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

reply to post by ImaFungi


Nothing wrong if it makes you feel better...as long as you don't try to attack proven science in the process. I honestly don't care what people believe if it doesn't affect others in a negative way.

what if you have confidence and you feel proud, happy, and special,,., but really objectively there not only is no such thing as those things,, but if there were scientifically it could be proven you are not special and should not be happy.... is that something you would like to live with,, or is it ok to internally delude your self sometimes?

I can't trick myself into feeling an emotion I don't feel. So if I'm happy I'm happy, and if I'm sad I'm sad.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Nothing wrong if it makes you feel better...as long as you don't try to attack proven science in the process. I honestly don't care what people believe if it doesn't affect others in a negative way.

what if you have confidence and you feel proud, happy, and special,,., but really objectively there not only is no such thing as those things,, but if there were scientifically it could be proven you are not special and should not be happy.... is that something you would like to live with,, or is it ok to internally delude your self sometimes?

I can't trick myself into feeling an emotion I don't feel. So if I'm happy I'm happy, and if I'm sad I'm sad.

not only does it make me feel better,,, but if i had to bet,, the reason im able to believe even a little bit in the idea, is because it not only seems plausible,, but to me, it seems most likely,,, for a reason i can hardly explain,, just from being a live on this planet for my lifetime,,, from living and observing,,, to me it seems like there is most likely something underlying about this reality we are not aware of and not able to be aware of... Im not saying I have any idea of what god is or what he wants or what her thinks of us,,,, but i think there is most likely "something" which relates to the concept of "god" we have created,, in attempt to define the "something" that most likely exists.... to me at least...,

until I thought about god I was absolutely against the idea,,,, for the reasons any atheist would be.,,,, but it was really i despised the concept so much i didnt allow myself to think of the possibility of truth overriding my opinions and feelings,.,..

its like if I hate pizza and know i hate pizza,, everytime a friend is going to get pizza I know there is no way i want to go,, i dont even have to think about it because my conclusion from past thought sessions is no,, and why would that change now,.,.,., then one day i try pizza,,, and realize its not so bad....

so the laws of physics,,, and the arena in which they play out is your god,..,,. a non existent default perfection of cause and effect and a physical representation of logic and math,,,. you would say it is not an intelligence which creates the tapestry of order that is the universe,,, it is what the universe is that creates the order depending on what each part of what it is does in each moment,,and what it is able to do is controlled by what it is, and what everything else is at that time,, and where it is,, and so from the beginning,, once different things existed in different areas, in relation to other things,,, something had to happen,,, and what had to happen was some interaction,,, and the result of the interaction had to result in something else,,, and because the "somethings" were exact and certain somethings,, they had to react with the other things a certain lawfully consistent way.. and this happens and does not stop happening,,, and the more they interact the more potential for more things to happen and new things to happen,,,, and since the beginning,,, the stuff has been interacting for so long,, it has paved its own way to the current state of all something being in the way it is from all past interactions.,.,. and it will keep interacting...,,. and we are here and able to experience our selves and everything humans do and can potentially do,,, we are born on this planet in a time and place to a technologically advanced society as a cat is born a cat, and an alien is born on another planet,.,. and we are the result of energetic interactions,, a derived singularity tucked away in the bulk of the whole equation,, a temporary solution to a minor problem,,.,. a transfer of energy whose result and function is to transfer energy, until all of its energy must be transfered.... and this can happen because in the beginning all energy was a certain pure something,, in its original state it had the potential to be absolutely everything the universe is and ever will be,, everything in it,,and of it, was contained in the potential of the original energy,,, and so we are just one of those countless potentials,, working itself out,,, able to exist because eventually pure energy interacting with itself can do this,,.,. nothing is a blank slate for anything,, with infinite space and scale,, what cant a point and line and wave create,, with near infinite points and lines and waves...

Abiogenesis is basically spontaneous generation. The only difference is that now it's a long period of time instead of short, and it's so-called living self-replicating molecules instead of fully formed maggots or whatever. It's just an old ruled out idea in a new coat.

Originally posted by vasaga
Abiogenesis is basically spontaneous generation. The only difference is that now it's a long period of time instead of short, and it's so-called living self-replicating molecules instead of fully formed maggots or whatever. It's just an old ruled out idea in a new coat.

Yeah...the same...just like one of DaVinci's early plane models is the same as a space shuttle

Same idea, new coat

Originally posted by ImaFungi


until I thought about god I was absolutely against the idea,,,, for the reasons any atheist would be.,,,, but it was really i despised the concept so much i didnt allow myself to think of the possibility of truth overriding my opinions and feelings,.,..

its like if I hate pizza and know i hate pizza,, everytime a friend is going to get pizza I know there is no way i want to go,, i dont even have to think about it because my conclusion from past thought sessions is no,, and why would that change now,.,.,., then one day i try pizza,,, and realize its not so bad....

Using your metaphor...

What if your friends went to an imaginary pizzeria that has no basis in reality every day? Still want a bite of that?

reply to post by vasaga

Abiogenesis is basically spontaneous generation. The only difference is that now it's a long period of time instead of short, and it's so-called living self-replicating molecules instead of fully formed maggots or whatever. It's just an old ruled out idea in a new coat.

That argument has already been tried in this thread. It didn't really work - for the simple reason that it's dead wrong. In short, insects and furry animals appearing out of nowhere is not the same thing as carbon-based molecules interacting. One is an old wives' tale, the other is organic chemistry - a science that's backed up by two centuries of experimentation. One was completely discredited by science, the other is an active field of research. The claim that they're one and the same could only come from someone who is either deeply ignorant on the subject or is being deliberately disingenuous.

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by vasaga

 

That argument has already been tried in this thread. It didn't really work - for the simple reason that it's dead wrong. In short, insects and furry animals appearing out of nowhere is not the same thing as carbon-based molecules interacting. One is an old wives' tale, the other is organic chemistry - a science that's backed up by two centuries of experimentation. One was completely discredited by science, the other is an active field of research. The claim that they're one and the same could only come from someone who is either deeply ignorant on the subject or is being deliberately disingenuous.

Backed up? Two centuries? It's still nothing more than a hypothesis. People know this. This is why they constantly try to separate it from evolution every time, even though they're directly connected. It's not backed by anything other than consensus dogma. That's why things like biocentrism are left in the dark, even though they are logically and empirically a lot more consistent.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ImaFungi


until I thought about god I was absolutely against the idea,,,, for the reasons any atheist would be.,,,, but it was really i despised the concept so much i didnt allow myself to think of the possibility of truth overriding my opinions and feelings,.,..

its like if I hate pizza and know i hate pizza,, everytime a friend is going to get pizza I know there is no way i want to go,, i dont even have to think about it because my conclusion from past thought sessions is no,, and why would that change now,.,.,., then one day i try pizza,,, and realize its not so bad....

What if your friends went to an imaginary pizzeria that has no basis in reality every day? Still want a bite of that?

everything man made,, physical and conceptual ( including pizza) was birthed in the imagination....
the words you use are imaginary,, in that they were just,,, made up,,,,, should you stop using them?
what you do with your life is imaginary,,, you are just a complex chemical system in search of energy and a mate to bond with,,, everything else you and people do is imaginary and made up,, completely meaningless,

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by vasaga

 

Abiogenesis is basically spontaneous generation. The only difference is that now it's a long period of time instead of short, and it's so-called living self-replicating molecules instead of fully formed maggots or whatever. It's just an old ruled out idea in a new coat.

That argument has already been tried in this thread. It didn't really work - for the simple reason that it's dead wrong. In short, insects and furry animals appearing out of nowhere is not the same thing as carbon-based molecules interacting. One is an old wives' tale, the other is organic chemistry - a science that's backed up by two centuries of experimentation. One was completely discredited by science, the other is an active field of research. The claim that they're one and the same could only come from someone who is either deeply ignorant on the subject or is being deliberately disingenuous.

how did carbon molecules interacting construct a concept system, made and running of organs, blood, bone, etc.. how did the carbon molecules coordinate the construction and completion of such a complex inventive expression of material and energy? guess and check? luck?

reply to post by vasaga

Backed up? Two centuries? It's still nothing more than a hypothesis. People know this. This is why they constantly try to separate it from evolution every time, even though they're directly connected.

They're separated because they explain different phenomena: the emergence of life and the diversity of life. The theory of evolution has nothing to say about how the first life came about.

It's not backed by anything other than consensus dogma.

What dogma? Kindly point out one single peer-reviewed paper from the field of abiogenesis that makes any claims - dogmatic or not - that are not backed up by experimental data.

That's why things like biocentrism are left in the dark, even though they are logically and empirically a lot more consistent.

Evidence, please.

reply to post by ImaFungi

how did carbon molecules interacting construct a concept system, made and running of organs, blood, bone, etc.. how did the carbon molecules coordinate the construction and completion of such a complex inventive expression of material and energy? guess and check? luck?

No, once the first replicator was formed the process was driven by mutation and natural selection which has nothing to do with luck.

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by vasaga

 

That argument has already been tried in this thread. It didn't really work - for the simple reason that it's dead wrong. In short, insects and furry animals appearing out of nowhere is not the same thing as carbon-based molecules interacting. One is an old wives' tale, the other is organic chemistry - a science that's backed up by two centuries of experimentation. One was completely discredited by science, the other is an active field of research. The claim that they're one and the same could only come from someone who is either deeply ignorant on the subject or is being deliberately disingenuous.

Backed up? Two centuries? It's still nothing more than a hypothesis. People know this. This is why they constantly try to separate it from evolution every time, even though they're directly connected. It's not backed by anything other than consensus dogma. That's why things like biocentrism are left in the dark, even though they are logically and empirically a lot more consistent.

No evolution and abiogenesis aren't connected...mostly because the theory makes no claims regarding how life started. Also, it's completely irrelevant how life started...it could have been abiogenesis, a god, gods, something we haven't thought of, pink unicorns...it still wouldn't change the FACT that today's biodiversity happened because of evolution.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by vasaga

 

Abiogenesis is basically spontaneous generation. The only difference is that now it's a long period of time instead of short, and it's so-called living self-replicating molecules instead of fully formed maggots or whatever. It's just an old ruled out idea in a new coat.

That argument has already been tried in this thread. It didn't really work - for the simple reason that it's dead wrong. In short, insects and furry animals appearing out of nowhere is not the same thing as carbon-based molecules interacting. One is an old wives' tale, the other is organic chemistry - a science that's backed up by two centuries of experimentation. One was completely discredited by science, the other is an active field of research. The claim that they're one and the same could only come from someone who is either deeply ignorant on the subject or is being deliberately disingenuous.

how did carbon molecules interacting construct a concept system, made and running of organs, blood, bone, etc.. how did the carbon molecules coordinate the construction and completion of such a complex inventive expression of material and energy? guess and check? luck?

Do you mean in us humans or first life? First life we simply don't know...but that doesn't mean we can just fill that gap in knowledge with magic (god). Well, we can...it just wouldn't be logical

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ImaFungi


until I thought about god I was absolutely against the idea,,,, for the reasons any atheist would be.,,,, but it was really i despised the concept so much i didnt allow myself to think of the possibility of truth overriding my opinions and feelings,.,..

its like if I hate pizza and know i hate pizza,, everytime a friend is going to get pizza I know there is no way i want to go,, i dont even have to think about it because my conclusion from past thought sessions is no,, and why would that change now,.,.,., then one day i try pizza,,, and realize its not so bad....

What if your friends went to an imaginary pizzeria that has no basis in reality every day? Still want a bite of that?

everything man made,, physical and conceptual ( including pizza) was birthed in the imagination....
the words you use are imaginary,, in that they were just,,, made up,,,,, should you stop using them?
what you do with your life is imaginary,,, you are just a complex chemical system in search of energy and a mate to bond with,,, everything else you and people do is imaginary and made up,, completely meaningless,

You hear words, you can touch and eat pizza....because there's OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that they exist, which isn't the case for god(s) or unicorns.

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

how did carbon molecules interacting construct a concept system, made and running of organs, blood, bone, etc.. how did the carbon molecules coordinate the construction and completion of such a complex inventive expression of material and energy? guess and check? luck?

No, once the first replicator was formed the process was driven by mutation and natural selection which has nothing to do with luck.

how can a replicator form complex systems including blood, bones, and sensory apparatus,,, would a replicator not just constantly replicate,.,.,. everything that is good and smart about the construction of complex systems came about as an error ( mutation) in replication? and then the error is what is seen as as good according to natural selection,, and now that error is included in replication,,,

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by vasaga

 

Abiogenesis is basically spontaneous generation. The only difference is that now it's a long period of time instead of short, and it's so-called living self-replicating molecules instead of fully formed maggots or whatever. It's just an old ruled out idea in a new coat.

That argument has already been tried in this thread. It didn't really work - for the simple reason that it's dead wrong. In short, insects and furry animals appearing out of nowhere is not the same thing as carbon-based molecules interacting. One is an old wives' tale, the other is organic chemistry - a science that's backed up by two centuries of experimentation. One was completely discredited by science, the other is an active field of research. The claim that they're one and the same could only come from someone who is either deeply ignorant on the subject or is being deliberately disingenuous.

how did carbon molecules interacting construct a concept system, made and running of organs, blood, bone, etc.. how did the carbon molecules coordinate the construction and completion of such a complex inventive expression of material and energy? guess and check? luck?

Do you mean in us humans or first life? First life we simply don't know...but that doesn't mean we can just fill that gap in knowledge with magic (god). Well, we can...it just wouldn't be logical

you mean not as logical as another idea we make up to fill in the gaps? we can pretend this magic is not magic because it seems like it happened, and magic does not happen?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by ImaFungi


until I thought about god I was absolutely against the idea,,,, for the reasons any atheist would be.,,,, but it was really i despised the concept so much i didnt allow myself to think of the possibility of truth overriding my opinions and feelings,.,..

its like if I hate pizza and know i hate pizza,, everytime a friend is going to get pizza I know there is no way i want to go,, i dont even have to think about it because my conclusion from past thought sessions is no,, and why would that change now,.,.,., then one day i try pizza,,, and realize its not so bad....

What if your friends went to an imaginary pizzeria that has no basis in reality every day? Still want a bite of that?

everything man made,, physical and conceptual ( including pizza) was birthed in the imagination....
the words you use are imaginary,, in that they were just,,, made up,,,,, should you stop using them?
what you do with your life is imaginary,,, you are just a complex chemical system in search of energy and a mate to bond with,,, everything else you and people do is imaginary and made up,, completely meaningless,

You hear words, you can touch and eat pizza....because there's OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that they exist, which isn't the case for god(s) or unicorns.

if god created the universe,, would the universe be objective evidence of gods existence?

how can you objectively prove leonardo da vinci once existed? is a big reason his work left behind?

reply to post by ImaFungi

you mean not as logical as another idea we make up to fill in the gaps? we can pretend this magic is not magic because it seems like it happened, and magic does not happen?

Exactly...not as logical as filling the gap with knowledge that is backed up by objective evidence...and also not as logical as simply admitting that we don't now (yet).

In ancient times people claimed god is responsible for floods and diseases...because they didn't know any better and filled a gap in knowledge with magic. They were clearly wrong. The "god did it" track record is abysmal given that we have zero objective evidence proving his/her/its existence in the first place.

I'd like to think that in the 21st century we can finally stop betting on the horse that never won a race