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: 53
14
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


"I just don't like making assumptions based on lack of knowledge on a subject. Essentially that's what ID is"

Fair enough,,, i understand completely that the concept of intelligent design cannot do anything for us,,, its not science,, it is an assumption,,, it is placing a bet on the meaning of an observation,, also ID is a sketchily defined and interpreted concept that can be taken to mean different things.. all I can say is there is it seems to me ( if i had to put money on it) theres more to the universe then meets the eye ( by this i do not necessarily mean an invisible god permeating the universe nudging each particles movement and sneaking blueprints into the "minds?" of early life forms on how to build eyes) i understand that is what science is all about,,, our eyes arent good enough to do the job even to find all the more there is,,, our brains aren't good enough to interpret all the math and simulate all the data and information to draw our sturdier and sturdier maps of reality.,,., so when I throw around ID or have faith that there is something wildly insane and marvelous about the existence of the universe and what it can do and is,, why it is,, how it is,, how it was etc.. I am just excitedly and impatiently foreshadowing that the result of all knowledge will be the conclusion of our intelligence not being alone in the infinite eternities of existence,,, we need to worry about practicality,, we need to worry about ourselves,, and science and innovation is the only way we have done that since the spear and the hut,, thats not something we want to lose,, we do not want to go back to playing in the mud when we have come so far,, and cannot even perceive how much farther we can go,,,

back to the eye,,,,I dont think i can ever admit,, that whatever went into creating the eye was not intelligent,..,,. no matter how much time,,, (it took humans thousands and thousands of years to create the wheel),, if i was a single celled organism working in a community of others,, It seems rational to think it would take a long time for us to create the eye\.,.,. if I was born a baby and did not have the history of mankinds understanding to rely on,, i dont know how many life times id need to create an eye,.,.,.( not the ones i already have silly),,.,.,.,.




posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


and this is getting into a lil new territory but something i thought of and wondering what you think of........

Why are you,., you, what you are,,, and what would have had to happen for you to experience being something else ( i.e. a cat).,.,. for all we know you did not choose to become a human, and specifically yourself,, but for anyone to be anything they have to be specifically that thing ( i understand that) but everything that exists as a self is in that same position as you,,, seemingly no choice, but just appeared,, you were born on an alien planet in an alien universe as an alien in a semi advanced alien civilization,.,. some things like you just appear as cats and deal with it.,,.,. all of those things have awareness like yourself and are real and exist,... so could what you are as awareness,, ever pop up as a cat..,. of if it did you would never be able to remember,, and that would lead to my question not mattering, for you would be a brand new organization and conglomeration of consciousness? but i cant help wondering about he material used has not been created or destroyed,, so every particle that makes up you, that is you, and that you are,, once made something else up, was once apart of what something else was,, and in some time,, will become something else,,.,. and then this leaves us to what exactly you are then,.., not what you or science now thinks you are from their perspective,, but in truth,, what you actually are,,



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Barcs
 


Experimentation by Pasteur (and others) have eliminated abiogenesis. The other experiments, with sources provided and referenced by you and others, contain words such as "could," "might," " possible," and "suggests." In addition, there is doubt any type of replication has been performed as any follow up (not surprising, since the result itself was inconclusive. Why try to replicate an inconclusive result?)

The experiments I refer to stand on their own merit and are conclusive with zero ambiguity.

In the meantime, the original two questions remain. However, I will reduce it to just one.

1) What papers provided by squidz are contradictory to his stated position?



Totallackey, after reading the links provided by redix, I arrive came to the same conclusion.

None of these experiments show convincingly even remotely how the abiogenesis hypothesis is possible WITHOUT intelligent guidance.

And as you've already mentioned, a lot of these experiments if not all are based on PURE ASSUMPTIONS open to wild interpretations.

That's why they are loaded with guess words and statements like:

"Maybe, could be, might have been, likely, suggest, If, assumed", etc.

As such, the resulting DATA are clearly gathered from "bending" the facts in order to conform to the assumption.

Case in point:

RNA World hypothesis:

Instead of starting the 'story line' (of the "RNA World") in the beginning, they start it after the main players had already been prepped up and propped up.

That is, instead of creating the RNA polymerase from start (spontaneously), they take an already existing material:

(as mentioned in the article...)


We used a mutant form of T7 RNA polymerase to generate libraries of random sequences in which every position in every transcript had a roughly 50/50 chance of being either a ribonucleotide or a deoxyribonucleotide.



(Supplemetal info: en.wikipedia.org...



In...


...high salt and divalent cation (usually Mg2+, from 0.05 to 0.75 M) concentrations..




2-methyl-imidazole in place of imidazole


etc....

then coach it or to be precise GUIDE it to perform its act, to inhibit replication.

To quote redix:


...they set the parameters for the model...


in order get the expected result.

Then afterward conclude that...


By considering a series of factors that may have allowed for the chemical replication of RNA, we have come to a novel picture of the emergence of the RNA World from prebiotic chemistry...


(Link is here for the entire article provide by redix)

Now don't get me wrong, the experiments conducted by Team Szostak is amazing but not as impressive as the Venter or the Sutherland experiments for they actually "created" or to be precise "synthesize" an artificial life from

PRE-EXISTING LIFE.

So in reality, this experiments is a "demonstration" of how INTELLIGENT GUIDED PROCESS can be used to obtain the 'expected result'.

A far cry from abiogenesis hypothesis where it "proposed" that:

Life spontaneously arose from non living matter or that "biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes" – without any intelligent guidance.


I guess they'll just have to keep on trying to prove an unworkable hypothesis.

btw - whats the word for 'keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result'?

In another related news (courtesy of redix):


Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions

At some stage in the origin of life, an informational polymer must have arisen by purely chemical means. According to one version of the 'RNA world' hypothesis1, 2, 3 this polymer was RNA, but attempts to provide experimental support for this have failed4, 5. In particular, although there has been some success demonstrating that 'activated' ribonucleotides can polymerize to form RNA6, 7, it is far from obvious how such ribonucleotides could have formed from their constituent parts (ribose and nucleobases). Ribose is difficult to form selectively8, 9, and the addition of nucleobases to ribose is inefficient in the case of purines10 and does not occur at all in the case of the canonical pyrimidines11. Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates. The starting materials for the synthesis—cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate—are plausible prebiotic feedstock molecules....


link



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


And because it hasn't been fully proven it's called a "hypothesis"....as opposed to a proven "theory" like evolution.

Talking about "speculation" by the way, don't you think it's ironic that a creationists accuses others of that?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


And because it hasn't been fully proven it's called a "hypothesis"....as opposed to a proven "theory" like evolution.

Talking about "speculation" by the way, don't you think it's ironic that a creationists accuses others of that?


Actually its UNWORKABLE SPECULATION - as in wild assumption.

That is, NO INTELLIGENCE REQUIRED.

edit:

Why do you think parameters are needed to conduct the experiments yet the real thing - doesn't need one?

Care to speculate?



edit on 17-8-2012 by edmc^2 because: edit:



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


And because it hasn't been fully proven it's called a "hypothesis"....as opposed to a proven "theory" like evolution.

Talking about "speculation" by the way, don't you think it's ironic that a creationists accuses others of that?


Actually its UNWORKABLE SPECULATION - as in wild assumption.

That is, NO INTELLIGENCE REQUIRED.

edit:

Why do you think parameters are needed to conduct the experiments yet the real thing - doesn't need one?

Care to speculate?



edit on 17-8-2012 by edmc^2 because: edit:


It's clearly not wild speculation and the very articles you linked prove that


Either way, it's incredibly ironic that a creationist accuses others of wild speculation



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





It's clearly not wild speculation and the very articles you linked prove that


OK if it's not a wild speculation then:

Why do you think parameters are needed to conduct the experiments yet the real thing - doesn't need one?

As for:




Either way, it's incredibly ironic that a creationist accuses others of wild speculation


Nope. On the contrary "Creationists" don't speculate but show and demonstrate that indeed INTELLIGENCE was involved and IS present in creation - from the very beginning.

Evolutionist and atheist on the other hand speculate that all of these came to be by unguided means - spontaneous generation by blind chance event. They deny intelligence.


How ironic is that?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





Could you explain how this experiment rules out the possibility of abiogenesis? Please use as much direct comparison with this experiment and modern abiogenesis hypotheses and research as you like. So as to clarify the exact relevance and then, having established that, explain how it rules it out?


One word: INTELLIGENCE

Abiogenesis doesn't require Intelligence, yet ALL experiments and all evidence (whether in the Universe or on earth) points to INTELLIGENCE behind that is created.

Apart from Intelligence - abiogenesis is impossible.

There's no way around it.

I know you don't like the word "creator" or "God" so I'm using INTELLIGENCE to identify the organizing power or force that made the Universe.

Question is - what IS this INTELLIGENCE?

IS it the same concept as Spinoza's and Einstein's concept "that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe.”

If so how is this Force able to think and wield the power to create?

Which one is more reasonable to believe?

A Being possessing the intelligence and understanding of Time and Space, Matter and Energy?

Or an impersonal nameless force that's all around us?

Which one makes sense to a normal thinking mind?


Note:

Scriptures below are NOT directed to you but ONLY to those with spiritual understanding:


(1 Corinthians 15:39-41) . . .Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. 41 The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory.


(1 Corinthians 15:44) ... If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.

(Hebrews 9:24) For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us."



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





You discount the obvious fact that life on this planet evolved/evolves,


Nope - I don't discount that things or for that matter life on this planet CHANGE with the passage of time. I don't discount the fact that living things adapt to their environment and circumstances. No these are undeniable facts of life.

But the question is, up to what degree can they CHANGED (evolve to you)?

That is, do they or can they change BEYOND what their BIOLOGICAL boundaries allows them to do?

That is, a fish biologically changing (evolving) into an amphibian, an amphibian into a reptile, a reptile into a mammal, into a bird, into the so called "great apes", into man.

Concrete evidence shows NO. Fossil records shows NO - unless of course you try hard to shape and bend them into what you think they SHOULD be or COULD be "millions of years ago".

Fact is there's no living evidence of this - except of course those who became mutants due to diseases and other deadly factors.

Yet even those that mutated biologically speaking - are still in the same family "kind" / species* bounded by their biological genome.

I.e. - bird family, dog family, cat family, ect...

But you say I:


...cling frantically to one particular ancient myth (out of countless myths) that not only defy the science you pretend to use, but defy anything resembling common sense. They are myths, they didn't happen. There would be an easy way to show your god exists, via controlled experiment, as I am sure you are aware............


and what myths is this that you talked about that I cling to "that not only defy the science you pretend to use, but defy anything resembling common sense"?

I think it's the other way around - for how could Intelligence exist without a mind?
How could that be a myth? How could that be not a common sense?

It's not myth just as I believe that you exist even though I don't see your mind. The evidence points to me that you exist.

It's the same way with God.

Fact is, if there's no Intelligence in creation, that ALL that which we see and feel, the visible as well as the invisible are products of MINDLESS force then I can honestly admit and take your POV. But the fact is - there's ample evidence that such INTELLIGENCE is present in nature.

For example, answer this simple questions:

If experiments simulating nature require intelligence why NOT the real thing?

Which one do you think "defy anything resembling common sense"?


a) A great a planetarium requires a great Designer / Builder so does the real thing.

or

b) A great a planetarium requires a great Designer / Builder BUT NOT the real thing.

What say you and why?

As for:



Not sure what you're getting at with your examples re chemistry and electricity. These things don't invalidate their respective fields of science, as much as give us the opportunity to add to them. The same way the abiogenesis hypothesis potentially will also...The same basic principles of Ohm's law are still used in the design of the grid that powers your computer (though obviously more complex mathematically). They still hold true for measuring resistance/resistivity of superconductors.


They are examples to show you that IF YOU KNOW HOW THINGS WORK then you know HOW TO CONTROL and MANIPULATE them according to your needs and circumstances.

Like I said - 300 years ago no one knows what a superconductor is. But to us, there's nothing mysterious or mythical about it. Why? because we KNOW, we have the INTELLIGENCE on how to turn an ordinary lead into a superconductor or the knowledge to turn a sand into a semiconductor.

Or the knowledge to clone or to replace a heart, etc.

Now if we know how to break the sound barrier, can we also travel at light speed if we know how to bend space and time?

So all of these we call "mystery" are not really mystery but hidden knowledge of the facts.

BUT abiogenesis on the other hand is bunk because IT has no solid foundation. Since Intelligence is NOT part of the process therefore it can't happen - try as you may.

As for:



Where they don't break every observation of science and have the possibility of being substantiated, we know they didn't happen. No biblical flood, no slave race in Egypt, no exodus, no wandering the desert. Other stories such as Noah's ark, break every rule of common sense.



To quote Akira Yamada, professor emeritus of Kyoto University in Japan (again):


While it is correct to say that [a miracle] cannot be understood as of now from the standpoint of the science in which one is involved (or from the status quo of science), it is wrong to conclude that it did not happen, simply on the authority of advanced modern physics or advanced modern Bibliology. Ten years from now, today’s modern science will be a science of the past. .."


later...
edit on 17-8-2012 by edmc^2 because: What say you and why?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Case in point:

RNA World hypothesis:

Instead of starting the 'story line' (of the "RNA World") in the beginning, they start it after the main players had already been prepped up and propped up.

That is, instead of creating the RNA polymerase from start (spontaneously), they take an already existing material:

(as mentioned in the article...)



I appreciate that you took the time to read the article but you're obviously not understanding what you're reading. The RNA polymerase experiment was a separate experiment to show that regiospecificity is not a problem for evolvability. The bonds between two adjacent RNA monomers can be via a 2'-5' linkage or a 3'-5' linkage. In our cells, all RNA backbone bonds are 3'-5' linkages but in an abiotic system you're likely to get a mixture. This was believed to be a problem for the RNA World hypothesis but this separate experiment shows that it isn't. In fact, mixing 2'-5' linkages with 3'-5' linkages can actually be a benefit as is shown elsewhere in the article.

The whole point of this line of research is to find out whether a replicator could have come about without the use of enzymes so obviously they're not starting with an RNA polymerase to explain the process. Do try to keep up.

Magnesium ions and 2-methyl-imidazole are mentioned as examples of agents that can influence the ratio between 2'-5' and 3'-5' linkages but as regiospecificity has already been shown not to be a problem for the hypothesis they're probably not critical. Again, you're not understanding what you're reading and manage to completely miss the point.


Why do you think parameters are needed to conduct the experiments yet the real thing - doesn't need one?


Nature doesn't need parameters? Wow. This kind of muddled writing could only come from some seriously muddled thinking.


Evolutionist and atheist on the other hand speculate that all of these came to be by unguided means - spontaneous generation by blind chance event. They deny intelligence.


Again with the "blind chance". It's still nonsense - the forces of nature don't operate by blind chance or else there would be no science as nothing could be tested and no predictions could be made.


Abiogenesis doesn't require Intelligence, yet ALL experiments and all evidence (whether in the Universe or on earth) points to INTELLIGENCE behind that is created.


Isn't it amazing that you've been repeating this claim throughout the entire thread and still haven't been able to back it up with anything but logical fallacies? How about some actual evidence?


But the question is, up to what degree can they CHANGED (evolve to you)?

That is, do they or can they change BEYOND what their BIOLOGICAL boundaries allows them to do?

That is, a fish biologically changing (evolving) into an amphibian, an amphibian into a reptile, a reptile into a mammal, into a bird, into the so called "great apes", into man.

Concrete evidence shows NO. Fossil records shows NO - unless of course you try hard to shape and bend them into what you think they SHOULD be or COULD be "millions of years ago".


Kindly present this evidence.


If experiments simulating nature require intelligence why NOT the real thing?


Your argument seems to be that if something can be modeled by an intelligence, this is proof that the original was created by an intelligence. That doesn't really hold up to any scrutiny though, does it? If I find a rock on a beach and manage to fashion another rock into the same shape as the first one, would this be proof that the first rock was designed by an intelligence? Of course not. It would simply prove that I can emulate the forces of erosion that shaped that rock.


BUT abiogenesis on the other hand is bunk because IT has no solid foundation. Since Intelligence is NOT part of the process therefore it can't happen - try as you may.


Creationist bluster without any actual facts to back it up. No surprises there.

The idea that naturalistic explanations have a less solid foundation than supernatural ones is of course hilarious. This claim is obviously easily refuted by the simple observation that we know that nature exists while we have no evidence of anything supernatural (let alone a god).
edit on 18-8-2012 by radix because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





I appreciate that you took the time to read the article but you're obviously not understanding what you're reading. The RNA polymerase experiment was a separate experiment to show that regiospecificity is not a problem for evolvability. The bonds between two adjacent RNA monomers can be via a 2'-5' linkage or a 3'-5' linkage. In our cells, all RNA backbone bonds are 3'-5' linkages but in an abiotic system you're likely to get a mixture. This was believed to be a problem for the RNA World hypothesis but this separate experiment shows that it isn't. In fact, mixing 2'-5' linkages with 3'-5' linkages can actually be a benefit as is shown elsewhere in the article. The whole point of this line of research is to find out whether a replicator could have come about without the use of enzymes so obviously they're not starting with an RNA polymerase to explain the process. Do try to keep up. Magnesium ions and 2-methyl-imidazole are mentioned as examples of agents that can influence the ratio between 2'-5' and 3'-5' linkages but as regiospecificity has already been shown not to be a problem for the hypothesis they're probably not critical. Again, you're not understanding what you're reading and manage to completely miss the point.


Don't forget that the experiment was based on PURE assumption of what the RNA World COULD have been.

Point is I was looking at it from a wider POV as proposed by abiogenesis hypothesis. But it appears that they took a shortcut and started with a know quantity to try to replicate what's already present in nature. Since RNA molecules by their nature are known to replicate themselves (due to codes present in them) with HIGH FIDELITY, I wasn't really surprised when Team Szostak was able to make the "template" replicate.

Unfortunately though as mentioned in the article - the copy was not an exact copy of the "template". Instead of getting a "3'-5' linkage" they got a "2'-5' linkage".

This is primarily due to:


...imperfect regiospecifity of chemically copied RNA..."


Like you said:




In our cells, all RNA backbone bonds are 3'-5' linkages but in an abiotic system you're likely to get a mixture. This was believed to be a problem for the RNA World hypothesis but this separate experiment shows that it isn't.


So the question is:

Is the "2'-5' linkage" within the margin of "error rates" so as to prevent "error catastrophe"?

That is:


...the inability to transmit useful information, no matter how strong the selective advantage confered by the information..."


Article said more experiment is needed to find out.

Like I said - since the experiment is based on pure speculation, any data gathered will be subject to pure interpretation of what could have been - should have been millions of years ago.

Now if you believe that this was the path that nature took to spontaneously generate life from non-living materials (by unguided means - wink wink), then I applaud you because I don't have that much faith when it comes to pure speculation.


later...



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I don't know how that works. There are trees on other planets, grass and moss also. They may be a different color or be a little different but they will have similar structure. The DNA of a tree is similar throught the Universe or now, multiverse. Things assemble certain ways almost as it originated from a source somewhere. a combination of magnetic and electric fields is what everything is made from. It's interaction with the metals and gasses effects it's shape to a point. This planet was colonized, either by accident or by design. I don't think much of what is here originated here, it wasn't accidental, it was influenced by life elsewhere. All you need is a signal and and antenna and you can colonize a planet and influence all the life. Like a holograph with matter.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 




So the question is:

Is the "2'-5' linkage" within the margin of "error rates" so as to prevent "error catastrophe"?

That is:

"...the inability to transmit useful information, no matter how strong the selective advantage confered by the information..."


Article said more experiment is needed to find out.


Like I said, lack of regiospecificity was seen as a huge problem for the RNA World hypothesis but further research has shown that not only may it not be a problem, it may actually be essential as it could possibly solve other problems - like strand separation after replication. RNA duplexes with only 3'-5' linkages tend to need high temperatures to separate, whereas mixed-backbone RNA duplexes would be able to separate at a lower temperature.

Yes, the effect of backbone heterogeneity on replication fidelity is one of many things that will have to be tested but that's what abiogenesis research is for.


Like I said - since the experiment is based on pure speculation, any data gathered will be subject to pure interpretation of what could have been - should have been millions of years ago.


It's a hypothesis based on our current knowledge. If we find new evidence of what the conditions were like on pre-biotic Earth, it will obviously be taken into account. If scientists ever reach a point where they have a robust chemical pathway that has been experimentally verified and can serve as the basis of a theory, it will probably be in the form of "starting with these conditions, this is how a replicator could have formed abiotically".

Of course, if that day comes, you could claim that we don't know for sure that these were the exact conditions on pre-biotic Earth. This would be correct but if you were to claim that abiogenesis couldn't have happened this way, the onus would be on you to prove that these conditions were not present at the time.


Now if you believe that this was the path that nature took to spontaneously generate life from non-living materials (by unguided means - wink wink), then I applaud you because I don't have that much faith when it comes to pure speculation.


A hypothesis requires no faith. All that's needed is the possibility to test it. If it fails the test against the evidence, it's discarded and replaced with another hypothesis. I happen to think that the RNA World hypothesis is the one that makes the most sense but I'm in no way married to it. If someone comes up with a better one I'll drop it like a hot potatoe - I'm fickle like that.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

If so how is this Force able to think and wield the power to create?

Which one is more reasonable to believe?

A Being possessing the intelligence and understanding of Time and Space, Matter and Energy?

Or an impersonal nameless force that's all around us?

Which one makes sense to a normal thinking mind?

Who says it would have to be a "being", or has to make decisions about how to wield it's "power"? A very narrow view IMO... sounding like anthropomorphism?



Note:

Scriptures below are NOT directed to you but ONLY to those with spiritual understanding:



I will try not to be offensive, as you appear to be well meaning and sincere.

Whether there will ultimately require an intelligence to explain existence, is a fascinating question. As yet, despite belief to the contrary, it appears the consensus among the relevant scientific communities would be that there is no genuine reason to think so. It seems quite possible that science will one day find reasonable natural explanation, from the very instant that our universe began all the way to the present time (including how life started, how it becomes conscious). This, if it were to happen, would explain the evolution of the universe as a whole.

Though even if it were to happen, it would still not rule out some ultimate form of intelligence IMO (won't rule it in either). What it could do, is rule out the myth that seems to be the motive for this thread (surely it is already ruled out to the non indoctrinated). Rather than having a genuine discussion as it's aim, it appears more an exercise in Christian apologetics.

Your cult, dedicated to human sacrifice, doesn't hold the answers. Yes, no matter how Christians sugar coat it, it glorifies the (claimed) brutal torture and sacrifice of one particular man. The same ancient, ignorant and barbaric notion found among many cultures, that an imaginary god requires, is pleased by and grants favors for blood/human sacrifice.

Though even weirder, it claims this divine intelligence fathered itself... so that it could be brutally tortured... to please itself... thereby giving itself a reason to forgive us for something we didn't do... so that we could worship it (please no sermons on original sin, I have heard it all before). This is obviously insane.

A firm belief in this already shows that logic and reason fail to have any effect. It is then understandable that the ridiculous stories that follow from this are taken as truth. With no good historical, scientific or other reason to do so. This cult of worship to the notion of a vengeful and ignorant god, appears to be the ultimate form of Stockholm Syndrome.

The "proof" for this belief being held up as truth, is basically non existent. Sai Baba is credited with much the same miracles as Christ, including control over nature and various resurrection accounts. Yet unlike christ, we do actually know Sai Baba lived, as a historic fact. We don't have to rely on unsourced 3rd hand rumours from ignorant 1st century goat herders, of his miracles. We can simply talk to the millions of modern, educated people who will attest to these things, in many instances because they were there personally. Including those "resurrected". By any standards that Christianity accepts, this would be conclusive proof that he is the divine messiah. There are countless more "divine beings" where he came from also. Yet Christians don't generally believe. If they applied 1% of this skepticism to their own cultish beliefs, they would instantly realize why many do not accept their 1st century charlatan either (if he was a real person).

There may be an intelligence of sorts behind existence. Who really knows? Though if you are claiming your ancient superstition has the answers, you will have some work to do. It should never be taken seriously until it can be backed up. It is clear that it's most basic requirement is to be impervious to any form of reason and relies on the well known fact that human beings can be very easy to indoctrinate.

Your "being" that builds universes, intervenes in the natural order, grants favors, rewards and punishes etc needs a little more substantiation than you seem capable of giving. Although Sai Baba has somewhere around 0% chance of being god incarnate, he still offers far more proof than your superstition does. In the end science stands or falls on it's merits. If your belief is to be taken seriously in any scientific (or other) sense, it will also. Therefore IMO, you have an awful lot of work to do. In any genuine sense, it is yet to begin.


edit on 19-8-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





Who says it would have to be a "being", or has to make decisions about how to wield it's "power"? A very narrow view IMO... sounding like anthropomorphism?


If the evidence leads you there why ignore it and above all why turn a blind eye on it just because our current scientific understanding of things is still unclear?

Like I said - what binds the universe is KNOWLEDGE - INTELLIGENCE!

Having a clear understanding of the Universe from the macro to the micro is key to understanding its origins.

And as far as we know the universe is governed by fundamental laws and principles - all of which can be mathematically express.

E = m c 2 is one.

Kepler's law of Planetary Motion is another.

Sir Isaac Newton's Law of Motion is another.

etc...

The habitable zone at which of our Blue Planet resides.

The distance of heavenly bodies at which they affect each other.

The distance of Galaxies at which they affect each other.

etc...

The forces that protects the earth from harm.

The forces that makes life possible on earth.

The orbits of atoms.

The genetic codes and boundaries that makes species uniquely different from each other.

Break these down to their very basic level you will see INTELLIGENCE behind them.

Question is - can such laws, principles and forces appear on their own?

Experience show that apart from knowledge NO such thing can occur.

And as normal human beings - we normally attribute such intelligent laws to a Mind. The greater the knowledge the greater the Mind.

Some call this Great Mind "anthropomorphism", Intelligence (ID) and most call it God.

But to me - the most reasonable description of this Great Mind is - a Divine Being, the Almighty God who has a name as written in his book - the Holy Scripture: Yahweh/Yehowah/Jehovah.

To attribute such knowledge and intelligence to an impersonal force as conceptualized by Spinoza or Einstein and other philosophers - to me is illogical and above all empty reasoning.

It's like saying the Monalisa was painted by the brush not Leonardo DaVinci - the great mind responsible for such painting. It doesn't make sense.

Yet that's what evolutionist / atheist / modern critics wants us to believe - nature is so intelligent that it created all of these. It doesn't make sense.

So to me to like I said the most reasonable explanation is an Intelligent Creator. And it's NOT "A very narrow view" but the ONLY way it makes sense.

The more we learn about his creations - the more we understand him. How the "miracles" were possible, what forces and laws were used to bind the atoms and the universe itself.

Such monumental task that it will take eternity to find out if we're able to.

In fact it is said in the scriptures this:



“Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the [true] God has made from the start to the finish.” (Ecclesiastes 3:11)


Of course, you can attribute the universal laws and principles to an impersonal force if that makes sense to you. Nonone is stopping you from it.

But one thing to remember is that whatever we believe it to be - will influence our thinking and our way of life to a lesser or a greater degree. So the choice is yours.

To me the more I see the inner workings of the Great Mind, the more I'm fascinated by it. I look at the works of great minds like Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler, the modern day scientist such as Szostak, Venter, Sutherland, et al in a different POV. I look at the intelligence behind them, discard the ones that are highly speculative and open to interpretation and advance them further to find the purpose behind them.

Once you find the purpose, then only then you'll appreciate the reason of their existence.

Case in point:

The Atmosphere - not only that it serves to protect us from harmful rays but also beautiful to look at during sunrise and sunset.

Now how on earth can such chemical mixtures be put together in the right proportion if there's no intelligence behind it? If these are put together haphazardly there will be no life.

For instance - what's preventing the oxygen from turning into an ozone or vices versa? Furthermore stratospheric ozone is not fixed, but changes as the intensity of UV radiation rises. So the ozone layer is a dynamic, efficient shield.

Is this a product of an Intelligent Mind or a mindless force?


later...


BTW - I wish I could address the things you said below but they are off topic. Maybe in another thread.




Your cult, dedicated to human sacrifice, doesn't hold the answers. Yes, no matter how Christians sugar coat it, it glorifies the (claimed) brutal torture and sacrifice of one particular man. The same ancient, ignorant and barbaric notion found among many cultures, that an imaginary god requires...



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

If the evidence leads you there why ignore it and above all why turn a blind eye on it just because our current scientific understanding of things is still unclear?

Yet you have not shown that there is a "divine being" of any type, let alone one that is responsible. Other than your own belief. Though Sai Baba would seem to have the most proof, certainly to a far far higher standard than what you offer...Yet I don't believe he created the universe either.

There have been some good points in this thread and although I haven't been swayed, at least it provokes thought. Though it isn't the possibility of a universal intelligence that I am disagreeing with. I just disagree that it is proven. I especially disagree that your god has the slightest merit.


Like I said - what binds the universe is KNOWLEDGE - INTELLIGENCE!

Perhaps you are right. You just can't sufficiently back it up.


Having a clear understanding of the Universe from the macro to the micro is key to understanding its origins.

Break these down to their very basic level you will see INTELLIGENCE behind them.

Spinoza's god.


Question is - can such laws, principles and forces appear on their own?

Who knows? They do appear, certainly without the help of any personal deities.


And as normal human beings - we normally attribute such intelligent laws to a Mind. The greater the knowledge the greater the Mind.

Some call this Great Mind "anthropomorphism", Intelligence (ID) and most call it God.

But to me - the most reasonable description of this Great Mind is - a Divine Being, the Almighty God who has a name as written in his book - the Holy Scripture: Yahweh/Yehowah/Jehovah.

Anthropomorphism would be projecting our own human qualities on this imaginary god. This is how ancient man, in his conceited ignorance, created this type of god of the gaps to begin with (in his own image). The truth (if it were known) could be very different.


To attribute such knowledge and intelligence to an impersonal force as conceptualized by Spinoza or Einstein and other philosophers - to me is illogical and above all empty reasoning.

No, it is a very honest view, based on what can be observed. Though I'm not necessarily claiming there can't be more to it. I'm claiming I don't really know what it is (other than it isn't your superstitious, religious anthropomorphic type of personal deity).


It's like saying the Monalisa was painted by the brush not Leonardo DaVinci - the great mind responsible for such painting. It doesn't make sense.

Yet we know DaVinci lived. Not so with the god supposedly behind all of the forces that allowed the paint to arrive and cling to the canvas, but the materials, the painter himself and whatever forces allowed the concept in his mind, the whole lot. Fine for a personal belief, yet to be proven though.


Yet that's what evolutionist / atheist / modern critics wants us to believe - nature is so intelligent that it created all of these. It doesn't make sense.

Not necessarily. As yet they don't know, though they haven't yet found any genuine reasons to contribute anything to god. They might one day, who knows?



So to me to like I said the most reasonable explanation is an Intelligent Creator. And it's NOT "A very narrow view" but the ONLY way it makes sense.

Sense, to you, because a book of myths tells you you were created in his image. It's obviously the other way around.


But one thing to remember is that whatever we believe it to be - will influence our thinking and our way of life to a lesser or a greater degree. So the choice is yours

Is this an attempt at moralising? It is a fact that as religiosity increases, societies become correspondingly unhealthy and dysfunctional. The direct opposite of what the indoctrinated like to claim, wishful thinking.

You don't have a leg to stand on here. See the link.


Is this a product of an Intelligent Mind or a mindless force?

Qute a few people have been trying to explain that they don't really know. You just don't accept this. I go a little further and say the biblical god you promote, lives only in the mind of those indoctrinated ie. as an illusion/delusion.



BTW - I wish I could address the things you said below but they are off topic. Maybe in another thread.

Thanks for sparing me. Though I have discussed it with quite a few already, with some who even claim Christian type of divinity themselves. It would normally be fruitless, only that it can offer a chance to understand how otherwise normal and intelligent people become deluded (something we are all prone to), the mechanisms they use to cope with cognitive dissonance etc.


www.epjournal.net...



edit on 20-8-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





If your belief is to be taken seriously in any scientific (or other) sense, it will also. Therefore IMO, you have an awful lot of work to do. In any genuine sense, it is yet to begin.
...
Though if you are claiming your ancient superstition has the answers, you will have some work to do.


OK - this one I can't ignore plus it's still on topic and I've covered it already in another thread.

But first thing first about this "claiming your ancient superstition" mambo jumbo thing.

Correction, it's not a "superstition" but common sense based on reality - scientific and otherwise. Evidence backed up by facts - scientific and otherwise.

Consider the following.

In Genesis 1:1 the Bible starts with this simple but impressive Biblical statement:


“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” - Gen. 1:1


Now if it can be proven that the Universe “the heavens” and the earth had a "beginning" then it's factual, real, backed up by facts. It's NOT as you say an "ancient superstition". Isn't it?

So what does the evidence show?

Did the universe (heavens) had a beginning according to Genesis 1:1?

The book “God and the Astronomers,” page 14, said:


“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.”


The Hubble Telescope and other powerful instruments, higher mathematics and the brightest minds of science has confirmed this to be so: the universe had a beginning – ergo: The Big Bang.

Consider a few more:

Professor of astronomy David L. Block wrote:


“That the universe has not always existed—that it had a beginning—has not always been popular.”


Now:


“Virtually all astrophysicists today conclude, that “the universe began with a big bang that propelled matter outward in all directions.” – reported U.S.News & World Report in 1997



“You can call it the big bang, but you can also call it with accuracy the moment of creation.” – Robert Jastrow


Penzias, who shared in the discovery of background radiation in the universe, observed:


“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing.”



“What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” – COBE team leader George Smoot


www.youtube.com...=619s


Division of Energy Between Photons and Massive Particles

One of the ideas associated with modeling the Big Bang is that the further back in time you project, the more the universe is dominated by photons. We think of today's universe as mostly matter, but the energy of the early universe was mostly photon energy with massive particles playing a very small role.

The amount of energy in radiation in today's universe can be estimated with the use of the Stefan- Boltzmann law, considering that the universe is filled with blackbody radiation at a temperature of 2.7 K.


hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

www.youtube.com...

A conceptual illustration of the Big Bang Event:



What can we conclude from these evidence?

Just as the Bible has stated: The Universe did had a BEGINNING!

On this there's NO Doubt!

What about the earth?

Did it had a beginning?

This one too is a ESTABLISHED FACT and no need of further evidence or explanation (unless you're not yet convinced).

Now please consider these very important questions:

Since the Genesis account was written some 3500 years ago (according to Biblical chronology and factual events surrounding its writing), here's the question that I want you to answer:

How did Moses, a “goat herder” (as you referred to) get the facts right?

How did he knew that the universe (heavens) and the earth had a beginning whereas these scientific facts were known just recently (1900s)?

How could a man 3500 years ago be able say, write what science just recently discovered?

If these ancient writings are what you say they are - "ancient superstition", how in the world did the writer knew what we know now?

In short where did the information come from?

If such writing is as you say "ancient superstition", does this mean that ancient people were more advanced than us? We who are capable of sending men and probes in outer space? If so how is it a superstition?

Does this makes sense to you?

I'll stop here.

Note: I will not discuss doctrinal matters unless you want me to and mods are ok with it.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





If your belief is to be taken seriously in any scientific (or other) sense, it will also. Therefore IMO, you have an awful lot of work to do. In any genuine sense, it is yet to begin.
...
Though if you are claiming your ancient superstition has the answers, you will have some work to do.


OK - this one I can't ignore plus it's still on topic and I've covered it already in another thread.

But first thing first about this "claiming your ancient superstition" mambo jumbo thing.

Correction, it's not a "superstition" but common sense based on reality - scientific and otherwise. Evidence backed up by facts - scientific and otherwise.

Consider the following.

In Genesis 1:1 the Bible starts with this simple but impressive Biblical statement:


“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” - Gen. 1:1




Sorry for the laughter. Please don't take offence, but that is exactly the reaction it got.

Please if you review your post in an unbiased way you might see exactly, my original point. To give you a hint, it doesn't matter in any scientific sense what the bible, a comic book, or anything else claims about who did what. Common sense would normally require a little (lot) more than this before it would be taken seriously, also.

The religious bias must be so strong by now that it is simply a part of the thought processes, it can no longer even be distinguished? Perhaps you could start again..?

"In the beginning, a race of clever pink unicorns created the heavens (they are no longer with us/old age)...the leprechauns created the earth (their descendants with a pot 'o gold still live at the end of rainbows to this day)...and so forth."


Every bit as verifiable, scientifically feasable and realistic as the bible.



edit on 20-8-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Sorry to amuse you and no offense taken.

But you did not answer my serious questions.


Since the Genesis account was written some 3500 years ago (according to Biblical chronology and factual events surrounding its writing), here's the question that I want you to answer:

How did Moses, a “goat herder” (as you referred to) get the facts right?

How did he knew that the universe (heavens) and the earth had a beginning whereas these scientific facts were known just recently (1900s)?

How could a man 3500 years ago be able say, write what science just recently discovered?

If these ancient writings are what you say they are - "ancient superstition", how in the world did the writer knew what we know now?

In short where did the information come from?

If such writing is as you say "ancient superstition", does this mean that ancient people were more advanced than us? We who are capable of sending men and probes in outer space? If so how is it a superstition?

What say you?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Can you tell me what you're trying to say in 5 short sentences?




top topics



 
14
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join