Abiogenesis - The Origin Of Life Conspiracy

reply to post by B.A.C.


B.A.C.

I am NOT trying to insult.

Just injecting a little levity into the proceedings.

This is, after, a thread about 'abiogenesis'.......

Again....life started....THAT is undeniable.

EXACTLY how did it start? Well, we really do not know, hence the scince that explores it.

Fast-forward to us....WE consider it, and try to work backwards, to essentially, through science, and the scientific method, use our rational skills to ascertain a plausible hypothethis....which may become a theory...

....WHY not imagine, for moment, that this is God's will????

ALL of this argument....the back and forth....to God's amusement??

NO....I reject that notion...even though I brought it up.

reply to post by weedwhacker


heh, did life start? Or has life always been? Are we really where we think we are for that matter?

Maybe our universe is inside of an atom on a blade of grass and the man of the house is about to do some yard work.

Our answer or not lies in death I think, and not life.

reply to post by B.A.C.


B.A.C.

Now you're entering into the realm of the 'multiverse'...

It's enough, for now, to attempt to explain, via the nice people who host this site, the current Universe we reside in.

To explain more....well, would reguire face-to-face explanation.

It's sorta like learnig how to fly....you can observe....but without real instruction, you will miss out on the important bits.....

Originally posted by melatonin

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

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

And you are interpreting that evidence through your logic. You’re in the paradox again.

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

You have no choice whether you want to go to Venus or otherwise. The same way you have no choice as to which thoughts to deliberate and choose. It is all decided by nature.

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.

If you’ll accept my anthropomorphic analogy;

Natural Laws are natures way of expressing goals. . .
Nature wants water to boil at 100.
Nature wants things to be pulled towards gravity.
Nature wants you to exist,
Nature want’s you to die.

Nature wants you to think, nature wants you to sift through thoughts, and nature wants you to choose thoughts. But all of these things “you” are doing, you are in essence, not doing. Nature is. Because that thought that you eventually choose, you chose because of nature.

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

again, just because you respond to stimuli with greater versatility does not mean that you have control.

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.

.There is no proof that your posts, plans, emotions, actions or thoughts could have been any other way than the way nature intended. The choices have already been made.

A magician lets people choose cards from the deck all of the time. A magician gives them the illusion of choice. Nature gives you the illusion of choice. That is all you have.

Originally posted by JPhish
And you are interpreting that evidence through your logic. You’re in the paradox again.

Errm, yeah, J. If you say so.

As I said, if you really want to take the evidence as leading to a paradox, do so. It matters neither way. The evidence is pretty clear.

Natural Laws are natures way of expressing goals. . .
Nature wants water to boil at 100.
Nature wants things to be pulled towards gravity.
Nature wants you to exist,
Nature want’s you to die.

Clouds want to rain, lol. Again, I don't accept nature as purposeful. It sort of goes with the notion of naturalism - it just is. You can accept such purpose by all means.

What you are expressing is actually promiscuous teleology.

Again, I've pretty clearly demonstrated what I mean by control. I have the ability to act in my self-interests with intentions. I can be a causally effective agent, who has deliberated over settings using past events, current state, and future potential consequences.

Originally posted by JPhish

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.

I was using my ability for control last night and rerepresenting past events to better direct my future actions, and I noted that you never really answered my question, lol. See, such deliberation is well smart. I can pick up features of events that I overlooked at the time, allows me to better direct my future behaviour.

What do you mean by the 'power to change things'? What power am I missing that you think I need, or that determinism or materialism can't give me.

Throw us a frickin' bone.

the illusion of choice

What would 'real' choice be?

Do you want to be able to go back into the past and make different choices?

[edit on 13-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by JPhish


Whenever we argue, it always comes down to these specific words and their meanings... I think we did this with 'faith' before... and maybe 'truth'...
Now it's 'paradox'.
Again, a paradox is something which seems contradictory, but in fact may very well not be.

It's obvious that it seems contradictory to you, but not to me.
So you call it a paradox and I do not.
Me and Mel have already made numerous arguments against it being a paradox, so there is nothing more to say .

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by JPhish

 

Whenever we argue, it always comes down to these specific words and their meanings... I think we did this with 'faith' before... and maybe 'truth'...
Now it's 'paradox'.
Again, a paradox is something which seems contradictory, but in fact may very well not be.

It's obvious that it seems contradictory to you, but not to me.
So you call it a paradox and I do not.
Me and Mel have already made numerous arguments against it being a paradox, so there is nothing more to say

.

and again, you are back in the paradox.

Again, a paradox is something which seems contradictory, but in fact may very well not be.

It doesn't "seem" anything, IT IS, when it isn't.

Logically, a paradox is a situation where contradictory conclusions can be derived from the same premises.




[edit on 13-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

What was the topic???

Oh yeah....Abiogenesis.

And some so-called 'conspiracy' regarding this notion.

It's been well-provided, on this thread....that the origin of life happened so long ago, that we need to try to imagine, backwards....and that is why science helps us.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Again, a paradox is something which seems contradictory, but in fact may very well not be.

It doesn't "seem" anything, IT IS, when it isn't.

You don't know what you're talking about.
I said 'seems' because that's what the definition says:

dictionary.reference.com...

Paradox 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.


www.merriam-webster.com...

Paradox 2 a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true


And I'll say it again, to me it does not 'seem' contradictory, because it is merely a belief.
It does not contradict itself as it does not claim anything as an absolute.

This is really getting old...
I know I'm right and you know you're right.
Let's leave it at that.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What was the topic???

Oh yeah....Abiogenesis.

And some so-called 'conspiracy' regarding this notion.

It's been well-provided, on this thread....that the origin of life happened so long ago, that we need to try to imagine, backwards....and that is why science helps us.

How can you imagine this backwards without using the concept of Evolution? I'm curious.

www.scientificblogging.com...
Early replicators, once they arise, would undergo evolution. Mutation, natural selection, etc., would have been important before cellular life as we understand it appeared. However, there are components to the issue that predate the occurrence of natural selection, which are more properly understood in terms of organic chemistry than biology. The line is not sharp, though, so keeping evolution out of abiogenesis research is unwise.

What you are saying is that we can use Evolutionary Theory to reverse engineer Evolution which will help us to understand Abiogenesis? But they aren't related?

Or we can say that Evolution must have taken place for the first cellular life to form. But they aren't related?

Either way, it's apparent that logically the two are related. Why doesn't Science admit this?


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

reply to post by B.A.C.


B.A.C.


Wow! You use my words, without any understanding!!

Wow!!

It is YOUR thread.....of course....so we give you the floor.


This is really about 'faith', isn't it???

reply to post by B.A.C.[/i

double post




[edit on 3/14/0909 by weedwhacker]