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: 54
14
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
Can you tell me what you're trying to say in 5 short sentences?


The Biblical writer of Genesis received the INFORMATION from someone who has knowledge of Time and Space.

That is, when the Universe and the earth had their beginning, that Being was there. He was there when "The Big Bang", "The Singularity" was put into motion. Hence the Beginning.

Simply put E = m c 2 - the awesome transformation of Energy into Matter.

It takes Intelligence to control, direct and transform Energy into organized Matter.




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by r2d246
Can you tell me what you're trying to say in 5 short sentences?


The Biblical writer of Genesis received the INFORMATION from someone who has knowledge of Time and Space.

That is, when the Universe and the earth had their beginning, that Being was there. He was there when "The Big Bang", "The Singularity" was put into motion. Hence the Beginning.

Simply put E = m c 2 - the awesome transformation of Energy into Matter.

It takes Intelligence to control, direct and transform Energy into organized Matter.





I agree. My bet is on the God of the bible. Most time tested.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

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.




OK - since you're the one who raised the question and I responded to it - the ball is on your side.

I assume you're not questioning the evidence of a "beginning" / "creation" of the Universe and earth - that the evidence are factually accurate.

Now care to respond to my simple Qs?

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 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?


edit on 20-8-2012 by edmc^2 because: Add: I assume you're not questioning the evidence of a "beginning" / "creation" of the Universe and earth - that the evidence are factually accurate



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
What "factually accurate" event proves the origin date of the bible or its multitude of stories? The flood legends go back further than 3500 years.


What scientific references are in the bible that refer to science or technology today? Be specific. No metaphors please.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
What "factually accurate" event proves the origin date of the bible or its multitude of stories? The flood legends go back further than 3500 years.


What scientific references are in the bible that refer to science or technology today? Be specific. No metaphors please.
edit on 20-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


The "factually accurate" event I'm talking about is the beginning of the Universe and the earth.

The Big Bang Theory, The Singularity!

Do you doubt this event?

I'm curious to know.

I can name some more but let's stick to the "Big Bang/Singularity" for the moment.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 


Just need to reply to this before I forget:

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



You said:




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


I formulated my question based on a reply where you stated:




It's a very clear run-down of the challenges that have to be met in order to explain how the first replicator could have been formed by natural, unguided means.


And one more thing about the Szostak experiment, i.e. "2'-5' linkage".

Is the imperfect "2'-5' linkage" the "first RNA replicating polymer on the early earth" according to abiogenesis hypothesis?

What say you?




edit on 20-8-2012 by edmc^2 because: include in quote: Nature doesn't need parameters?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Just need to reply to this before I forget:

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


A parameter is a characteristic, a factor that can be measured. Saying that something "doesn't need parameters" is simply nonsense.


Is the imperfect "2'-5' linkage" the "first RNA replicating polymer on the early earth" according to abiogenesis hypothesis?


Your question doesn't make any sense. A 2'-5' linkage is not a polymer, it's a chemical bond. It's also one of two possible ways that two RNA monomers can be joined to each other. As Szostak describes in the article, there's evidence to suggest that a mixture of 2'-5' and 3'-5' linkages could have been an essential feature of the first self-replicating molecules.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

It takes Intelligence to control, direct and transform Energy into organized Matter.





Well, that's simply wrong.

It's wrong because we have plenty of examples where no intelligence is required...and NO examples where any intelligence other than ours is required.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


So far I haven't said anything Biblical that's contradictory to science.

Life from life - check.
Beginning of the Universe - check.
Transforming matter into different forms - check
Transforming Energy into Matter - check
etc...

- except of course the ones that are out of reach of science.

Like a "goat herder" having knowledge of advance scientific facts?
etc..

BTW - MrXYZ - if you're up for it, can you help your friends by answering these simple Qs that I've asked a while ago?

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 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 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You just claimed the energy into matter thing requires intelligence...which is wrong.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





How did 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?



1) That "goat herder" got tons of facts demonstrably wrong


2) Given that no explanation of why he (more like "they") thought it had a beginning, we don't know...a guess? Either way, the universe as we know it had a beginning, but given that we don't know what was before it (or what happened in the first split seconds after the big bang), saying "everything had a beginning can't be proven.

3) The bible has hundreds of things demonstrably wrong when it comes to science...and given the amount of stuff in there it's no wonder that they got the occasional thing right


4) Clearly the writer (again, more than one) got so much wrong and never provides any objective evidence for his claims that I don't get why you are so surprised.

5) Lucky guesses, superstition, ...

Again, what about the hundreds of cases where the bible is scientifically wrong?

Harry Potter gets some stuff right too, doesn't mean you can therefore ride on brooms


By the way, since we are doing questions now:

Present us with one example where there's positive objective (!!!) evidence that some sort of higher being created anything. No stupid philosophy arguments, real scientific evidence is what I'm after...


edit on 20-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

It takes Intelligence to control, direct and transform Energy into organized Matter.





Well, that's simply wrong.

It's wrong because we have plenty of examples where no intelligence is required...and NO examples where any intelligence other than ours is required.


Looks like you missed the point.

Here let me BOLD and underline the key word for you so that you won't missed it:

It takes Intelligence to control, direct and transform Energy into organized Matter.

ORGANIZED MATTER - refers to things that contain meaningful, purposeful and useful INFORMATION.

I'll give one that encompasses a great deal including the Universe.

Fibonacci Sequence also known as The Golden Angle.



jwilson.coe.uga.edu...

Of course if to you these are just random numbers created accidentally by blind nature, then you're entitled to your reality.

Your turn - show me some "examples where no intelligence is required"?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


So now we've come full circle and we're back to the argument from complexity


Still haven't checked out that list of argumentative fallacies have we?

edit on 20-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You just claimed the energy into matter thing requires intelligence...which is wrong.


You mean it doesn't require INTELLIGENCE to create the God Particle?

Hmmm....I guess the LHC / the Particle Colliders of the world over don't need no "stinkin" intelligence to transform a single proton atom into a Higgs Boson, huh?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


So now we've come full circle and we're back to the argument from complexity


Still haven't checked out that list of argumentative fallacies have we?

edit on 20-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


I guess I got you stomped again cuz - whenever you get stomped you always retort to your old tactic.

Nothing to contribute to the discussion.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You just claimed the energy into matter thing requires intelligence...which is wrong.


You mean it doesn't require INTELLIGENCE to create the God Particle?

Hmmm....I guess the LHC / the Particle Colliders of the world over don't need no "stinkin" intelligence to transform a single proton atom into a Higgs Boson, huh?





For crying out loud, they did the experiment because they speculated the Higgs Boson always existed


Just because you see one blue car doesn't mean they're all blue...which is what you're basically implying. It's the old argument from ignorance again



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


So now we've come full circle and we're back to the argument from complexity


Still haven't checked out that list of argumentative fallacies have we?

edit on 20-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


I guess I got you stomped again cuz - whenever you get stomped you always retort to your old tactic.

Nothing to contribute to the discussion.




What did you expect if you keep on using the same argumentative fallacies over and over and over again. Just because you keep on using them doesn't mean they're not complete and utter nonsense



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


So now we've come full circle and we're back to the argument from complexity


Still haven't checked out that list of argumentative fallacies have we?

edit on 20-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


I guess I got you stomped again cuz - whenever you get stomped you always retort to your old tactic.

Nothing to contribute to the discussion.




What did you expect if you keep on using the same argumentative fallacies over and over and over again. Just because you keep on using them doesn't mean they're not complete and utter nonsense


bubye...
then..

ya can come back whenever you have somethin' intelligent to say.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


How is pointing out that you keep on using the same nonsense argumentative fallacies "not intelligent"??



How about you for once, just once, present us with a real argument instead of that proven nonsense?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join