Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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.

Of course! But that's nothing like what you originally suggested. The idea is to say 'we don't know, but we haz idea, and here's how we'll do it - and it's really really important - can we haz dosh?'.

A non-scientist is rarely gonna get near a grant application, unless it's private funding (some dude/dudette with lots of money), and they'd be silly to make an uninformed decision. They would be lucky to understand (depends, I guess) them and make any real judgment of a proposal's coherence and potential. But if you mean it has to be publically justifiable research, then to an extent. The agency would need to be able to make a case for its relevance and importance.

However, I'm sure that no scientist would want you anywhere near their application, lol.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TruthParadox

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.

I never said either were the case.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
So then how is it 'unreasonable' to believe the conclusion is correct while knowing that it may be flawed?

I have not claimed to know that logic is flawed, you and Mel have.

In fact, you just made a contradiction or a 'paradox' if you will.

No, I didin’t

For how can anything be 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' where logical outcomes are concerned when such reason is derived from that same process...

Because I never claimed that logic is flawed.

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.

That’s why they call it a paradox! But like I said, I don’t follow your ideology, so I don’t fall victim to its blunders.

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

...

this has nothing to do with logic being perfect. It has to do with contradicting yourself and removing evidence as viable within a system. Within naturalism, you can’t trust your logic; therefore you must put your trust in feelings; and your feelings give you a sense of control that you don’t have; and so on and so forth.

Paradox: A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true

by chance.

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.

I don’t understand how you still don’t get it . . .

If you conclude that logic is flawed, then you have no reason to believe that your logic is flawed if you arrived at your conclusion through logic.

It is so simple.

It's balanced. And so there is no real contradiction or apparent contradiction if you understand it.

it’s not balanced, it is a full blown paradox and I suggest you bring your kids over to catch it, because it’s a real pain in the butt to get when you’re older.

Originally posted by JPhish
If you conclude that logic is flawed, then you have no reason to believe that your logic is flawed if you arrived at your conclusion through logic.

It is so simple.

But it's not what's being said. I'll go one more time for further clarification, and this really is my last words on this...

What is being said is that human reasoning has the potential for errors. And the evidence supports that suggestion.

That doesn't mean that all human reason is erroneous. Because we know that human reason can result in errors (be it from the process or premises), we are wise to be tentative in holding our positions.

I really can't believe how tedious this is. It just shows how philosophy can so easily became little more than intellectual masturbation.

Thank ducks for science.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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.

Of course! But that's nothing like what you originally suggested. The idea is to say 'we don't know, but we haz idea, and here's how we'll do it - and it's really really important - can we haz dosh?'.

A non-scientist is rarely gonna get near a grant application, unless it's private funding (some dude/dudette with lots of money), and they'd be silly to make an uninformed decision. They would be lucky to understand (depends, I guess) them and make any real judgment of a proposal's coherence and potential. But if you mean it has to be publically justifiable research, then to an extent. The agency would need to be able to make a case for its relevance and importance.

However, I'm sure that no scientist would want you anywhere near their application, lol.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]

I guarantee they wouldn't want me anywhere near their application. That shows another side, that if it was me, I'd be interested in getting more data for Creation. Just like whoever is funding them wants more data to confirm their side of things, usually, not always. ie; tobacco, global warming, evolution, marijuana, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, etc

Make no mistake though, I am all for studying everything, and i mean everything, I just don't like the political, social, etc, spin that is put on some of these studies, where they just show you the data that supports their idea.

Edit: The Right and Left and MSM are also behind the scenes of Science, not just Politics, and this affects how they release the information.



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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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?

Weed Get on topic, can you do that? Or am I to expect you doing a critique of every post I make having nothing to do with the topic or my post and everything to do with you trying to force a violation of TC.

I have made four or five posts here and this is the third one I have made addressing your manipulative instigating BS. You have done it with ashley and now you are pulling it with me. Your incessant whining is getting very old.

If you think my posts are inappropriate,, ALERT A MOD OR I WILL! .

This is the last time I am going to tell you.

Originally posted by melatonin
So what is meant by suggesting I don't have 'the power to change things'?

what i'm trying to say is that your control, which you do appear to have, is completely dictated by nature. So it is really only the illusion of control.

So you never actually change anything within the natural system. It would be impossible to do so if you exist within nature and are bound by it's rules.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by JPhish
If you conclude that logic is flawed, then you have no reason to believe that your logic is flawed if you arrived at your conclusion through logic.

It is so simple.

But it's not what's being said. I'll go one more time for further clarification, and this really is my last words on this...

What is being said is that human reasoning has the potential for errors. And the evidence supports that suggestion.

but the evidence is obtained and scrutinized through logic. Hence you fall into the paradox again.

That doesn't mean that all human reason is erroneous.

I never claimed that it did.

really can't believe how tedious this is. It just shows how philosophy can so easily became little more than intellectual masturbation.

It’s really not tedious at all.

Things become tedious when peoples’ beliefs systems get in the way. I think that is what is happening here with you and truthparadox.

I ran into a similar situation a week ago with someone I know. He claimed that nothing is certain. This was his belief system. He doesn’t have a name for it, but he claimed that NOTHING is certain.

I said “I think therefore I am, I am certain that I exist”

He said “no”

I replied “it’s a priori, you can’t argue it.”

He replied “I believe I can”

Then of course I said “I believe? You just acknowledged your existence! Even thinking about your existence proves that you exist to yourself. Even if you don’t believe that you exist, the act of not believing you exist, proves to you that you exist. You can’t get around it.”

Then he continued replying with things such as

“I think there might be something controlling my thoughts;

I think that I don’t know enough;

I think you’re assuming too much.

Etc etc etc”

This went on for HOURS. I kept telling him that if he thinks ANYTHING he proves his own existence to himself. But he refused to accept it because it would shatter his belief that nothing was certain or could be proven.

I was never able to convince him that he can prove his own existence to himself with the Descartes' proof. Not because he didn't understand or because it doesn't make sense, but because it went against his belief system. He refused to accept it.

[edit on 3/12/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


It may be a paradox if I said

My logic is flawed
I trust the above sentence 100%

But that's not what I'm saying...


My logic is flawed
I believe the above is true, but leave room for error as my logic is flawed


The two do not contradict themselves when you leave room for error.

reply to post by B.A.C.


B.A.C.

If you will notice, I linked THIS post to page one, top of page, your OP.

Because, ironic as it seems....your thread MUST be brought back, back to the beginning.

I am glad that you started this discussion, B.A.C.

I am sorry for some of the directions it veered into....I was partly responsible.

A good discussion, all things considered. Reminds me of a "Star Trek: Next Generation" episode....actually.

A final word: There are many possible conspiracies, in our World. I just do NOT see 'abiogenisis' as one.

Abiogenisis is still an hypothesis...that is, the actual process of abiogenisis is still an hypothesis.

The FACT that it happened....well.....

Think about it.

(pause for effect)

Not going to argue, with you, or anyone else, about 'god' or any 'deity'....

Pointless. I don't know, YOU really don't know....not for sure.

If it makes me feel better to put my "faith" in science, then it is what fits me best. I feel more comfortable there, than in the realm of the other 'faith'....or "faiths".....

Said enough.......

Things become tedious when peoples’ beliefs systems get in the way. I think that is what is happening here with you and truthparadox.

lol

Of course, it's our belief systems getting in the way. So says the person who attempted to define all stuff we don't know as supernatural, heh.

reply to post by TruthParadox


I think someone has been reading too much Lewis, heh. Maybe he should try Plantinga, he's not much better either.



[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I have no problem with the discussion veering off in a natural course. We often have returned to the original discussion, although we always veer away and come back.

Anyway, I don't mind if it veers off, I can't control you guys anyway, and wouldn't try to.

I like Star Trek:TNG as well, in fact I collect anything to do with Star Trek, hehe

OK, this is were I wanna be, much more fun...

I really don't see the other stuff as helpful. As I noted, you can call it a paradox, a banana, or a feedlebomp, but the evidence is pretty clear.

Originally posted by JPhish
what i'm trying to say is that your control, which you do appear to have, is completely dictated by nature. So it is really only the illusion of control.

So you never actually change anything within the natural system. It would be impossible to do so if you exist within nature and are bound by it's rules.

Being bound by its rules does not mean we have no control. Just means we are bound in our actions. Thus, I do not currently have the freedom to teleport to venus. Not a super idea, of course, even if I could.

However, IMO, nature doesn't really 'control' anything. It just is, you appear to be applying some directed purpose to it. I have control, because I can update and adjust my behaviour according to external and internal feedback and potential consequences.

For example, the moon orbits the earth. But nature wouldn't update and direct its course if it got hit by a big meteor and it went askew. Not IMO. So not really control.

You might want to give it such teleological characteristics. But I see no reason to.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


WAIT a darn minute, mel.....you're sayin' the Moon orbits the Earth????

Hold the presses, darn it!!! We got some science talkin' goin' on!!!

Oh, I love how the Human mind can think....to believe that the Earth is just a part of a larger realm....that it actually might be more than 6000 years old.....just 'cause that derned 'ole science says so!!!

I cannot go on.....I've gone too far....

My little 'play' up above was not directed at anyone....in particular.

It is just.....WE are here! That is a fact, I would assume.

No one alive, today, was alive 3.4 Billion years ago....another fact I would assume.

Through science, we can infer, and learn (hopefully) some things. NOT all things....some things....

Each little bit that we learn adds to our understanding.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by JPhish

 

It may be a paradox if I said

My logic is flawed
I trust the above sentence 100%

no, that's not a paradox.

My logic is flawed
I believe the above is true, but leave room for error as my logic is flawed

this can go several ways

I'll break it down for you, and hopefully you'll understand.

My logic is flawed

you claim this

I believe the above is true

here you're saying you believe your logic is flawed because of belief, that's fine. But that's the only thing you can go by, a feeling or belief. Which makes naturalism faith based. If you claim otherwise it is a falsidical paradox.

, but leave room for error as my logic is flawed

the end of your explanation is superfluous because all you are doing is reiterating that you believe that your logic is flawed.

Originally posted by melatonin

Things become tedious when peoples’ beliefs systems get in the way. I think that is what is happening here with you and truthparadox.

lol

Of course, it's our belief systems getting in the way. So says the person who attempted to define all stuff we don't know as supernatural, heh.

reply to post by TruthParadox

 

I think someone has been reading too much Lewis, heh. Maybe he should try Plantinga, he's not much better either.

presenting genetic fallacies won't salvage your proverbial "sinking boat".

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, this is were I wanna be, much more fun...

I really don't see the other stuff as helpful. As I noted, you can call it a paradox, a banana, or a feedlebomp, but the evidence is pretty clear.

Because it’s what you believe.

Being bound by its rules does not mean we have no control. Just means we are bound in our actions.

it does if we are controlled by nature.

Thus, I do not currently have the freedom to teleport to venus. Not a super idea, of course, even if I could.

but if you were able to do so, it would only be by chance and necessity. It would have nothing to do with freedom. It’s all about deterministic nature.

However, IMO, nature doesn't really 'control' anything. It just is, you appear to be applying some directed purpose to it. I have control, because I can update and adjust my behaviour according to external and internal feedback and potential consequences.

because nature makes you.

For example, the moon orbits the earth. But nature wouldn't update and direct its course if it got hit by a big meteor and it went askew. Not IMO. So not really control.

If by chance the moon or earth were hit by a meteor, the laws of nature WOULD direct its’ course.

You might want to give it such teleological characteristics. But I see no reason to.

give what teleological characteristics? Nature? Control is simply the term you’ve been using. I’ve been humoring you. You’re the one that claimed that anything had control in a naturalistic universe. I claimed that everything happened by chance by the laws of nature. Remember?

Originally posted by JPhish
Because it’s what you believe.

Nope, it what the evidence suggests. Data ---> inference.

it does if we are controlled by nature.

But nature doesn't control anything per se.

but if you were able to do so, it would only be by chance and necessity. It would have nothing to do with freedom. It’s all about deterministic nature.

I have the freedom to seek my desires, to act in my best interests. So, teleporting to venus wouldn't be a wise option.

because nature makes you.

I thought I had me Ma and Da to thank for that.

If by chance the moon or earth were hit by a meteor, the laws of nature WOULD direct its’ course.

Perhaps I should have been clearer, in fact, I know I should have been. It would not update its course and put it back into its original orbit. That is, it doesn't express goals and maintain them by feedback and adjustment.

The moon would just move in accord with physics without any intentions - it's a real rock, rather than a complex mud agent.

give what teleological characteristics? Nature? Control is simply the term you’ve been using. I’ve been humoring you. You’re the one that claimed that anything had control in a naturalistic universe. I claimed that everything happened by chance by the laws of nature. Remember?

lol. Humour's fun.

With every post I've been expressing my control, and the difference between a moon being shifted out of its orbit by a meteor in accord with physics, and the control that I express in representing, planning, and seeking outcomes is rather obvious.


[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]

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

 

B.A.C.

If you will notice, I linked THIS post to page one, top of page, your OP.

Because, ironic as it seems....your thread MUST be brought back, back to the beginning.

I am glad that you started this discussion, B.A.C.

I am sorry for some of the directions it veered into....I was partly responsible.

A good discussion, all things considered. Reminds me of a "Star Trek: Next Generation" episode....actually.

A final word: There are many possible conspiracies, in our World. I just do NOT see 'abiogenisis' as one.

Abiogenisis is still an hypothesis...that is, the actual process of abiogenisis is still an hypothesis.

The FACT that it happened....well.....

Think about it.

(pause for effect)

Not going to argue, with you, or anyone else, about 'god' or any 'deity'....

Pointless. I don't know, YOU really don't know....not for sure.

If it makes me feel better to put my "faith" in science, then it is what fits me best. I feel more comfortable there, than in the realm of the other 'faith'....or "faiths".....

Said enough.......

I actually agree that it may or may not be a conspiracy. Although to get everyone involved on this particular board, I need a conspiracy angle

I do think logically the two are related, it's kinda funny but rarely do you hear the topic of Abiogenesis discussed, you hear a lot more about Evolution being discussed.

Maybe as we learn more this topic will grow and flower like an evolving plant.

reply to post by B.A.C.


Ah!!!

But....not all plants 'flower'!!!

Ferns are, by some rants, considered to be the earliest plants.

They had no insects (yet) to carry their seeds....they propagated in some way, though, since they thrive even today.

Perhaps Noah, and his sons, carried the seeds for all of the plant life we see today???? Yeah....THAT makes sense!!!

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

 

Ah!!!

But....not all plants 'flower'!!!

Ferns are, by some rants, considered to be the earliest plants.

They had no insects (yet) to carry their seeds....they propagated in some way, though, since they thrive even today.

Perhaps Noah, and his sons, carried the seeds for all of the plant life we see today???? Yeah....THAT makes sense!!!

You're very funny. You just can't resist insulting my beliefs can you? It's actually quite interesting.

I'd reply with a similar insult directed towards your heathen beliefs, but I'm above that sort of thing.

Whatever makes you feel superior I guess.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by B.A.C.]