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 not probable but inevitable, says physicist

page: 9
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


Gods creator did silly.

There's always a bigger fish.

Infinity is such a wonderful concept. Never ending.

One day our descendants will also make a universe and the entities in that universe will debate about their creator.




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 



I thought the point was to create laboratory experiments to re-create abiogenesis?


If an underlying cosmic principle is in play, with regards to the emergence of life, it should be repeatable under lab conditions.


An Unintelligent, Undesigned universe, should be no match for intelligent minds.

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with trying to create life in a lab. Please read and try to understand the OP.


Life has to come from pre existing life.

Is that in the Bible? Or are you assuming a proof based on induction?


What would the probability of my wife getting pregnant be, if my wife was taken out of the equation?

It's a silly question, but I'll answer. The probability is zero. So what?

Please read and try to understand the OP. When you have done that, come back and we'll talk.


edit on 7/4/14 by Astyanax because: even repetition doesn't work.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



So when it's a likelihood that supports your views it's great and it's science. If it's a likelihood that does not support your views, it's nonsense and creationism.

I was replying to a hypothetical scenario proposed by dusty1. The scenario has no connexion with the thread topic, only with dusty's failure to understand it.


edit on 7/4/14 by Astyanax because: they never shut up, do they?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I would say Production not induction.


From the OP



'You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,' England said, calling the emergence of life from inanimate matter 'as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.' - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
reply to post by Astyanax
 





The next step is to devise experiments that will test them under lab conditions. That work is, apparently, about to begin. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...



What happened to shining a light on a random clump of atoms and getting a plant?

I thought you said lab experiments were starting soon.



How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...



I thought lab experiments were going to show abiogenesis was an inevitable Result.

Show me Results.

I currently buy products from a manufacturer. Actually I've always bought products from this manufacturer.

If a competitor comes to me with an idea for a product, but only shows me polymers and potential, I'm not investing my time and money unless I see results.

So to with these thought experiments......



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


Your post is gibberish. If you want a reply say something meaningful.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





Your post is gibberish. If you want a reply say something meaningful.



$&afdiq8r@@@7234835yuire[hja9uklyf-9408yr8yhaslkhgYou debunked your own OP. Don't take it out on me98yfasd8#*@fysdshm;zxhifkhagkdfljhuq[e8irguriokhkash........
edit on 8-4-2014 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


I was curious earlier about the creationist response to this paper. Now we have it: incomprehension, bluster, nonsense and ill temper.

I pronounce myself thoroughly satisfied.


edit on 9/4/14 by Astyanax because: of a phone.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





I was curious earlier about the creationist response to this paper. Now we have it: incomprehension, bluster, nonsense and ill temper


My responses were designed to try and make you think.


You used human procreation as an example of a formula for creating life.

Two Intelligent beings come together and produce a child.




When your wife falls pregnant, you know it is likely that a child will be born within nine months, but that doesn't give you a formula for making babies from their chemical components. You still have to make them the old-fashioned way.



What you did not grasp in my response to your statement, is that if you take God out of the equation, you will not have the formula for the creation of life.

My response about the existence of a wife in your illustration, related to the existence of God.

You presume I have a wife to help me create life.

Yet you presume I have no God that created life in the beginning.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



As far as my other illustration about buying two different products,

One product that I already use is based on what I am told by experts, faith in those experts, and personal observation . This product is found in the bible.



The product that you have offered is based on experts, faith in those experts and personal observation. This product is relatively new in recorded history. It is touted by atheists in science magazines and places like ATS.


If I am going to stop using the bible and replace it with atheistic beliefs,

I need more than just a probability formula like this:




to replace the moral compass in this:







posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I don't know if this refutes Creationism, necessarily. There is still the question of how the basic form of life develops in one direction or another, not to mention nobody knows exactly who the creator is or how he works.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


Thanks for demonstrating your complete ignorance of the scientific method and how scientific research is carried out. Who would have thought a creationist could be so scientifically illiterate /s

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”


― Steven Novella
edit on 10-4-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 





to replace the moral compass in this:


Like owning slaves or murder?

exodus 21:20-21
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Leviticus 25:44-46
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

You are confusing Morality with obedience. Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told.
Obedience is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.

There is no need for religion, if you can't determine right from wrong then you lack empathy.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

dusty1
Life has to come from pre existing life.


That's erroneously presented as a statement of fact, yet based on no evidence.

Everything we perceive, such as the dissolving of coffee granules in hot water to the dye used in your socks are the product of chemical interactions. There is zero reason to assume that life is any different, and every reason to assume it's the same.

If your replace the word 'life' with 'chemistry', we'd all be working from the same page. However, if someone assumes life has some 'magical' attributes, it's difficult to have a meaningful conversation, in the scientific sense.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
100 years ago the universe was thought to be made up of stars, planets, and clouds of gas and dust. That was all there was. Then, in 1932, the notion of dark matter was introduced to explain discrepancies between theory and observation.

I grew up with, like everyone else, thinking that the universe would either collapse back in on itself, or slowly expand into nothingness. In 1998, that idea was blown out of the water with the discovery of the accelerating expansion of space. This introduced an unknown into the equation, called dark energy, which makes up most of the universe. Yet, instead of dogmatically refusing to except it, everyone thought "Didn't see that coming - but's it's really cool!". Everyone adapted based on new evidence.



I have an aunt and uncle, both of whom are heavily involved in the church. They fully accept that life is a chemical process which evolves over time. To them, it's how god did it - they refuse to make presumptions about how and why things are the way they are, and just accept that what we observe is a truthful representation of reality, not the result of some underhand divine trickery. The difference between them and some posters in this forum, is that they, like good scientists, refuse to be held back by some stubborn, unchanging dogma, which time and time again has proven to be wrong. In other words, they are quite prepared to modify their position based in new information. This certainly doesn't affect their religious beliefs - if anything, it reinforces them.

I simply don't get the stubbornness of some people when it comes to accepting the truth.



edit on 10-4-2014 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

MarsIsRed

dusty1
Life has to come from pre existing life.


That's erroneously presented as a statement of fact, yet based on no evidence.


So you have evidence that life can spontaneously come from non living matter?




Everything we perceive, such as the dissolving of coffee granules in hot water to the dye used in your socks are the product of chemical interactions. There is zero reason to assume that life is any different, and every reason to assume it's the same.


There is a huge difference.




If your replace the word 'life' with 'chemistry', we'd all be working from the same page. However, if someone assumes life has some 'magical' attributes, it's difficult to have a meaningful conversation, in the scientific sense.


Life is special and precious.

Sock dye and coffee, are not equivalent to human life.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MarsIsRed
 





I simply don't get the stubbornness of some people when it comes to accepting the truth.


The truth is that we are being asked to replace one belief with another.

Science does not know what makes up 95% of the universe.

That 95% is labeled "dark matter" and "dark energy". I was introduced to this concept one summer evening by an astronomer from the university. "What is it? I asked." As a group of us looked into the night sky. "We don't know" was her reply.

Dark.

Darkness.

If we were near the center of the universe, there would be no need for exotic energy or matter.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

dusty1
If we were near the center of the universe, there would be no need for exotic energy or matter.


We are near the center of the universe. Every place in the universe is technically the center.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 





Every place in the universe is technically the center.


That statement is true, unless of course it is false.

The observable evidence indicates we are near the center of the universe.

But that contradicts the Cosmological Principle that we "Cannot be in a special place in the universe".

We "cannot" possibly be near the center of the universe,

Therefore all points in the universe "must" appear to be the center.

That is why we "need" a mysterious Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
edit on 12-4-2014 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GetHyped
 





There's nothing magical about science.


Isn't abiogenesis a bit like pulling a rabbit from a hat?


It is an idiom that can mean to solve a problem in an unexpected way or simply to produce something from nothing, as if by magic.







It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results


When was abiogenesis ever observed?



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

dusty1
But that contradicts the Cosmological Principle that we "Cannot be in a special place in the universe".

We "cannot" possibly be near the center of the universe,

Therefore all points in the universe "must" appear to be the center.

That is why we "need" a mysterious Dark Matter and Dark Energy.


There is nothing 'special' about the center of the universe as it is the relative position of everything in the universe. A 'special place in the universe' would be one that was not the center.

Why would we not be able to be at or near the center of the universe?

I see nothing mysterious about dark matter. It is an as of yet identified force conductor who's influence can easily be observed in cosmological interactions.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join