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: 59
14
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Yes embrace intelligence. REAL intelligence. In other words, think intelligently rather than appealing to magic. Intelligent thought pretty much counters everything you have said.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Barcs
Yes embrace intelligence. REAL intelligence. In other words, think intelligently rather than appealing to magic. Intelligent thought pretty much counters everything you have said.


The magic is believing that life can spontaneously arise from non-living things without ANY intelligent guidance.

Of course you can't see it and will not accept it because your whole concept of life is based on PURE imagination, pure speculation and ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY - magic.

A hocus pocus of life appearing spontaneously from a non-living matter - no intelligence required.

Now - that's magic - if not a silly idea.

So like I said:




edit on 24-8-2012 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



If life arose from non intelligent matter,.,.,,. yet the matter was replicating,, at intervals and obeying mechanistic principles,,,,, it is as if they are describing the universe as an artificial computing machine,,.,.( i only say artificial because,, it relates to the types of non intelligent computers and machines us intelligence creates)..,.,.,. so the full circle would be.,,.,. non intelligent computing machines ( the universe and its parts, and what they are capable of doing according to their principles and laws),,, creates artificial/natural ,, mechanistic computing machines that are capable of "intelligence" which we define as controlling the computing and mechanistic moving from a concentrated command center of ones own realm of mind ( intelligence),.,.,. and with this ability we have created what the mechanistic computer of nature is and does,,,,we created machines and computers using parts that obey codes and laws out of materials,.,.,.,. we are attempting to do what the machine computing nature did a long time ago,,, create consciousness,, endow something that once did not have intelligence,,, with intelligence.... create A.I..,.,. which in a sense is what we are....
edit on 24-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Like I said - contribute something intelligent ...else

How about taking some of your own advice? Not only do you keep making the same logical fallacies over and over, you also keep insisting that evolution is a "blind chance event" even though you've been corrected on this numerous times. How intelligent is that?



So are you saying then that there's INTELLIGENCE involve in the Origins of Life?

That life has the Hallmark of Intelligent Design?

If so, why won't fellow evolutionists say so?

In fact they keep on insisting the opposite. Matter of fact you yourself said.




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.


"by natural, unguided means." - if this mean INTELLIGENCE then I stand corrected.

By I think NOT - unless you want to correct me and clarify your statement.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





The magic is believing that life can spontaneously arise from non-living things without ANY intelligent guidance.


You can't really call it magic if your creation hypothesis has ZERO objective evidence behind it


In fact, nothing around us has ever been proven to be the product of some higher intelligence.

Also, not that I care...but I don't think you realize how ironic it is for you post the post the same picture over and over again



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The alternative to intelligent design isn't "unguided blind chance events"


If you actually bothered to do some real research for a change instead of repeating the same argumentative fallacies over and over and over again you would realize that



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





If life arose from non intelligent matter,.,.,,. yet the matter was replicating,, at intervals and obeying mechanistic principles,,,,, it is as if they are describing the universe as an artificial computing machine,,.,.( i only say artificial because,, it relates to the types of non intelligent computers and machines us intelligence creates)..,.,.,. so the full circle would be.,,.,. non intelligent computing machines ( the universe and its parts, and what they are capable of doing according to their principles and laws),,, creates artificial/natural ,, mechanistic computing machines that are capable of "intelligence" which we define as controlling the computing and mechanistic moving from a concentrated command center of ones own realm of mind ( intelligence),.,.,. and with this we have created what the mechanistic computer of nature is and does,,,, create machines and computers using parts that obey codes and laws,.,.,.,. we are attempting to do what the machine computing nature did a long time ago,,, create consciousness,, endow something that once did not have intelligence,,, with intelligence.... create A.I..,.,. which in a sense is what we are....


I get what you're talking about ImaFungi, but this still leaves us the ultimate question of where the intelligence came from?

Is Nature that intelligent, that it's able to create life and consciousness? If so, then is Nature a conscious living "thing"?

Know what I mean? Does Nature able to feel pain, love, sadness, happiness, etc.. i.e. consciousness?

What say you?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





If life arose from non intelligent matter,.,.,,. yet the matter was replicating,, at intervals and obeying mechanistic principles,,,,, it is as if they are describing the universe as an artificial computing machine,,.,.( i only say artificial because,, it relates to the types of non intelligent computers and machines us intelligence creates)..,.,.,. so the full circle would be.,,.,. non intelligent computing machines ( the universe and its parts, and what they are capable of doing according to their principles and laws),,, creates artificial/natural ,, mechanistic computing machines that are capable of "intelligence" which we define as controlling the computing and mechanistic moving from a concentrated command center of ones own realm of mind ( intelligence),.,.,. and with this we have created what the mechanistic computer of nature is and does,,,, create machines and computers using parts that obey codes and laws,.,.,.,. we are attempting to do what the machine computing nature did a long time ago,,, create consciousness,, endow something that once did not have intelligence,,, with intelligence.... create A.I..,.,. which in a sense is what we are....


I get what you're talking about ImaFungi, but this still leaves us the ultimate question of where the intelligence came from?

Is Nature that intelligent, that it's able to create life and consciousness? If so, then is Nature a conscious living "thing"?

Know what I mean? Does Nature able to feel pain, love, sadness, happiness, etc.. i.e. consciousness?

What say you?






says me,, those are good questions and im not claiming to know the answers,,.,., my blurb above was more directed at the others,,, my attempt to try to relate what they are talking about to familiar concepts and closely relate humans and what they do to the universe, its nature...



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I personally there is something of an intelligence that pervades the universe,,,, Just by thinking that all earthly life and there fore man, his achievements, aspirations, innovations, aesthetics is the product of many variables, but mainly,, the suns energy constantly pounding the earth,,,this energy was bounced and reflected around and if abiogenesis occurred,, caused simple atomic elements ( created in stars) to dance to life,.,.,. somethings going on here,,, somethings really special about energy,,, somethings really special about the size and scale of the universe,,.,. somethings really special about humans and what they can do.,.,,. I have a hard time comprehending "this" just happens,,, because...



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





If life arose from non intelligent matter,.,.,,. yet the matter was replicating,, at intervals and obeying mechanistic principles,,,,, it is as if they are describing the universe as an artificial computing machine,,.,.( i only say artificial because,, it relates to the types of non intelligent computers and machines us intelligence creates)..,.,.,. so the full circle would be.,,.,. non intelligent computing machines ( the universe and its parts, and what they are capable of doing according to their principles and laws),,, creates artificial/natural ,, mechanistic computing machines that are capable of "intelligence" which we define as controlling the computing and mechanistic moving from a concentrated command center of ones own realm of mind ( intelligence),.,.,. and with this we have created what the mechanistic computer of nature is and does,,,, create machines and computers using parts that obey codes and laws,.,.,.,. we are attempting to do what the machine computing nature did a long time ago,,, create consciousness,, endow something that once did not have intelligence,,, with intelligence.... create A.I..,.,. which in a sense is what we are....


I get what you're talking about ImaFungi, but this still leaves us the ultimate question of where the intelligence came from?

Is Nature that intelligent, that it's able to create life and consciousness? If so, then is Nature a conscious living "thing"?

Know what I mean? Does Nature able to feel pain, love, sadness, happiness, etc.. i.e. consciousness?

What say you?






says me,, those are good questions and im not claiming to know the answers,,.,., my blurb above was more directed at the others,,, my attempt to try to relate what they are talking about to familiar concepts and closely relate humans and what they do to the universe, its nature...


got it ImaFungi!

That is the ultimate question as far as life goes.

And as experience goes - as Intelligent humans we're capable of answering such question. Problem is, which one do we believe?

INTELLIGENCE or Luck (for a lack of word).

What does the evidence show?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The alternative to intelligent design isn't "unguided blind chance events"


If you actually bothered to do some real research for a change instead of repeating the same argumentative fallacies over and over and over again you would realize that


make some sense man...don't rant.





I'm not ranting, I'm merely making sure your posts don't dumb down people given that all your arguments consists of the "god of the gaps", the argument from ignorance, and the argument from complexity.

Here's the link again because I think you STILL don't get what an argumentative fallacy is: LINK

Also, you keep on repeating the nonsense that the alternative to your creationism is "blind chance"...which is NOT what scientists say


You've been told before, but alas you simply ignore it and continue to repeat that nonsense over and over again...




And as experience goes - as Intelligent humans we're capable of answering such question. Problem is, which one do we believe?


The FACT is we don't know how it all started...so if you're a rational person you would admit that we "simply don't know (yet)" instead of filling a gap in knowledge with magic...like the goat herders 2000 years ago who claimed god is responsible for floods

edit on 24-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

Discussions regarding other members are not to continue.

Further off-topic removals may also carry a posting ban of 72hrs. Please discuss the topic.

~Tenth
ATS Mod



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


The alternative to intelligent design isn't "unguided blind chance events"


If you actually bothered to do some real research for a change instead of repeating the same argumentative fallacies over and over and over again you would realize that


make some sense man...don't rant.





I'm not ranting, I'm merely making sure your posts don't dumb down people given that all your arguments consists of the "god of the gaps", the argument from ignorance, and the argument from complexity.

Here's the link again because I think you STILL don't get what an argumentative fallacy is: LINK

Also, you keep on repeating the nonsense that the alternative to your creationism is "blind chance"...which is NOT what scientists say


You've been told before, but alas you simply ignore it and continue to repeat that nonsense over and over again...




And as experience goes - as Intelligent humans we're capable of answering such question. Problem is, which one do we believe?


The FACT is we don't know how it all started...so if you're a rational person you would admit that we "simply don't know (yet)" instead of filling a gap in knowledge with magic...like the goat herders 2000 years ago who claimed god is responsible for floods

edit on 24-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


this post:


The alternative to intelligent design isn't "unguided blind chance events" If you actually bothered to do some real research for a change instead of repeating the same argumentative fallacies over and over and over again you would realize that


So answer this simple question then:

If you say NATURE and the FORCES OF NATURE is the CAUSAL FORCE - the Prime Mover of Life NOT Intelligence, does this mean then that there's no INTELLIGENCE in Nature?

If NO Intelligence - does this mean NATURE is dumb? And was just lucky to create life by accident?

If by ACCIDENT - would you consider this then .... BLIND CHANCE EVENT?

what say you?

ps.

In order to stick to the rules - I will not address your link - since it's OFF TOPIC.

take it to the mods if you have any complaints.


edit on 24-8-2012 by edmc^2 because: ps / add this post



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join