Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

reply to post by B.A.C.


BAC.....we agree!!!

I think the 'common ancestor' thing was an over-simplicification.

Again, perhaps a poor choice of words? Trying to explain such complex ideas......

I think their are more motivations for evolution to say that it doesn't explain abiogenesis than their are for evolution to consider going there and exploring it. It is the reasons behind that motivation that seems most curious and the drama almost embellished behavior we have seen here where evolutionist get presumptuous and jump on this as to defeat a perceived on coming or anticipated argument heading it off before it starts with disclaimers such as "Why are you talking about abiogenesis? evolution doesn't talk about abiogenesis, only what happens AFTER abiogensis" yatta yatta yatta,.

The reasons they not only don't talk about it but won't consider going there are given the most illogical excuses almost transparent is the idea they might be searching for a creator of accidently bump into a discovery for one and that just can't be even considered so lets not even go there.

As elastic and varied as the many defintions for the many types of evolution we have seen given, I would think could mold it to fit any conclusion they want to wrap it around.

When you hear Scientist's talking about other science's like Physics and Chemistry for example, you never hear any of these scientist's jump in with such indignant refusal as if out of condemnation for the other or out of respect, you never hear that kind of thing but for evolutionist's who will go back 4.5 billion years but then say "Oh that's where we start getting into abiogenesis and we don't go there".

If this were the case for all Science's we would have never seen E=mc2 brought to it's physical equivalent by Chemistry's Otto Hahn and Atomic Physicist Lise Meitner. You would have never heard Otto Hahn saying, "Oh that's getting into atomic energy and we don't go there, best not tell Ms Meitner what we are bumping up against."

That would be counterintuitive to understanding when I see science racing to understand anything it might discover their is something to give reason to explore it, I can't see scientist's saying Oooops this is getting into an area of science we may need to get someone in the science of abiogenesis to look at so lets not go there and the last thing we do is tell the abiogenesis people what we have discovered".

This is exactly what I can expect from one area of science it seems and that raises some curious questions about what is it they have issues with.

I think abiogenesis scares many in evolution science because anything you don't understand you fear and anything fear, you hate.

It's the hatred I see being exploited most when this subject comes up.

Like the old late fifties early sixties movies of creatures that came from outer space, at the end we'd see our military complex blow the thing up with an atom bomb with the General saying we did it boys all high fiving each other and the scientist's saying:

"we didn't understand it, so,,,

we killed it."



Seems evolutionists want to kill it before they even get to find out what it is they don't understand, much less fear and / or hate





[edit on 12-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by JPhish
Logic is used to conclude that logic is flawed
If logic is flawed then it is unreasonable to believe the conclusion is correct because it was arrived at through the use of logic itself.

Logic is not perfect, that does not mean that every conclusion is flawed.
So then how is it 'unreasonable' to believe the conclusion is correct while knowing that it may be flawed?
In fact, you just made a contradiction or a 'paradox' if you will.
For how can anything be 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' where logical outcomes are concerned when such reason is derived from that same process...

So it's 'unreasonable' to believe that the conclusion is correct, it would be just as 'unreasonable' to believe that your reason is reasonable to trust it in the first place to label my actions 'unreasonable', as it is built on the same system.
Unless you believe that your logic is perfect.
But if you don't know or claim that your logic is not perfect, then it would be 'unreasonable' for you as well...
But no one is saying they trust their logic 100%.
I believe my logic is not perfect and because of that I allow for errors...
It may seem silly to you, but it's not.
Do you believe your logic is perfect or not?
I suppose either way would be a supposed paradox to you ...


Paradox: A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true

It seems contradictory to you, so you label it as a paradox.
It never seemed contradictory to me, because though I say my logic is imperfect, I do not trust it fully.
It's balanced. And so there is no real contradiction or apparent contradiction if you understand it.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Logic is not perfect, that does not mean that every conclusion is flawed.

Something that is perfect is said to be "flawless" so conventional wisdom indicates that all logic has flaws if logic is imperfect.

Paradox: A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true

The sentence below is true.

The sentence above is a lie

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Logic is not perfect, that does not mean that every conclusion is flawed.

Something that is perfect is said to be "flawless" so conventional wisdom indicates that all logic has flaws if logic is imperfect.

Orly?
But read what I actually said.
"that does not mean that every conclusion is flawed".

For example : 5+5=10
That is not flawed, but "I have 4 limbs, 2 eyes, and 2 ears therefor I must have been made by the same person who made similar animals" - that is potentially flawed.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by TruthParadox]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Dude, please read what you just wrote....

1950s and 1960s horror/science fiction movies???

really?

You've 'baited' before....but never will I allow myself to fall into that trap again.

THIS is about 'abiogenisis'....not evolution.

Period.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

The Theory can pick and choose? Oh, this just happened accept it. Where's the "Fact" in that? They don't want to touch where the "Common Ancestor" came from for one simple reason. It would cause an "unknown" in the Theory and they wouldn't be able to explain it. Then, they would lose funding, grants, etc...

So now I see what you think the motive is, besides possibly the devil.

You think scientists do what they do just for the money.

Well, I'm sure that's true for some scientists, but you forgot one thing. The POINT of science is to find out unknowns. Just because there is an unknown, doesn't mean they're not trying to find it. (most) scientists are fine with saying "I don't know".

If there were no unknowns, there would be no point in science.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Orly?
But read what I actually said.
"that does not mean that every conclusion is flawed"

I know what you said and you said your logic isn't perfect therefore it is flawed. what you know is you know nothing.

Is that a paradox?

is that logical?

Something without flaw is perfect, a perfect diamond is flawless and vice versa, your attempt to use pure logic in math and deductive reasoning that is open to subjectivism is more flawed than the cute analogy you give to mock the logic of creationist reasoning.

You DO know their are differen't kinds of logic and they are like comparing apples to oranges don't you?

Of course you do and that is why the attempt to slip that one by me was clever but it wasn't smart as I know the difference also.

and YES if you admit your logic is flawed then your logic is imperfect as well or,,, vice versa.

I am only going by YOUR statement and according to your own testimony the logical conclusion would be all of your logic is flawed

Then again my logic is not perfect so my logic is flawed

but apparently,,

it's more accurate then your understanding of english



[edit on 12-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by flyindevil
So now I see what you think the motive is, besides possibly the devil.

You think scientists do what they do just for the money.

Well, I'm sure that's true for some scientists, but you forgot one thing. The POINT of science is to find out unknowns. Just because there is an unknown, doesn't mean they're not trying to find it. (most) scientists are fine with saying "I don't know".

If there were no unknowns, there would be no point in science.

I agree. There will always be "unknowns" in Science. I think Abiogenesis will always be one of these "unknowns". Nope, I don't think all scientists do what they do for the money, lots do though.

I've rarely heard a Scientist say "I don't know".

That type of thing doesn't exactly promote more funding for their research. They will usually at least come up with a theory to explain the "unknown".

[edit on 12-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I've rarely heard a Scientist say "I don't know".

That type of thing doesn't exactly promote more funding for their research. They will usually at least come up with a theory to explain the "unknown".

Do you understand how ridiculous that comment is. So you suggest that scientists acquire funding from agencies by saying 'We know this to be correct, therefore give me money to study it'.

lol

What's the point?

Scientists acquire money by raising unsolved problems and holes in research, suggesting a method to fill the hole, stating their hypotheses, and justifying the social/economic/scientific implications of the area/problem.

They might have an intuition based on previous observations, or make links between other issues. But you don't get funding by studying stuff we claim to know for certain.

lol

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Dude, please read what you just wrote....

I know what it says weed, I was the one who wrote it.

1950s and 1960s horror/science fiction movies???
really?

and your problem with my analogy is ??

You've 'baited' before....but never will I allow myself to fall into that trap again.

care to give me an example or are you just making baseless accusations portraying me as an instigator?

THIS is about 'abiogenisis'....not evolution.

Yeah,, so?? I think YOU need to read my post weed I mention abiogensis quite often but what is interesting is your whining about me as if I have done something unique and a blatant violation of the threads intent.

Do you even know where BAC is coraling you? where the proverbial poster gets painted in the corner?

Do you see the same infraction here

The Theory can pick and choose? Oh, this just happened accept it. Where's the "Fact" in that? They don't want to touch where the "Common Ancestor" came from for one simple reason. It would cause an "unknown" in the Theory and they wouldn't be able to explain it. Then, they would lose funding, grants, etc...



Is The Theory of Evolution alive and well? The latest one is

Evolutionary Theory v1.0
Darwinian Evolution - It was built on the notion that climate, diet, and exercise cause inheritable changes that are filtered by natural selection, resulting in a gradual progression from one species to another.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here

NO, according to the theory life DIDN'T start somehow. Life started with a COMMON ANCESTOR, the common ancestor started somehow, now how can a "Common Ancestor" be spread all around the globe as you say?.

You agree with the Theory, but then go on to argue against it's main foundation the "Common Ancestor"

The Theory can pick and choose?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you hold yourself to the same false dilemma you are trying to suggest with me?

NOPE you actually give reason for your tender sensitivities when we see what posts look like that actually have nothing to do with the thread other than to bait Christians. SEE BELOW:

There was an article in the Washington Post, today, about field trips from the 'Liberty University'....founded by the late Jerry Falwell,... that descrbed how the students are brought to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History by a 'guide'....a person who is actually called a 'professor'....to show the students how the "Young Earth" theory is real and true.

A young mind is a terrible thing to waste.....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The OP didn't skip a beat on it saying:

Weed, what are you talking about? Can you explain where this post came from?

Are you scared of people learning? What's the matter with people learning about Creationism? What's the matter with people learning about Evolution?

What's the matter with people learning X? You can fill X in.

That's the most preposterous thing I've ever heard. People should be able to learn ANYTHING and EVERYTHING, unfortunately our Cranial Capacity just won't allow for that.

So weed, what ever your problem is or jealousy is

Do something about it but quit the BS


k Thnx

reply to post by melatonin


Did you miss the part where i said they will usually come up with a theory (hypotheses, if you prefer)? I never said they will claim to know exactly why something happens.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Did you miss the part where i said they will usually come up with a theory? I never said they will claim to know exactly why something happens.

You mean hypothesis/hypotheses really (ABE: edit is better).

There will be grant applications testing particular holes in well-established theories. But, as you are quite keen to point out, that's expected as theories are not facts, lol. They might even sometimes be positing a new untested (i.e., adequately explains lots of current data, but not specifically tested) or embryonic theory for assessment. But the specific area will not be understood, and by advancing science into that area knowledge (and potentially theory) will be enhanced.

Again, you don't get funding for testing specific problems which are well-tested and well-understood. It would be a waste of resources and totally ridiculous.

Every grant application will be a case of 'we don't know!', 'we have new method!', 'we can do this better!' 'this is really important, but has been ignored!' etc etc.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Do you understand how ridiculous that comment is. So you suggest that scientists acquire funding from agencies by saying 'We know this to be correct, therefore give me money to study it'.

The point is this:

If Science and technology create a solution to a problem that makes more money in actual practice solving the problem, they will patent it and sell it.

If their is something someone else finds is a cheaper and more effective solution, they will buy the patent and shelf the thing forever never allowing it to see the light of day. Henry Ford did this plenty of times with new technologies from fuel cells to better ideas in engine design.

If the solution makes more money researching it then actuarial studies show it would make solving the problem, guess what happens?

You got it, they go on mantra mode and forever say we are closer to a cure than ever before.

They never quite get the cure they just get close enough to tickle the need of the many suffering and those that love them and tickle the greed of the stockholders who invest

If you think Science hasn't created problems just to justify a reason for researching a solution, you'd be naive on that score also.

Science is about the money and to get the money they use some of the most un-ethical practices like getting in bed with politicians so we end up spending millions on research for why a pig stinks.

Yeah Science aint stupid, they know how to butter their bread and being noble and passionate about science has very little to do with it.

Money Talks and BS walks, many times, its walking,

in a lab coat



[edit on 12-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Saying something is not perfect is not the same as saying that every bit of it is a flaw, just that it has it's flaws.
I said my logic is not perfect, and so all conclusions will not be accurate - that does not mean that every conclusion is inaccurate.

5+5=10

I consider that accurate. My logic considers that accurate. And it can be proven to be accurate.

reply to post by B.A.C.


B.A.C.

'aermacchi' is hijacking, aka 'trolling' your thread.

It's pretty evident, by now.....

Perhaps you and he/she should have a private conversation?

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by melatonin

Do you understand how ridiculous that comment is. So you suggest that scientists acquire funding from agencies by saying 'We know this to be correct, therefore give me money to study it'.

The point is this:

If Science and technology create a solution to a problem that makes more money in actual practice solving the problem, they will patent it and sell it.

Don't see how that is related to the point, really, con.

The claim was that scientists won't say 'don't know' because it's problematic for funding. It's rather the reverse.

Scientists in research live right on the edge of ignorance. That's the whole idea. It's how scientists advance knowledge.

Money Talks and BS walks, many times, its walking,

in a lab coat

Sorry, no. Most scientists would make more money self-employed plastering and plumbing, lol. If money was the motivation, scientists would aim to be Bankers, lawyers, industry executives, even computer programmers

I know of one computer programmer who recently left academia to an industry position which more than trebled his salary.

There are those in certain areas doing well off patenting etc and creating their own companies (biotech, materials science etc). But it's not common.

ABE: here's a great example. A open position at Nottingham Uni in the UK. The top position available - for a chair of a department (medical stats), a professor's positon (not comparable to prof in the US, it's the most senior level here):

"minimum £55,259 per annum"

Java developer (london, so some weighting): £50000 - £80000 per annum

lol

[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


My point is about Research Money, not money to put in their own pockets. Research takes millions of dollars, maybe billions in certain instances. This is the money I'm talking about.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by melatonin

 

My point is about Research Money, not money to put in their own pockets. Research takes millions of dollars, maybe billions in certain instances. This is the money I'm talking about.

Yeah, I know. That was just for con. Their wages they justify through ability to attract funding, potential, scientific credentials (past work), teaching ability/admin/outreach etc.

The money you are talking about absolutely requires a scientist to show where they can advance knowledge (and before someone makes the error, the money goes to the department and to fund equipment/minions etc). You don't do that by saying you know it, but give me money to test it anyway, lol.

Just doesn't work like that. Jeez, in research it's all about hunting out the important stuff we don't know and can potentially provide answers for.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by melatonin

 

My point is about Research Money, not money to put in their own pockets. Research takes millions of dollars, maybe billions in certain instances. This is the money I'm talking about.

Yeah, I know. That was just for con. Their wages they justify through ability to attract funding, potential, scientific credentials (past work), teaching ability/admin/outreach etc.

The money you are talking about absolutely requires a scientist to show where they can advance knowledge (and before someone makes the error, the money goes to the department and to fund equipment/minions etc). You don't do that by saying you know it, but give me money to test it anyway, lol.

Just doesn't work like that. Jeez, in research it's all about hunting out the important stuff we don't know and can potentially provide answers for.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]

I know you don't do that by saying you 'know" the answer, but you better have a theory or at least a viable idea that you can demonstrate will lead you to the answer, because they won't fund what a non - scientist think is a wild goose chase.