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: 43
14
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:34 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.

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.


Hello, sparky!!! Abiogenesis is the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM!!! Life arising from inanimate material!!!

The onus is on YOU!!! We already have several experiments that have been performed over the course of humanity that have effectively nullified the concept.




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   


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.


Then you should have no problem responding to this post without having to abide by those premises..Or the basic ABC's:

This is unarguable:


A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information (or information feedback in a system)
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information (or without information feedback in the system) --- Apply this to rest below -->
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.


Now if you can post a reply here without needing information, physicality, energy, a system with feedback, a cognitive system, existence, language, a brain, sensory systems, a computer, the internet, electromagnetism, or atoms ect.. I would gladly accept your "rejection"... And the funny part is, you have to abide by these to even make an argument of rejection to begin with.. So yeah, your ability to reject it is meaningless..., now try demonstrating it and proving it in the face of contrary real world empirical evidence.. I will await your demonstration and your peer review journal.. Nothing better than when a theist deposits a refutation that will only prove the premises he or she tried to refute as being correct. It's what you call a self-refuting argument that proves and dismisses itself by the consequence and context of the argument. Kind of like immateriality, a belief of magical existing nothing as something while ignoring what the definitions of those words are.. Hence, circular self-refuting intentional ignorance..

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 @ 06:46 PM
link   


Hello, sparky!!! Abiogenesis is the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM!!! Life arising from inanimate material!!!


According to quantum mechanics there is no such thing as inanimate material.. Even at rest mass.. In fact, you can't ever actually state energy isn't always in a state of inertia..


We already have several experiments that have been performed over the course of humanity that have effectively nullified the concept.


That is totally utter BS.. lol ..And at best quote mining science to say something it hasn't stated. That is something creationists claim, and through dishonest arguments. You're one of those intellectually dishonest, and thus you are dismissed and irrelevant to any intellectual debate on this subject. So yeah, go back and source your Creationist BS that thinks light travels at infinite speed in a vacuum to ignore the fact the Earth isn't 6,000 years old..


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



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:53 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:

Originally posted by totallackey 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.


Yes. I did post that. And aside from demonstrating I believe abiogenesis to be a dead horse and lacking scientific basis (which it does), how does this warrant grouping me with people from the ID point of view? Simply claiming abiogenesis to be dead in the water does not make one a proponent of ID. Yet, the blowhard crew still see the need to shoehorn me in that group.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


Do the names Redi, Paster, Leeweunhoek, Spallanzani, et.al., mean anything to you? They all performed experiments in this area.

Your claim that all matter is incapable of being inanimate requires support. Prove that please. Along with supporting documentation. However, you would be on the way to proving this statement, should your position be found to be true:

Luke 19:40, “I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out."
edit on 29-7-2012 by totallackey because: further content



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Yes. I did post that. And aside from demonstrating I believe abiogenesis to be a dead horse and lacking scientific basis (which it does), how does this warrant grouping me with people from the ID point of view? Simply claiming abiogenesis to be dead in the water does not make one a proponent of ID. Yet, the blowhard crew still see the need to shoehorn me in that group.


Translation :


I made a claim of assertion and through quote mining science with my opinion to conclude abiogenesis is impossible without being able to demonstrate or back myself up.. Thus I must be right, and I know more than scientists without any sort of degree in any of the fields.


You're reasoning is hilariously flawed. And it does put you in the same sort of category as the ID group, or even the Flat Earther Group. It's the fundamental nature of your fallacious arguments that have no basis to establishing the claims made. Now see, I can establish my claims by demonstration if need be:

www.youtube.com...

And that is pretty much how I view creationists and their arguments, or people that make such arguments you just did..
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   


Do the names Redi, Paster, Leeweunhoek, Spallanzani, et.al., mean anything to you? They all performed experiments in this area.


Does actually reading their papers involve you reading them? Does reading a science journal mean you invent things never claimed in them.. Please show me a science peer reviewed material that says "abiogenesis" is impossible, and then proves that in the scientific and academic arena.. No? Oh, you mean quote mined material taken out of such journals and then reformatted on to creationist blog sites to mean what they want them to mean? LMAO, you don't say!.. Damn I could go over many of their usages of this and rip them apart...I didn't site videos of why do creationists get laughed at for no reason, or why it's laughable when the same sources try to claim light travels at infinite speed in a vacuum..

How about this, you pick one of their published works in Nature and then tell me exactly how it validates and states abiogenesis is impossible.. Uhh yeah, none that every get published to a reputable journal site do!
edit on 29-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


You know what, you can continue to try and twist my words into whatever shape or form you wish to place on them. You are an utter and abject failure. You have failed to provide any cogent or tangible proof to support your mindless drivel. You drone on about existence itself being the sole reason and only mechanism. You continue to label me as ID proponent. You continue to label me as a theist. I have made no such claims. You fail. You are a miserable troll. The record proves it. Your words prove it. You are the ultimate in circular reasoning.

And you have continued to avoid the assignment.

As stated before, you claim squiz has no peer-reviewed sources and/or his sources are not supporting his position:

1) Provide a list of sources that contradict squiz' position
2) Demonstrate his sources are not peer-reviewed.

I told you, this claim made by you and the other blowhards will continue to be posted in this thread. The longer you continue to avoid this simple two-step task, the more evident your failure will become to the readership.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


I need to read their papers in order to ascertain the results? Really? I could not recreate their experiment(s) and make a determination of the results on my own to know what the result is? Really?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Someone is playing an avoidance game now. :/ ... I specifically asked you to back yourself up and you can't seem to do it. You've got no tangible argument and you are now riding on intellectual bankruptcy, pleading for a another loan.. The discussion is basically over since you can not comply in demonstrating your claims, or your rejection of my arguments for that matter.



I need to read their papers in order to ascertain the results?


Please outline for us where in their journals to they say their results invalidate abiogenesis and claim it impossible. And then show me where in peer review literature and in the scientific academic arena are those claims proven and upheld.. I suspect you can't, and I suspect you haven't ever actually read their journals. I even suspect you don't even understand most of what's in those journals. :/ ...
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 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


1) It does not matter what you suspect.. Answer my question. Is it possible for someone to recreate their experiments and come to their own conclusions about the results? That is a CLOSE ended question requiring a YES or NO answer.

2) Please provide an instance where squiz presented supporting documentation or references that invalidated his position
3) Please provide evidence his citations are not peer reviewed.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


1) It does not matter what you suspect.. Answer my question. Is it possible for someone to recreate their experiments and come to their own conclusions about the results? That is a CLOSE ended question requiring a YES or NO answer.

2) Please provide an instance where squiz presented supporting documentation or references that invalidated his position
3) Please provide evidence his citations are not peer reviewed.


Failure to comply to my request.. You are trying really hard to try and flip the argument on to me over your claims.. Please try again.
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 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


Everyone here knows what the issue is. You have bankrupted yourself. Again, the issues are:
1) Is it possible for someone to recreate an experiment and make a determination of the results based on their observations? That is a CLOSE ended question requiring a YES or NO answer. You avoid it. People capable of inductive reasoning know the reason WHY you avoid answering it.
2) Post examples of citations provided by squiz that directly contradict his position in this debate.
3) Please demonstrate his sources are not peer reviewed.

The readership awaits your compliance. Simple. Until you comply, you remain bankrupt. and deserve no further reply other than this type post.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Failure to comply to my request.. You are trying really hard to try and flip the argument on to me over your claims.. Please try again. If you need help remembering:


Please outline for us where in their journals to where they say their results invalidate abiogenesis and claim it impossible. And then show me where in peer review literature and in the scientific academic arena are those claims proven and upheld..


So before trying to claim me bankrupt, you need to comply to my request.



and deserve no further reply other than this type post.


So you can't comply knowing full well how much BS your statement was. You must think you are clever and think I don't understand how you are playing your avoidance game. Simply put, you're a dishonest twit who made a claim not at all reflective of the journals in question, academia, or the scientific community.. You got owned in your rejection of my argument regarding information science ect, and now you are embarrassing yourself here in this argument in misrepresenting science and scientific journals.


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



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Lackey, you've only participated in this thread the past 5 pages or so. What you are requesting has already been done, feel free to go back and read the entire thread, if you'd really like a better idea of where we're at right now.


Originally posted by totallackey

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, information science is not just as valid as biology when describing DNA. They are completely different fields of study, one based on the physical DNA structure, and one based on man made information. Last I checked, DNA is not man made, so where is the basis to assume that information theory applies to DNA?



- 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.

It's not my job to re-read the thread for you. He clearly laid it out in his "scientific" inference with the 3 points. I totally demolished that argument. If I could guess that would be about 10 pages back or so.



- 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 was in one of his Stephen Meyer videos used to justify design and referenced more than once. While scientists use those words as metaphors, Meyer takes it literally and says "well, since it's literal machinery in the cell, it must have a designer!" It's poor logic.



- It is too complex to arise naturally.

He claims there is no evidence it has.

There is no evidence of the contrary or for a designer, so it's pointless 'point'. I admit we don't know the answer, something that's very difficult for ID advocates.



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...

That's not what I'm referring to. This has been discussed to death already. Logic does not demand something that has no evidence of existing. I already demonstrated why this train of thinking is illogical with several examples.



- 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.

Being unproven yet, and being conclusively false are 2 very different things, and either way it has nothing to do with intelligent design.
edit on 29-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


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 don't know how you got Jacks name with my quote, but it was actual me that argued this, not him. This may be where some of the confusion is coming from.


1) Is it possible for someone to recreate an experiment and make a determination of the results based on their observations? That is a CLOSE ended question requiring a YES or NO answer. You avoid it. People capable of inductive reasoning know the reason WHY you avoid answering it.
2) Post examples of citations provided by squiz that directly contradict his position in this debate.
3) Please demonstrate his sources are not peer reviewed.


You are really having trouble understanding the evolution of this thread. We already responded to Squiz about his sources like 20 pages back. There has been 1 paper on intelligent design that has been published in a peer reviewed journal, and it was done dishonestly though unconventional means. It was later rebuked, deemed unscientific and the editor was discredited. This was the paper by Meyer that we already discussed. There is not one single other peer reviewed paper on intelligent design. That speaks volumes of the alleged "science" behind it. To think that abiogenesis experiments have proved it wrong, you are sadly mistaken. The experiments have already been posted in the thread, and they certainly do not conclude abiogenesis is wrong, they suggest the exact opposite and are small pieces in the puzzle. You can read the experiment data, yourself. If you can find any one of them that says it proved abiogenesis wrong or impossible, or says that there is evidence of ID, you'll have a point, but right now you're just blindly attacking science.
edit on 29-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Nor has any of their crap inspired any scientific papers or citation... Worse yet, creationist pseudoscience hasn't ever provided any practical application other than teaching people to be absolute intentional morons looking to capitalize on human ignorance for their dollars, control, and power. Science advances human knowledge, and pseudoscience advances the pocket books of those preying on human ignorance. It's as simple as that, and the education system is the biggest threat to their religious cults. It's why you see them trying to drown these discussions into pure ignorance with their intellectual dishonesty. Without such cults, the human race could have likely sent a rover to mars hundreds of years ago. But no, these twits are anti-education, intellect, and lack an sort of integrity. It's disgusting, and its' even more disgusting when you see how proud they are of how dumb they are. And it's hilarious that most of them don't even realize they are being taken advantage of. It's even funnier when their own religion calls them sheep and they don't get it..
edit on 30-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey

Hello, sparky!!! Abiogenesis is the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM!!! Life arising from inanimate material!!!

The onus is on YOU!!! We already have several experiments that have been performed over the course of humanity that have effectively nullified the concept.


Incorrect. Abiogenesis has been presented as a hypothesis, which is obviously not a claim. The ball is still in your court, may we please have your evidence that science has conclusively eliminated abiogenesis?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey

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:

Originally posted by totallackey 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.


Yes. I did post that. And aside from demonstrating I believe abiogenesis to be a dead horse and lacking scientific basis (which it does), how does this warrant grouping me with people from the ID point of view? Simply claiming abiogenesis to be dead in the water does not make one a proponent of ID. Yet, the blowhard crew still see the need to shoehorn me in that group.


I'm not aware of having grouped you with anyone. What I've done is to point out an obvious inconsistency. You claimed not to have made any conclusive statements about your position in this debate. This was clearly a false statement.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


I need to read their papers in order to ascertain the results? Really? I could not recreate their experiment(s) and make a determination of the results on my own to know what the result is? Really?


Given that a lot of those experiments require professional labs...no, you probably couldn't.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join