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: 62
14
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





And the facts support it - no need to bend it or mold it. It's simple as Intelligence begets Intelligence. Life begets life.

An Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer.

A Fine Tuned System requires a Fine Tuner.

Simple and very basic that even a child can understand it.


Read it: LINK

Your arguments are the equivalent of this:




Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white.



edit on 27-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You believe that there's no God and you believe that we evolved. What's so difficult about that and why the fear of admitting it?


Like MrXYZ said, atheism is not the subject here - which is probably a good thing in your case as you obviously know very little about it. Rejecting a god claim on the grounds of insufficient evidence is clearly not the same thing as believing there's no god - but I'm sure that goes right over your head.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You believe that there's no God and you believe that we evolved. What's so difficult about that and why the fear of admitting it?


Like MrXYZ said, atheism is not the subject here - which is probably a good thing in your case as you obviously know very little about it. Rejecting a god claim on the grounds of insufficient evidence is clearly not the same thing as believing there's no god - but I'm sure that goes right over your head.


eh...the post was about a belief system - whether you believe something exist or not was not the point of the post. I'm merely pointed out that atheism or evolution is a belief system. That's all.

I don't know why it went over your head.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 





And the facts support it - no need to bend it or mold it. It's simple as Intelligence begets Intelligence. Life begets life.

An Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer.

A Fine Tuned System requires a Fine Tuner.

Simple and very basic that even a child can understand it.


Read it: LINK

Your arguments are the equivalent of this:




Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white.



edit on 27-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


Went off the rail there MrXYZ.

Let's break this down further to see if your analogy of what I said makes sense:

Intelligence begets Intelligence.

-- If you're taught by someone with a high IQ - you will / tend to become one.

Life begets life.

-- no need to explain (i hope).

An Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer.

-- The way something Designed/Created show the Intelligence of its Designer/Creator.

A Fine Tuned System requires a Fine Tuner.

-- A Formula 1 race car requires a great deal of fine tuning, thus the Fine Tuner must posses such fine tuning knowledge.

Now, do you agree that these statements are based on incontrovertible scientific facts?

Only the ignorant will disagree.

What do we see in Creation - Intelligence and Precision to the highest degree of accuracy!!

And you compare this with this?




Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white.


Sad... indeed.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 




The "based on ancient philosophy" nonsense has been debunked so many times you're only embarrassing yourself by regurgitating it. The claim that abiogenesis is not based on sound science is simply ridiculous - it's an active field of research which is producing a steady stream of peer-reviewed papers. Peer review is the accepted system for maintaining scientific standards and has been for centuries. The fact that you haven't been able to present any evidence that abiogenesis is unscientific in 61 pages speaks volumes.


Here you go:


Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth.


www.talkorigins.org...


Early views on spontaneous generation

The first western thinker to suggest that life arose spontaneously was probably Anaximander, a Milesian philosopher (in what is now Turkey) who wrote in the 6th and 5th centuries before Christ (611-547 BCE). He believed that everything arose out of the elemental nature of the universe, which he called the "apeiron" or "unbounded". As part of his overall attempt to give natural explanations of things that had previously been ascribed to the agency of the gods, such as thunder, the heavens, and the earth, he gave the following account of life.

According to a late source, Hippolytus in the third century CE, for Anaximander's own works do not survive, Anaximander claimed that living creatures were first formed in the "wet" when acted on by the Sun, and that they were different then than they are now. In particular he claimed humans were originally a kind of fish, and that based on the observation humans took a long time to mature to independence, humans must have earlier been born mature like other animals, or they would not have survived. It was not a complete theory of evolution by any means, although Haeckel and Osborn claimed he was a "prophet" of Kant, Laplace, Lamarck and Darwin. Anaximander also claimed that spontaneous generation continued to this day, with eels and other acquatic forms being produced directly from lifeless matter. [Lloyd 17-18, Osborn 33-35] Anaximenes, his pupil (588-524) thought that air was the element that imparted life, motion and thought, and supposed there was a primordial terestrial slime, a mixture of earth and water, from which the sun's heat formed plants, animals and human beings directly. [Osborn 35] Xenophanes (576-480), the founder of the Eliatic School, traced the origin of man back to the transitional period between the fluid stage of the earth and the formation of land. He too held to a spontaneous generation of fully formed plants and animals under the influence of the sun. So too did Parmenides (b544). Empedocles (495-435) accepted the spontaneous generation of life, but held that there had to be trials of combinations of parts of animals that spontaneously arose. Successful combinations formed the species we now see, unsuccessful forms failed to reproduce. Osborn [37-40] thought this was a kind of natural selection, but as only one form is successful for each lineage, and species remain unchanged thereafter, it is a tenuous analogy to make. Democritus (b450) and Anaxagoras (500-428) also adopted a terrestrial slime account, although Anaxagoras thought that the germs (seeds) of plants existed in the air from the beginning, and of animals in the ether. [Osborn 42-43]

Aristotle All these accounts rely on the innate (or natural; the Greek word is phusis, from which we get "physics") properties of the elements of the universe. Life is a result of the propensities of the world...


read the rest here: www.talkorigins.org...


Definition for abiogenesis: Web definitions: a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter. More info »Source - Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster



Abiogenesis (Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.


www.biology-online.org...


Abiogenesis - Spontaneous Generation - same thing!!

See you can't ignore and hide from the truth.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





The claim that abiogenesis is not based on sound science is simply ridiculous - it's an active field of research which is producing a steady stream of peer-reviewed papers.


So far - it's still a silly hypothesis as they are not able to prove life arising from non-life by unguided means.

Like you, They can speculate - sure, why not. Like you, the can assume, sure why not - but so far all you've got is speculation and assumption of woulda-coulda been.

Since the foundation of this hypothesis is a very flawed ancient philosophy it will remain as such - a silly one at that.

May I suggest come up with a much modern idea - like Life comes from Life?

Oops - I forgot that is a fact of life.

Maybe you should redefine the meaning of abiogenesis instead of relying on ancient philosophy.

later...



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Abiogenesis - Spontaneous Generation - same thing!!

See you can't ignore and hide from the truth.

Sorry, repeating debunked drivel doesn't make it true - it just makes you look stupid. The idea that insects, maggots and mice can simply poof into existance is not the same thing as simple organic molecules forming more complex organic molecules. The former was disproved by the same scientific methods that are now applied to the latter.


So far - it's still a silly hypothesis as they are not able to prove life arising from non-life by unguided means.

Like you, They can speculate - sure, why not. Like you, the can assume, sure why not - but so far all you've got is speculation and assumption of woulda-coulda been.

Translation: it hasn't happened yet, therefore it will never happen. Can we apply the same logic to the second coming of Christ?


May I suggest come up with a much modern idea - like Life comes from Life?

Yeah, let's be modern and take our science lessons from bronze-age mythology.


Maybe you should redefine the meaning of abiogenesis instead of relying on ancient philosophy.

Sorry, still drivel. You're in desperate need of some new material. Why don't you shock the heck out of us all and post something logically coherent?
BTW, did you watch the video I posted? What do you think was driving this evolutionary change in the rock pocket mice? It clearly wasn't intelligence, so what was it?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You do realise that if you call anbiogenesis a "silly hypothesis", you have to call creationism the same... It's a hypothesis too



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I forgot to answer this gem.


eh...the post was about a belief system - whether you believe something exist or not was not the point of the post I'm merely pointed out that atheism or evolution is a belief system. That's all.

I don't know why it went over your head.


Atheism is the default response to an unsubstantiated god claim, not a belief system. Evolution is a scientific theory which has remained our best available explanation for the diversity of life for over 150 years. It's supported by mountains of evidence from paleontology to DNA analysis. What it is not, however, is a belief system.

That's the thing about evidence - it doesn't require belief. It's there whether you believe or not.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Barcs
 





Changes like a type of fish, going amphibian would take millions and millions of years.


based on assumption - correct?



based on the fossil record. I don't know why you can't make a simple statement. All you do is ask philosophical questions and play word games whenever people prove you wrong. Try making a statement and sourcing material instead. You are asking questions that kids ask when they are teenagers in high school.

BLIND CHANCE EVENTS!!!

edit on 28-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Barcs
 





Changes like a type of fish, going amphibian would take millions and millions of years.


based on assumption - correct?



based on the fossil record. I don't know why you can't make a simple statement. All you do is ask philosophical questions and play word games whenever people prove you wrong. Try making a statement and sourcing material instead. You are asking questions that kids ask when they are teenagers in high school.

BLIND CHANCE EVENTS!!!

edit on 28-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


It's because you're unable to comprehend a complicated statement - thus I made so simple.

Like this:

Is nature blind or intelligent?

If it's blind then does it operate in chances - i.e. Blind Chance Event?

If intelligent then where did the laws of nature came from?

As an intelligent evolutionist with your vast knowledge of evolution theory, I'm sure you can easily answer these simple questions .

Now if you think these are philosophical questions, then let me put it this way:

Did Nature made its own rules to follow for life to exist?

Take for example -

Did Nature placed the planet earth purposely in the Habitable Zone so that life can/will exist?

Or did it just happen to be there by accident - i.e. Blind Chance Event?

Was the correct distance of the earth from the sun and from the other planets an accident?

Or did Nature purposely determined the proper distances so that life will exist on earth?

Here's another:

Was Nature responsible for the proper mixture of gases so that life on earth will / can exist?

Or was this just an accident - i.e. Blind Chance Event?

Here's another:

Was Nature responsible for writing the genetic code in the DNA molecule so that the cell will / can exist?

Or was this due to accident, i.e. Blind Chance Event?

That is, the genetic code wrote itself by accident so that it can create it's own cell?

And if so - which one came first?

Nature, the cell or the genetic code?

If you think Nature is Intelligent or follow a precise sets of rules for life then why not say so?

Instead you beat around the bush.

So Is Nature Blind or Intelligent?













So far your answers are confused - one says "We don't know", another says "Nature", yet another says "forces of nature".



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I forgot to answer this gem.


eh...the post was about a belief system - whether you believe something exist or not was not the point of the post I'm merely pointed out that atheism or evolution is a belief system. That's all.

I don't know why it went over your head.


Atheism is the default response to an unsubstantiated god claim, not a belief system. Evolution is a scientific theory which has remained our best available explanation for the diversity of life for over 150 years. It's supported by mountains of evidence from paleontology to DNA analysis. What it is not, however, is a belief system.

That's the thing about evidence - it doesn't require belief. It's there whether you believe or not.




Call it what you want but - the fact is:

Atheism and Evolution(ism) are belief system.

That is, based on speculation and assumption you're convinced that there's absolutely 100% no evidence of a creator.

SO you believe absolutely without a doubt 100% that life was a product of evolution.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You do realise that if you call anbiogenesis a "silly hypothesis", you have to call creationism the same... It's a hypothesis too


Creation or as you call it "Creationism" is based Intelligent Design by an Intelligent Creator/Designer.

In fact the evidence are not hidden so it's not a guess or a speculation or an assumption or a hypothesis - like abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

So back to my question:

Is Nature intelligent or Blind?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You just completely proved me right. You are doing nothing but asking illogical philosophical questions that have nothing to do with facts or reality. Give us facts instead of trying to trap people with semantics.

Is nature blind or intelligent? What kind of question is that? Why is there only 2 choices. Nature is NEITHER. I'm not sure why you keep giving these silly either/or choices as if it has to be one or the other. You are giving nature human attributes. Stop it. You are either being intentionally deceptive or you really need to read a science book.


As an intelligent evolutionist with your vast knowledge of evolution theory, I'm sure you can easily answer these simple questions .

Perhaps if your questions had anything whatsoever to do with evolution I could answer them.


Did Nature placed the planet earth purposely in the Habitable Zone so that life can/will exist?

Or did it just happen to be there by accident - i.e. Blind Chance Event?


Considering there are a bunch of planets out of the habitable zone, I'd say it's neither accident nor was it placed there. It happened because of gravity. All you have to do is watch a science channel special on the solar system to see how the planets were formed and what caused each planet to assume its orbit. Instead of asking silly semantic questions, read about gravity. Learn the REAL cause and effect instead of generalizing everything.

Nature = the natural universe. The universe cannot be blind or intelligent. Certain creatures can, however. You keep treating nature as if it's a conscious person. That's where your error lies. Is an asteroid intelligent? That's part of nature.
edit on 28-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by radix
 





Sorry, repeating debunked drivel doesn't make it true - it just makes you look stupid. The idea that insects, maggots and mice can simply poof into existance is not the same thing as simple organic molecules forming more complex organic molecules. The former was disproved by the same scientific methods that are now applied to the latter.


So you've just proven my point again:

Intelligence was / is always the driving force behind things. Before, people believed in the erroneous spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter, but with proper understanding of genetics and biology we come to an understanding that such idea is not only impossible but silly.

Like you said:




by the same scientific methods that are now applied to the latter.


we now understand that spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter by unguided means is impossible.

Question is - what makes you think that abiogenesis is different from Spontaneous Generation if their main foundation is the same:

Life arising from non-living matter by unguided means?

As for:




What do you think was driving this evolutionary change in the rock pocket mice? It clearly wasn't intelligence, so what was it?


Like I said before - things change in Nature, they adapt to their circumstances and adapt to their environment. But they will NEVER cross the genetic boundary.

A fish will remain a fish, a moth will remain a moth, a finch bird is still a bird and pocket mice will remain a pocket mice although with a different hair color.

If you believe / assume / speculate that this is proof of evolution, hey noone is stopping you. Go right ahead.

But to me this how things are created - Living Things have the ability to adapt.

Simple as that.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You just completely proved me right. You are doing nothing but asking illogical philosophical questions that have nothing to do with facts or reality. Give us facts instead of trying to trap people with semantics.

Is nature blind or intelligent? What kind of question is that? Why is there only 2 choices. Nature is NEITHER. I'm not sure why you keep giving these silly either/or choices as if it has to be one or the other. You are giving nature human attributes. Stop it. You are either being intentionally deceptive or you really need to read a science book.


As an intelligent evolutionist with your vast knowledge of evolution theory, I'm sure you can easily answer these simple questions .

Perhaps if your questions had anything whatsoever to do with evolution I could answer them.


Did Nature placed the planet earth purposely in the Habitable Zone so that life can/will exist?

Or did it just happen to be there by accident - i.e. Blind Chance Event?


Considering there are a bunch of planets out of the habitable zone, I'd say it's neither accident nor was it placed there. It happened because of gravity. All you have to do is watch a science channel special on the solar system to see how the planets were formed and what caused each planet to assume its orbit. Instead of asking silly semantic questions, read about gravity. Learn the REAL cause and effect instead of generalizing everything.

Nature = the natural universe. The universe cannot be blind or intelligent. Certain creatures can, however. You keep treating nature as if it's a conscious person. That's where your error lies. Is an asteroid intelligent? That's part of nature.
edit on 28-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


OK

Is nature blind or intelligent?

Your answer:



Nature is NEITHER


It's NEITHER - Blind or Intelligent.

Now let's see where this logic will lead us.

If "Nature = the natural universe" is "neither" blind or intelligent where did the laws of the natural universe came from?

Did "Nature = the natural universe" created it's own laws? It can't be because like you said "it's not conscious".

So why is the universe has such precise mathematical laws if as you say "Nature = the natural universe" is neither blind or intelligent?

Why on earth did Prof Flew, a respected Atheist eventually came to a complete opposite of what you're saying?


“The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.” -- Prof Anthony Flew 2007





Where did the laws of Nature came from if as you say "Nature = the natural universe" is neither blind or intelligent, unconscious?

To me the answer is so simple, the laws in/of nature points to a Great Law Maker - the creator of the "heavens and the earth" Gen 1:1.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Perhaps if your questions had anything whatsoever to do with evolution I could answer them.


OK here's one, on topic:

If Nature created the genetic code in the DNA molecule - which came first, the code or the material that formed the cell?

Remember - in order to create the membrane, the cell, the code - the blueprint must exist first. But without the cell, where will code reside?

Then there's this - where or how did nature come up with the genetic code so that mutation, natural selection, evolution will take place?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Call it what you want but - the fact is:

Atheism and Evolution(ism) are belief system.


Sorry, reality doesn't bend to your will and you can't make false definitions true by repeating them. Lack of belief in a deity is not a belief system. I don't believe in the tooth fairy either, are you going to tell me "a-toothfairy-ism" is a belief system?

"Evolutionism"? Really? It's a scientific theory backed up by evidence. Evolution is a fact, we can watch it happening. The theory of evolution is the best current explanation for that fact. You're doing yourself no favours by parroting this kind of nonsense.


That is, based on speculation and assumption you're convinced that there's absolutely 100% no evidence of a creator.


I don't have to speculate or assume anything. All I have to do is ask you to back up your claims with evidence. So far you've been a disappointment.


SO you believe absolutely without a doubt 100% that life was a product of evolution.


Er, no. Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life, not the beginning of life. Shouldn't you know this stuff by now? We've repeated it enough times. As for how life came about, there's this hypothesis called abiogenesis. You know, the subject of the thread you started? I think it's a reasonable hypothesis that life came about by natural means. My reasoning is simple: we know nature exists but we have no evidence of anything supernatural.

A hypothesis still doesn't require belief, just testability. Notice the difference with the "goddidit" proposition that requires belief but can't be tested?


So you've just proven my point again:

Intelligence was / is always the driving force behind things. Before, people believed in the erroneous spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter, but with proper understanding of genetics and biology we come to an understanding that such idea is not only impossible but silly.


No, I've proven my point. Please pay attention. "We" have obviously come to no such understanding as abiogenesis research has not been abandoned but is quite to the contrary ongoing and making progress. Denying reality is never a good argument, it's just too easy to see through.


Like you said:



"by the same scientific methods that are now applied to the latter."


we now understand that spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter by unguided means is impossible.


Your unrequited love for science is heartbreaking. You keep appealing to it and it consistently proves the opposite of what you're saying. It's quite remarkable.


Question is - what makes you think that abiogenesis is different from Spontaneous Generation if their main foundation is the same:

Life arising from non-living matter by unguided means?


Maybe that one is ancient superstition that was dispelled a century and a half ago and the other is an active peer-reviewed science that builds on centuries of experimentally verified evidence?


Like I said before - things change in Nature, they adapt to their circumstances and adapt to their environment. But they will NEVER cross the genetic boundary.

A fish will remain a fish, a moth will remain a moth, a finch bird is still a bird and pocket mice will remain a pocket mice although with a different hair color.


This doesn't answer my question. What drives the change?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You do realise that if you call anbiogenesis a "silly hypothesis", you have to call creationism the same... It's a hypothesis too


Creation or as you call it "Creationism" is based Intelligent Design by an Intelligent Creator/Designer.

In fact the evidence are not hidden so it's not a guess or a speculation or an assumption or a hypothesis - like abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

So back to my question:

Is Nature intelligent or Blind?




What evidence??? All you've presented so far are argumentative fallacies along the lines of "science can't explain that, ergo god did it"...similar to cavemen who claimed fire is made by god


Funny how you completely ignore that your arguments are GARBAGE (as the argumentative fallacy links prove) and instead simply repeat that nonsense over and over again.


I'm also kinda amused that you seem to try proving your point through philosophy...I guess you do that because you clearly don't have any real scientific evidence


Question: Do you consider "gravity" a belief system? What about theories regarding immune reactions?
edit on 28-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Barcs
 





Perhaps if your questions had anything whatsoever to do with evolution I could answer them.


OK here's one, on topic:

If Nature created the genetic code in the DNA molecule - which came first, the code or the material that formed the cell?

Remember - in order to create the membrane, the cell, the code - the blueprint must exist first. But without the cell, where will code reside?

Then there's this - where or how did nature come up with the genetic code so that mutation, natural selection, evolution will take place?




Again:

WE DON'T KNOW!!!

And here again for good measure:

WE DON'T KNOW!!!!

You are trying to fill a GAP IN KNOWLEDGE with MAGIC (aka god) without having any proof. You can't just fill a gap in knowledge with magic like goat herders from 2k years ago


Once again, you present us with a great example of an argumentative fallacy...the GOD OF THE GAPS.





top topics



 
14
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join