other "reduced" gases such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide that also were present within Earth's mantle. That pulled the hydrogen out of circulation. The result: When these buried oxygen-rich sediments got recycled by the Earth, and their gases got burped out again by volcanoes, the gases contained less free hydrogen than previously. So oxygen was able to build up in the atmosphere, causing perhaps the most dramatic shift in the history of life on the planet.


edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)


The operative word in this entire segment is perhaps. The entire issue is answered only with the word perhaps.

And FURTHERMORE!!! Your very first post in this topic relied heavily on the theory that life does not need ideal conditions to exist. We all knew that, you silly goose...what does that have to do with the cost of tea in China?
edit on 29-7-2012 by totallackey because: further content



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


Out of all your posts, this most clearly demonstrates your tactics. First, you misquote me. Second, you ramble with the inclusion of the word, "pseudo science," as if it has legitimacy. You cannot prove any such term, let alone apply it to the sources provided by squiz. All of the source material is peer-reviewed.
Once again, here is the assignment should you decide to accept it:
To support your position the sources presented by squiz do not support the squiz position, kindly reference:

  1. The source writing directly provided by squiz and point out contradictions between the source and squiz' position.
  2. Explain why "peer-reviewed," no longer meets the rules of the game.

You merely seek to bury my posts and calls for rational rebuttal with obfuscation, misdirection, and an abundance of conjecture and wishful thinking. Rest assured, I will not allow you to accomplish this objective.

Please, if you have nothing to fear, accomplish the assignment as presented. Of course, your neglecting the assignment and engaging in your regular tactics will simply show the readership what you are. Which is fine by me.
edit on 29-7-2012 by totallackey because: clarity



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

These are some of the claims he's making.

- Information science and information theory are more valid than biology, chemistry and genetics and actually apply to physical DNA.


He has made no such claims. He claims information science and theory are just as valid and necessary to the study of the subject as are biology, chemistry, and genetics. To paraphrase, "One facet of the diamond is just as important as the other.


No you can't seem to read.. Because he utterly failed at comprehending information science and theory to where I had to correct him several times regarding the subject. And regarding his claim about ID being the only possible avenue tells me you and he both entirely ignored everything I talked about regarding cognitive systems , information science, information theory, chaos theory, emergence, or complex adaptive systems that all require a system with feedback.. Hence, let me bluntly put this in clear words for you:

Conscious states, of all things, can not exist without cause!

Without the processing and inertia of energy/information within a quantized self-generated and organizing system, there is no possibility of a conscious being.. It takes far more to support a conscious state than is required to support the spontaneous emergence of life, and self-replicating molecules. It's only when complex networks and structures form and evolve that are capable of computational information processing can you start getting a precursor to a cognitive system. And learning something about cybernetics might just teach you something about how much design and complexity that goes to even generate the intelligence and conscious level of a cockroach.. So I can simply ask you, what designed cognitive systems? More importantly, what designed sensory systems required for any cognitive system to acquire and process information? Oh, you people think it's magic...

Well damn, it's amazing how ID just collapses under it's own weight.. And it's even worse when the kid goes on believing in immateriality while unable to provide something made of nothing to demonstrate his claim. So asking him to demonstrate immateriality without physicality becomes a rather amusing thing to watch him try and do.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


Out of all your posts, this most clearly demonstrates your tactics. First, you misquote me. Second, you ramble with the inclusion of the word, "pseudo science," as if it has legitimacy. You cannot prove any such term, let alone apply it to the sources provided by squiz. All of the source material is peer-reviewed.


Where did I miss quote you? And his sources contain a lot of pseudoscience. And that argument has quite a bit of legitimacy...His sources claim life can't be made of non-life and then tries to use science to legitimize that claim just for starters. Sorry, that's pseudoscience, and it's utterly intentionally ignorant BS..

Btw, your previous post also runs on a straw-man argument as if science is going to build another Earth and reproduce all the results.. No, that is not the point of the research. The research is to show how it could happen, and that is really all they need to show, and show as a viable model based on empirically supported data.. They only need show it as chemically possible with estimated initial conditions, and those conditions don't have to be percise or perfect as ID people like to think. Earth is a big place, and conditions across it varies even in it's earlier years. Even radiative eating life suggests it's possible that life could have began deep in the Earths crust since wherever you find uranium and water you have a good chance for life. You on the other hand can feel free to show us how one creates cognitive systems without requiring them to function. Tell us how one creates a system of feedback without needing it. See the funny part is, scientists here aren't making up wild claims about "ID" especially when ID is laughably far more involved as a problem than is abiogenesis.. Hence, you are getting into genesis in general at that point.

So again I ask.. Show us where life is missing it's atoms, and where life isn't a electromagnetic phenomenon. Show us where energy magically needs some magic being to generate life ect.. Show us an example of a conscious state that doesn't require a cognitive system to even have the cognitive level of a flea... I will be looking forward to your peer reviewed journal.
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


I take it your intent is to ignore the assignment.

I am not setting up a straw man. Anyone can read my reply. Get me the results and tell me the conditions. I want to reproduce the experiments. Oh, what's the matter? Cannot comply with the instruction set? Find yourself lacking? Well, that seems to be your constant state of existence now, does it not?

This will be my constant reply to you from now on, as I stated earlier. I will not allow you to escape the fact you have purposefully ignored calls to simply list sources and post intelligent counters. You simply desire to bury the issue in mindless drivel. Only a fool would label peer-reviewed literature as pseudo-science.
edit on 29-7-2012 by totallackey because: further content



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


I take it your intent is to ignore the assignment.

I am not setting up a straw man. Anyone can read my reply. Get me the results and tell me the conditions. I want to reproduce the experiments. Oh, what's the matter? Cannot comply with the instruction set? Find yourself lacking? Well, that seems to be your constant state of existence now, does it not?

This will be my constant reply to you from now on, as I stated earlier. I will not allow you to escape the fact you have purposefully ignored calls to simply list sources and post intelligent counters. You simply desire to bury the issue in mindless drivel. Only a fool would label peer-reviewed literature as pseudo-science.
edit on 29-7-2012 by totallackey because: further content


Again, you have reading comprehension problems. I never addressed his op specifically before these last few posts.. I addressed specific arguments he's made to which I had proven wrong.. You continue to misrepresent the entire discussion I had with him.. Your entire post above is entirely incoherent to what's has transpired. And sorry, those creationist sources are not peer reviewed.. Please try again.. Show me a peer review of where life isn't made of non-life..Show me a peer review where life isn't electromagnetic phenomenon.. Show me a peer review demonstrating the existence of something made of nothing. Oh no? Ok then I suggest you learn wtf pseudoscience is.
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
These are some of the claims he's making.

- Information science and information theory are more valid than biology, chemistry and genetics and actually apply to physical DNA.

Reply by totallackey
He has made no such claims. He claims information science and theory are just as valid and necessary to the study of the subject as are biology, chemistry, and genetics. To paraphrase, "One facet of the diamond is just as important as the other.


As can be seen from this post, you accuse squiz of holding a position that considers information science and theory as more valid than biology, chemistry, and genetics, and actually applying to DNA. My rebuttal is that he has made no such claims and his stance is that information science and theory is simply an important aspect of the study and must be accounted for.


No you can't seem to read.. Because he utterly failed at comprehending information science and theory to where I had to correct him several times regarding the subject.


Please explain to me how someone who "utterly failed at comprehending information science and theory" could possibly consider it more important?


And regarding his claim about ID being the only possible avenue tells me you and he both entirely ignored everything I talked about regarding cognitive systems , information science, information theory, chaos theory, emergence, or complex adaptive systems that all require a system with feedback.. Hence, let me bluntly put this in clear words for you:

Conscious states, of all things, can not exist without cause!


Once again, placing me in a group with no fundamental basis for this grouping. You really are weak and narrow minded to continue in this vein. I have never made a conclusive statement about my position in this debate. I am simply focused on pointing your inconsistencies. Your fundamental failing is leaping to unfounded conclusions.

Of course, squiz states ID is the cause. And this cause is as good a horse as any other in the race.


Without the processing and inertia of energy/information within a quantized self-generated and organizing system, there is no possibility of a conscious being.. It takes far more to support a conscious state than is required to support the spontaneous emergence of life, and self-replicating molecules. It's only when complex networks and structures form and evolve that are capable of computational information processing can you start getting a precursor to a cognitive system.

Source for this statement please?

And learning something about cybernetics might just teach you something about how much design and complexity that goes to even generate the intelligence and conscious level of a cockroach.. So I can simply ask you, what designed cognitive systems? More importantly, what designed sensory systems required for any cognitive system to acquire and process information? Oh, you people think it's magic...

That nasty grouping habit you have once again rearing its ugly head...absolutely ZERO BASIS in fact.


Well damn, it's amazing how ID just collapses under it's own weight.. And it's even worse when the kid goes on believing in immateriality while unable to provide something made of nothing to demonstrate his claim. So asking him to demonstrate immateriality without physicality becomes a rather amusing thing to watch him try and do.


Again, simply list his sources and point out how his sources:
1) Contradict his position
2) Are fundamentally lacking in peer-review support.

SIMPLE ASSIGNMENT!!!
edit on 29-7-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


Well, the assignment really was not directed at you. It was directed to the other blowhard. I figured you, since you wanted to make issue of my posting of the assignment, would want to take it up. You simply have run interference for the other buffoon. Tis ok...will not work...You guys really are weak.

But now that you have made the EXTRAORDINARY claim his creationist sources are not peer reviewed/is not peer reviewed, I ask you to provide evidence his sources are/is NOT peer reviewed.

That is the standard, is it not? The person making extraordinary claims must provide evidence, correct? Well, sparky...have at it...
edit on 29-7-2012 by totallackey because: clarity



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

As can be seen from this post, you accuse squiz of holding a position that considers information science and theory as more valid than biology, chemistry, and genetics, and actually applying to DNA. My rebuttal is that he has made no such claims and his stance is that information science and theory is simply an important aspect of the study and must be accounted for.


Sorry, he made claims regarding the subject, and I corrected him. And now you are making a false argument based on what actually happened. And he didn't grasp that information and energy are the same thing in this era of understanding, and anything that does exist here is generated by it. There is nothing you can't point to and demonstrate here that isn't. This applies to dna, life, cognitive systems, or anything conscious ect.. His point has been flawed... It's an inherent property of reality to where everything has informational structure and value greater than zero. Everything can be regarded as a source to inquiry, informational bit, or code and coded information from a quantized informational self-generating system. And well, it can't be any other way, especially if you want any hope of having a cognitive system. I wonder how many people realize the movie The Matrix is based on actual scientific fact that energy and information are two sides of the same coin, and in regards to digital physics ect. Though we are unlikely to be strapped into a simulation, it would be irrelevant if we were as these premises still stand regardless.

His sources claim life can't spontaneously generate based on the argument that such information must be coded by an intelligent designer. That is a false argument regarding complex systems such as life, giving of course in regards that a cognitive system in itself is far more complex and literally invalidates his argument. And this doesn't mean an intelligent source can't make life, the fallacy of his argument or sources is that he or they are asserting life can't be spontaneously generated.. So what happened when we showed that we can have self-replicating molecules? Non-living molecules that can evolve and adapt? What's his argument while knowing all of this is electromagnetic phenomenon for the most part? Especially in a reality that is entirely self-generating?

If science can demonstrate self-replicating molecules capable of becoming a living organism, then he's dead in the water here. After all, life is essentially animated matter that interacts and interferes with itself. I can even play semantics on how fire can fit within most definitions of life..

edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)


So here is the two options you have:

1. Reality generates a conscious being that then creates life (which is a contradiction giving the conscious being would be generated life)
2. Or reality Generates life, and then creates more life, or conscious beings that could also make more life

That is essentially the only two options you have if you want to break it down. At the end of the day, genesis of the emergence of life is the correct answer regardless of which you choose above. And empirically speaking, option 2 is the most empirically supported position here on Earth.
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
I have never made a conclusive statement about my position in this debate.


Excuse me? The topic of this debate is abiogenesis. This is what you had to say about it:


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


Your emphasis, not mine. It's actually difficult to think of a more conclusive statement.

BTW, I agree with you that the onus to present supporting evidence is on the person making the claim so I'm looking forward to your evidence supporting the claim that science has conclusively eliminated abiogenesis. I've scanned the thread and can't seem to find any.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


Well, the assignment really was not directed at you. It was directed to the other blowhard. I figured you, since you wanted to make issue of my posting of the assignment, would want to take it up. You simply have run interference for the other buffoon. Tis ok...will not work...You guys really are weak.

But now that you have made the EXTRAORDINARY claim his creationist sources are not peer reviewed/is not peer reviewed, I ask you to provide evidence his sources are/is NOT peer reviewed.

That is the standard, is it not? The person making extraordinary claims must provide evidence, correct? Well, sparky...have at it...
edit on 29-7-2012 by totallackey because: clarity


I wasn't interested in that OP's assignment. I just simply corrected arguments he made, and addressed pseudoscience he deposited for arguments that were incorrect. This doesn't mean he doesn't have valid questions regarding abiogenesis, it just means the subject is moot at this time since we already know that science hasn't yet worked it all out. It's like trying to rewind a stirred coffee cup and trying to figure out how each molecule got where it is today without being there to witness it how exactly it happened. You will never know as molecule A could have originated in X location within the initial conditions prior to said event. Some things will remain unknown, but that doesn't mean you can't figure out how it could have happened to get where it is today without trying to invoke magic..I don't think people grasp that Earth isn't this little test tube, it's a massive brewing pot of chemicals to which has a wide range of macro and micro environments for life to begin in.
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by radix

Originally posted by totallackey
I have never made a conclusive statement about my position in this debate.


Excuse me? The topic of this debate is abiogenesis. This is what you had to say about it:


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


Your emphasis, not mine. It's actually difficult to think of a more conclusive statement.



And we have a WINNER!
And he wonders why we posted contrary evidence to that claim and addressed specific false arguments he's made through the use of false information and pseudoscience from poor sources..



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern

As can be seen from this post, you accuse squiz of holding a position that considers information science and theory as more valid than biology, chemistry, and genetics, and actually applying to DNA. My rebuttal is that he has made no such claims and his stance is that information science and theory is simply an important aspect of the study and must be accounted for.


Sorry, he made claims regarding the subject, and I corrected him. And now you are making a false argument based on what actually happened.

You accuse me of making a "false argument based on what actually happened." Well, here is what actually happened. You stated:

Originally posted by TheJackelantern
These are some of the claims he's making.
- Information science and information theory are more valid than biology, chemistry and genetics and actually apply to physical DNA.


I stated (correctly) he never made any claim information science and theory are more valid than biology, chemistry, and genetics.


And he didn't grasp that information and energy are the same thing in this era of understanding, and anything that does exist here is generated by it. There is nothing you can't point to and demonstrate here that isn't. This applies to dna, life, cognitive systems, or anything conscious ect.. His point has been flawed... It's an inherent property of reality to where everything has informational structure and value greater than zero. Everything can be regarded as a source to inquiry, informational bit, or code and coded information from a quantized informational self-generating system. And well, it can't be any other way, especially if you want any hope of having a cognitive system. I wonder how many people realize the movie The Matrix is based on actual scientific fact that energy and information are two sides of the same coin, and in regards to digital physics ect. Though we are unlikely to be strapped into a simulation, it would be irrelevant if we were as these premises still stand regardless.

His sources claim life can't spontaneously generate based on the argument that such information must be coded by an intelligent designer. That is a false argument regarding complex systems such as life, giving of course in regards that a cognitive system in itself is far more complex and literally invalidates his argument. And this doesn't mean an intelligent source can't make life, the fallacy of his argument or sources is that he or they are asserting life can't be spontaneously generated.. So what happened when we showed that we can have self-replicating molecules? Non-living molecules that can evolve and adapt? What's his argument while knowing all of this is electromagnetic phenomenon for the most part? Especially in a reality that is entirely self-generating?

If science can demonstrate self-replicating molecules capable of becoming a living organism, then he's dead in the water here. After all, life is essentially animated matter that interacts and interferes with itself. I can even play semantics on how fire can fit within most definitions of life..

edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)


So here is the two options you have:

1. Reality generates a conscious being that then creates life (which is a contradiction giving the conscious being would be generated life)
2. Or reality Generates life, and then creates more life, or conscious beings that could also make more life

That is essentially the only two options you have if you want to break it down. At the end of the day, genesis of the emergence of life is the correct answer regardless of which you choose above. And empirically speaking, option 2 is the most empirically supported position here on Earth.
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)


No, those are the options you choose to ascribe to me. You might as well quote Adam and say, "I reject your reality and substitute my own." You have your belief system. That is all.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join