It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Semiotics cannot be accounted for through the terms of physics or chemistry, and require the input of intelligent life.
Nope. You're welcome to join the discussion in this thread. Good luck trying to refute the evidence. Let's keep it fact-based
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
There is no need to debate genetics, semiotics, information theory or biochemistry. You are simply reiterating Paley's Watchmaker argument. It is as old as the hills, and has been thoroughly debunked.
Perhaps someone has already pointed this out in the thread, which I confess I have not bothered to read since there is nothing new on this topic to discuss. Semiotics is an impressive word but it doesn't really mean much.
reply to post by dragonridr
Alright Dragon, I'll concede the point you're making
against my statement and retract the statement. And just ask you for your own honest opinion
regadring one question. What do you believe the chances are, for any of this synthesis of
life to happen on it's own, in an uncontrolled environment, with absolutely no imposition
what so ever ? Do you believe:
A. The facts and evidence, indicate no reason to believe it could not happen.
B.No matter what, we will be able to use Gods own creation to disprove God
merely by explaining the bio mechanics of life.
C. I don't want to use any of Randys mock up answers to the question. because I
want to explain this in my own terms.
D. Not a bat crap chance in hell.
E. All of the above
Oh and yes that helps. I knew you would have the answer as all I saw was CONSPIRACY !
But I knew better than that at least. lol
edit on 21-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
Let me say evidence seems to be that life will all ways find a way to survive and even yes create itself. Its almost like the universe itself needs us and in a way i think it does. Because if you look into physics without an observer nothing is set. As we learned in physics just the act of observing causes matter to actually choose a state from many possibilities. The moment the universe came in to existence it can be argued it had to create life we are needed to observe its many wonders. I know this is getting a bit philosophical but unfortunately the only way to answer your questions. Do i think a god created the whole thing no but i do believe we had to be here just as stars had to form.I think we are truly apart of the universe and someday we will realize just how connected we are.
edit on 9/21/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)
So I am curious as to which came first, the three digit codon definition structure, or the definition assignments themselves? Because definition assignment of ASP and GLU were among the first negative side chain alpha's which had to assign in order for abiogenesis to occur. Yet they depend upon 3 digit codons.
To date I had not thought this to be the case, understanding from my education that three digit definition was a gradually accretive eventuality, a feature outcome well after abiogenesis and not as a precursor.
All I see here is the inescapable argument out of ignorance, acting on the presumption that lack of a better answer is the same as having the correct answer.edit on 23-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
rhinocerosThree-digit code or even amino acids in general are not prerequirements for abiogenesis. RNA world without any proteins is feasible and has been confirmed in laboratory experiments where autocatalytic RNA sets formed spontaneously from short strands of RNA. That's abiogenesis for you..
reply to post by SuperFrog
This topic failed at its start, as evolution does not explain beginning of life,
What about panspermia?
You guys are arguing over things that don't mean anything to whether or not there is ID or not.
If there is a God, it is not dictated how be brought about the life that we see today.
Nothing is dictated, and nothing that science has found is in contradiction to the possibility of an intelligent designer.
Science knows very little about the universe or existence; and to think that darwinian evolutionary mechanisms might explain away the possibility of intelligent design is insane considering how little we know.
I've always struggled to reason why atheistic types of people used evolution as their "silver bullet"; as
the Genesis account even says: "let the earth bring forth living creatures".
It's cute how people think this absurdly infant scientific knowledge of genetics can be used as any sort of evidence in any direction. It's so very cute; albeit incredibly naive.
edit on 28-9-2013 by sdb93awd because: (no reason given)edit on 28-9-2013 by sdb93awd because: (no reason given)