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

reply to post by MrXYZ


Yeah...I probably could...Have several labs available in the area...one at Purdue University.

So, the questions remain, and since the issue was originally directed at you, MrXYZ, kindly:

1) Point out direct citations provided by squiz that contradict his position
2) Provide a list of his resources that are not peer reviewed.

Simple two step process.

reply to post by totallackey


Instead of demanding people to read the thread for you, how about you read it yourself? All you're doing is dragging the thread off topic by covering old (and refuted) ground.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Yeah...I probably could...Have several labs available in the area...one at Purdue University.

So, the questions remain, and since the issue was originally directed at you, MrXYZ, kindly:

1) Point out direct citations provided by squiz that contradict his position
2) Provide a list of his resources that are not peer reviewed.

Simple two step process.

Why would anyone waste their time with that when it's already been done? If you think he's right, then show it. Show the peer reviewed studies that claim abiogenesis is false or that ID is true and cite the conclusions that support it. It's that simple. Thus far no creationist / ID supporter has done that. You are talking about stuff we debunked months ago. If science is really on your side, prove it. Stop shifting the burden of prove to everyone else and asking for people to prove negatives or working hypotheses. YOU said abiogenesis was conclusively false. Prove it or stop lying about it. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that is still pending. No definite answers either way have been found although parts of the process have been duplicated. Squiz's claims are ALL extraordinary, and burden of proof is on anybody that supports ID to prove that an intelligent designer exists before appealing to this creator to explain DNA origins.

Is it really hard to admit you don't know the answer? This is why I know ID is nothing more than creationism in disguise. It's actually comical how quick you are to scream fallacy any time anybody mentions god, the bible or religion, as if you are not religious and don't believe in god. All I'm asking for is some honesty, but I have yet to see it. Admit you don't know the answer and move on. If you can't do this very basic thing it speaks volumes about your beliefs.

reply to post by Barcs


the problem is ID and abiogenesis are the same thing,, at least to a "believer" or believed observer of ID......

all I can say is the essence of the universe seems to create with intelligence,,,,

order,, structure,, and construction is my intelligent designing god,,,

to me this is intelligent design,,,, what we humans know as intelligence,,, the processes the brain can do,,,,,
are seen in levels of nature,,,,
and it is possible that something similar ( but if true most likely at least 2 magnitudes) to the human intelligence began the organization of the universe,, or the laws of physics are its stumbled upon or artistically crafted formulas used to produce this cosmic seemingly eternal science experiment,


so when I say they are the same thing,,, it seems the problem like trying to disprove god with evolution is you are only view a small frame of an endless film,,.,.,..,

heres my analogy,,,,, its the year 3000, after a human apocalypse ,,, you and i are a part of tribe that has no technology or information about the past advancement of our ancient species.,. one day we decide to travel about the world areas we have never been,,.,.,. after a view days of traveling we stumble upon a field that are full of high tech ( since i gave the year of 3000 maybe these computers were made with technology not yet available by ourselves) computers and robots,.,,.,. major point is there is no sign of a designer,.,,, would you say they were naturally created? or intelligently designed? these computers can self create themselves and read their code and information and edit out errors and what not,,,,, they also are covered in small solar panals so they get their power naturally from the sun,,.,.would you say they were naturally created? or intelligently designed?
this is my point,,,, the answer to my mind is both.,.,.,. in truth we would say the computers were intelligently designed by humans,,,..,,. but objectively in truth,,, we also must say the computers naturally arose as a process of nature,,,, being that humans naturally arising are an equal process of nature,,,,,, with abiogenesis you are set upon that nature is the intelligent designer,,,, all god would be is the hierarchy of intelligence,,, maybe the laws and rules,,.,.,. maybe like our great or obvious thinkers established laws and rules for our civilization to follow to create order,,,,,

Originally posted by ImaFungi
heres my analogy,,,,, its the year 3000, after a human apocalypse ,,, you and i are a part of tribe that has no technology or information about the past advancement of our ancient species.,. one day we decide to travel about the world areas we have never been,,.,.,. after a view days of traveling we stumble upon a field that are full of high tech ( since i gave the year of 3000 maybe these computers were made with technology not yet available by ourselves) computers and robots,.,,.,. major point is there is no sign of a designer,.,,, would you say they were naturally created? or intelligently designed? these computers can self create themselves and read their code and information and edit out errors and what not,,,,, they also are covered in small solar panals so they get their power naturally from the sun,,.,.would you say they were naturally created? or intelligently designed?

The main problem with this analogy is that we are talking about the inside of a cell, not obvious technology like the machines and weapons that are composed of various parts made of metal and bolts. Of course it would be obvious once we studied the found technology and broke it down into components and workable parts that it was indeed designed by earlier humans. They contain trademarks, logos, instructions, procedures for operation etc. None of it replicates on its own or is self sustaining and all if it requires a human to operate it. The cell is not like this however. You can't replace parts, and it's not made out of metal or plastic. It doesn't require an external operator or maintenance crew. It is organic life at its core component. It's not even close to the same concept. This is why I pointed out that when people say "nanotechnology, digital code and miniature machines" they are either metaphors used to explain them, or they are being dishonest. DNA originated around 3 billion years ago, long before intelligent life existed, whereas with this future civilization the technology could easily be attributed to earlier civilizations. They definitely existed and there is evidence of that. There is no evidence of any intelligence existing prior to DNA, so when you appeal to this intelligence it is a leap of logic.

this is my point,,,, the answer to my mind is both.,.,.,. in truth we would say the computers were intelligently designed by humans,,,..,,. but objectively in truth,,, we also must say the computers naturally arose as a process of nature,,,, being that humans naturally arising are an equal process of nature,,,,,, with abiogenesis you are set upon that nature is the intelligent designer,,,, all god would be is the hierarchy of intelligence,,, maybe the laws and rules,,.,.,. maybe like our great or obvious thinkers established laws and rules for our civilization to follow to create order,,,,,

This is a good point, actually. I was tempted to bring this up before. If humans are natural, then how can anything we create out of this natural world be unnatural. I know we use it to mean "man made," but technically it would all be natural, even the intelligent designer. The problem is we simply don't know if this designer exists. I just admit that I don't know while most others can not even consider this. I respect your opinion, and I can definitely say that you are one of the first to acknowledge it as opinion rather than fact. I have to give you props for this. You get a star. Neither Squiz nor EdMC has crossed this bridge yet.

reply to post by Barcs


thanks for your response....

" Neither Squiz nor EdMC has crossed this bridge yet."

i think thats because noone defines terms well enough,, and so all parties just argue based on what you think the other thinks,,,,

if you think that squiz and edmc believe in intelligent design,,, ask them what they think intelligent design is or means,,,,,

you should present to them what you think non intelligent design is or means,,,,,

when it comes down to it,,,, all parties are attempting to make sense and meaning,, a qualitative comprehension of he totality of a nearly infinitely sized entity ( the universe) and a near timeless one,, with only a small fraction of hazy and largely subjective information, observation, and emotion,,,,

the word intelligence should be defined ,,,, how it exists,,,, what its bounds are,,,, what it can do,,,,etc... maybe that will progress the argument,,,, i have enjoyed it so far,,,, a little more attempt at understanding the other sides perception would be nice to see though,,,,instead of the non stop,, uninformative and unprogressive ad hominem attacks from both sides,,

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by totallackey

 

Instead of demanding people to read the thread for you, how about you read it yourself? All you're doing is dragging the thread off topic by covering old (and refuted) ground.

I have read the freaking thread, thank you. The point is this:

All of this supposed refutation is non-existent. I have already listed the sources posted by squiz. The blowhards have failed to complete the assignment and rather than post clearly and distinctly which of these sources is not peer-reviewed, they continue with the denial.

This was an A/B conversation between me and the blowhard crew. Kindly C your way out of it.

Originally posted by TheJackelantern

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Yeah...I probably could...Have several labs available in the area...one at Purdue University.

So, the questions remain, and since the issue was originally directed at you, MrXYZ, kindly:

1) Point out direct citations provided by squiz that contradict his position
2) Provide a list of his resources that are not peer reviewed.

Simple two step process.

You first need an actual education in the fields in question.. You know, a PHD, and you clear do not have one.. Regardless, you're as dishonest and intellectually lazy as they get. You've been dismissed as trolling the fora with ignorance. You're lucky you aren't on a forum that bans people like you for trolling the forums with fallacies, and the intentional use of fallacy arguments.

edit on 30-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

Har Har...yeah, as if any and all other experiments require a doctorate in order to be performed. This was as idiotic a statement as any other you have made here.

And you are lucky breathing is generally an involuntary function of the body...were it not, you would be in a terrible strait...

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Yeah...I probably could...Have several labs available in the area...one at Purdue University.

So, the questions remain, and since the issue was originally directed at you, MrXYZ, kindly:

1) Point out direct citations provided by squiz that contradict his position
2) Provide a list of his resources that are not peer reviewed.

Simple two step process.

Why would anyone waste their time with that when it's already been done? If you think he's right, then show it. Show the peer reviewed studies that claim abiogenesis is false or that ID is true and cite the conclusions that support it. It's that simple. Thus far no creationist / ID supporter has done that. You are talking about stuff we debunked months ago. If science is really on your side, prove it. Stop shifting the burden of prove to everyone else and asking for people to prove negatives or working hypotheses. YOU said abiogenesis was conclusively false. Prove it or stop lying about it. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that is still pending. No definite answers either way have been found although parts of the process have been duplicated. Squiz's claims are ALL extraordinary, and burden of proof is on anybody that supports ID to prove that an intelligent designer exists before appealing to this creator to explain DNA origins.

Is it really hard to admit you don't know the answer? This is why I know ID is nothing more than creationism in disguise. It's actually comical how quick you are to scream fallacy any time anybody mentions god, the bible or religion, as if you are not religious and don't believe in god.

All I'm asking for is some honesty, but I have yet to see it. Admit you don't know the answer and move on. If you can't do this very basic thing it speaks volumes about your beliefs.

edit on 30-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

This whole post is a profound denial of the scientific method by claiming the performance of a prior experiment is a "waste of time," when in fact performing the experiment over and over is in fact fundamental to the method. Testing the conclusions and observations for repeated results.

No no...not going to work here sparky...

Assignment still unperformed.

1) The list of squiz sources has been clearly delineated and condensed. Which of these sources contradict his position?
2) Which of his sources lacks peer-review?

Two steps to this assignment and very simple to post.

Originally posted by totallackey
This whole post is a profound denial of the scientific method by claiming the performance of a prior experiment is a "waste of time," when in fact performing the experiment over and over is in fact fundamental to the method. Testing the conclusions and observations for repeated results.

No no...not going to work here sparky...

Where did I deny the scientific method? Once again, you pretty much ignore every part of my response and the points contained therein.

Assignment still unperformed:

If you can't demonstrate the experiments that claim ID is accurate, or abiogenesis is conclusively false, you have nothing (none, nada, zip, stick a fork in you you're done), and have been proven dishonest. It really IS that simple. Basically, put up or shut up, your credibility is on the line, not mine. The door is that way. You can either participate in this thread contructivelyand back your claims up, or you can prove yourself to be a troll. It's up to you. I'm not fishing through Squiz's sources, to specifically demonstrate again that they don't prove his points and that the creationist sites are not peer reviewed. That was last month's argument. If you want to progress this conversation, show me the science that backs your claims, or more specifically ID, so we can actually debate something more than personal opinions. Not a single ID supporter has provided a single peer reviewed source that concludes ID. NOT A SINGLE ONE. We're all still waiting, you can put this to bed right now. But alas I'm not expecting you to. I'm expecting you to repeat the same fallacious argument again while not backing anything up. Talk is cheap.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by totallackey
Assignment still unperformed.

1) The list of squiz sources has been clearly delineated and condensed. Which of these sources contradict his position?
2) Which of his sources lacks peer-review?

Two steps to this assignment and very simple to post.

Speaking of assignments, how's that evidence that science has conclusively eliminated abiogenesis coming?

Originally posted by totallackey
Assignment still unperformed.

1) The list of squiz sources has been clearly delineated and condensed. Which of these sources contradict his position?
2) Which of his sources lacks peer-review?

Two steps to this assignment and very simple to post.

Abel & co. already came up dozens of pages back...don't be lazy. If you wanna read about why that garbage is wrong, click back a few pages

reply to post by totallackey

Assingments to perform;

1) Read thread

No one is fooled by you dog and pony show, all you're doing is embarrassing yourself with your own ignorance. Everything you have said has been refuted, yet instead of rebutting their informed responses you conveniently side step them and persist with your idiotic line of enquiry that can be answered simply by reading the thread.

Originally posted by TheJackelantern

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)

Or pick one that hasn't been dead for 200 or 300 years?

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by totallackey

 

Assingments to perform;

1) Read thread

No one is fooled by you dog and pony show, all you're doing is embarrassing yourself with your own ignorance. Everything you have said has been refuted, yet instead of rebutting their informed responses you conveniently side step them and persist with your idiotic line of enquiry that can be answered simply by reading the thread.

2) Take high school biology 101.

reply to post by HappyBunny


Let's not rush into things, being on nodding terms with basic comprehension skills is a big enough goal for the time being.

reply to post by ImaFungi


You're making man made technology and living things synonymous when they are clearly not. For example, the computer I am using to type this post cannot divide itself into 2 identical clones, it cannot mate to produce slightly different spec'd offspring. Why? Because it is not life, and life is not man-made technology. Drawing parallels between the two by saying "your computer was designed, ergo life was designed" is a fallacy.