abiogenesis vs id using a razor sharp method

ok so first let me begin by saying i (read we) will assume for the sake of this conversation we will take as given that humans ,in the next 5-20 years if it hasent already happened, create a new lifeform. i wont link to the science behind this and assume we all agree it will happen.

next some definitions

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

notice in the SG wiki it says 'obsolete' in the first sentence and goes on to make sure that you know how science now thinks the same thing but in a different way, so its ok

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

intelligent design- the designing of life using intelligence

now using the scientific method we observe

id- saw a guy create a new lifeform in a lab (remember this part is real world hypothetical at this point)

abiogenesis- unobservable without another solar system and millions to billions of years

now at this point the scientific method is no longer even applicable to abiogenesis for obvious reasons.

so lets apply occams razor

id - proven in a lab

abiogenesis- unprovable (atm)

so occams says we go with id since we can observe and test id in a lab and we cant do those things with abiogenesis

so using occams razor and the scientific method we establish that id is a more likely cause to life than abiogenesis.

anyone care to take this line of reasoning on?

and PLEASE no evolution or deities, they are both fairy tales.

I think your logic is slightly flawed here.

Anyway, do you expect to be taken seriously considering the last sentence of your OP?

reply to post by Another_Nut


please explain the origins of an alledged designer .

PS - for fooks sake - don't try infinite regression - it fails @ - 14 bliion years

which leaves abiogenisis or special creation

PS - just to not your entire premise is so fatally flawed - I refuse to tell you why - its that freaking obvious

helldiver
I think your logic is slightly flawed here.

Anyway, do you expect to be taken seriously considering the last sentence of your OP?

one could ask you the same, considering the contribution of your post.

reply to post by Another_Nut


hey nut!

Epigenetics

Lamarckism

Current views

Interest in Lamarckism has increased, as studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation. A 2009 study examined foraging behavior in chickens as a function of stress,[57] concluding:

Our findings suggest that unpredictable food access caused seemingly adaptive responses in feeding behavior, which may have been transmitted to the offspring by means of epigenetic mechanisms, including regulation of immune genes. This may have prepared the offspring for coping with an unpredictable environment.... Transmissions of information across generations which does not involve traditional inheritance of DNA-sequence alleles is often referred to as soft inheritance [58] or 'Lamarckian inheritance'.[57]

The evolution of acquired characteristics has also been shown in human populations who have experienced starvation, resulting in altered gene function in both the starved population and their offspring.[59] The process of DNA methylation is thought to be behind such changes.

In October 2010, further evidence linking food intake to traits inherited by the offspring were shown in a study of rats conducted by several Australian universities.[60] The study strongly suggested that fathers can transfer a propensity for obesity to their daughters as a result of the fathers' food intake, and not their genetics (or specific genes), prior to the conception of the daughter. A "paternal high-fat diet" was shown to cause cell dysfunction in the daughter, which in turn led to obesity for the daughter. Felicia Nowak, et al. reported at The Endocrine Society meeting in June 2013 that obese male rats passed on the tendency to obesity to their male offspring.[61]

S&F

reply to post by Another_Nut


Your line of reasoning neither proves intelligent design nor answers any questions. You eliminate deities as an explanation which leads me to assume you are thinking "aliens" are the creators of life on Earth. Aliens as creators just moves the problem of life's origin off this planet and brings up another "who created the creator?" scenario. Even if you included deities, their existence is unprovable or so astronomically improbable that abiogenesis would still be the simpler explanation. And by the way, evolution by natural selection makes NO claims about the origin of life.

reply to post by Metaphysique


What does epigenetics have to do with the origins of life?

reply to post by Another_Nut


I've never seen a mountain made. Would I make an argument against plate tectonics along the lines of: I haven't observed a mountain forming through a natural process but I know that people if they so desired, could build one, therefore it makes more sense that somebody built all the mountains than that they were created by natural processes?

Or how about we argue that human technology has advanced sufficiently for humans to manufacture diamonds therefore all diamonds must have been manufactured in a lab.

ignorant_ape
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

please explain the origins of an alledged designer .

PS - for fooks sake - don't try infinite regression - it fails @ - 14 bliion years

which leaves abiogenisis or special creation

PS - just to not your entire premise is so fatally flawed - I refuse to tell you why - its that freaking obvious

Although I'm on the fence when it comes to this (agnostic), the whole anti-Creator argument of "who made the creator? Infinite amount of creators = more complex therefore spontaneous creation is true!" is quite silly in my opinion, and anti-progressive. It attempts to shut off question #1 by skipping ahead to question #2, 3, 4 and so forth. One step at a time, no?

It's up there with "if there's a creator why is there evil and why is it allowed to run rampant?". Are these seriously the sort of counter arguments that exist to a creator lol? No wonder the creationism vs evolution debate is so black and white and unprogressive.

The point isn't trying to make sense of a creators origin and form, but trying to make sense of how our universe came to be. That is to say, if aspects of our universe suggest design or creation, a valid counter-argument IS NOT 'but who created God'. That is now a whole new question and line of thought.

It's like, if we were to eventually created a virtual universe as complex as ours, and we plugged people in or coded self awareness (depending on what you believe consciousness to be). Eventually, our created virtual race will ponder its origin of existence, perhaps due to nonsensical periods in their history, or unbelievable finds in their science. They may arrive at the idea of a creator, but certain virtual people will turn around and say 'but who created them?!'. As this shows, it's a valid question, but one that means absolutely nothing in terms of the actual original question.

Likewise, we could never from this perspective understand the creator(s)' origin or desire, but it doesn't detract from the possibility none the less.

Of course, either way, there had to be a original source for all of this. I think we as humans are very much blinded by the fact we only know what we see, feel and think. We can't even imagine outside the universe without applying universe-like characteristics to it. Or even worse, we apply human logic to scenarios where human logic is non existent.

helldiver
I think your logic is slightly flawed here.

Anyway, do you expect to be taken seriously considering the last sentence of your OP?

explain.

or well ty for contributing...

absolutely nothing .

is it that hard to understand that the origin and creation of life have nothing to do with things that are nearly impossible to observe or reproduce. god , evolution , spontaneous generation, biogenesis . all of those .

only with id is it possible to scrutinize the creation of life using the scientific method .starting with step one

observation.

otherwise you start with conjecture. and thats not good.

theantediluvian
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

I've never seen a mountain made. Would I make an argument against plate tectonics along the lines of: I haven't observed a mountain forming through a natural process but I know that people if they so desired, could build one, therefore it makes more sense that somebody built all the mountains than that they were created by natural processes?

Or how about we argue that human technology has advanced sufficiently for humans to manufacture diamonds therefore all diamonds must have been manufactured in a lab.

edit on 17-11-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

you can observe mountains being made.

find a volcano

reply to post by DazDaKing


oh dear - the crux of the " explain the origins of the alledged designer" concept is quite simple :

it either has to :

explain why the infinite regression path of designers " jumps " the origins of the universe as it exist now

OR

explain how the alledged designer exists outside the universe as it exists now

both require an additional layer of complexity

ignorant_ape
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

oh dear - the crux of the " explain the origins of the alledged designer" concept is quite simple :

it either has to :

explain why the infinite regression path of designers " jumps " the origins of the universe as it exist now

OR

explain how the alleged designer exists outside the universe as it exists now

both require an additional layer of complexity

thats like saying that the life we create has to come from abiogenesis when the lifeform reflects on itself and asks

"who created my creator" and his friend tells him "thats an infinite regression and therefore that creator cant exist"

this new lifeform may change minds on infinite regression and creation, calling the thought of a creator silly , for really who created that creator .but it will still not make it any less designed and created

ignorant_ape
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

oh dear - the crux of the " explain the origins of the alledged designer" concept is quite simple :

it either has to :

explain why the infinite regression path of designers " jumps " the origins of the universe as it exist now

OR

explain how the alledged designer exists outside the universe as it exists now

both require an additional layer of complexity

Human logic, cold-hard, applied to the outside of the universe, does not mean instant truth. You want a simple answer, that's all. Who said the simplest answer is right in this case? Ozcam? So, we're going to apply a human idea to something beyond human? Wtf. 'Because this requires more complexity, I as a human must assume the simpler answer is correct'. Seriously? We would have made 0 scientific progress if we stuck to the simple solutions. It is the human heart, not mind, that is opened up to wonder and amazement. It is this that drives progress, through the use of the mind. But the human mind on its own? Look at the world now - that's what the human mind on its own does, and it is through a small theory of that human mind that you base your conclusions about the universe and beyond?

Like I said, its easy to explain how a creator exists outside our universe. Did you read my virtual universe analogy? That's exactly how. Of course, like I said, all of this needs a source at some point, either way - which is why the 'who created God/the Gods' argument holds ground. But once again, just because you applied human logic for 2 seconds (I.e it must be the simple answer!) doesn't mean you have got it air-tight figured out.

It's entirely possible that we are a created universe, but one of our creators universes spontaneously arose (abiogenesis), or perhaps it all started with consciousness/a self-awareness and the universes followed. It is NOT as black and white as 'creator needs a creator therefore there's no creator' lol.

That's all I'm trying to say. There are more possibilities then a) infinite amount of creators or b) one off spontaneous creation.

I'm sure you believe consciousness is merely just electrical signals or advanced circuitry. Therefore, you should also agree with me that consciousness is programmable. Hence, you should also agree with me that we will make our own universes virtually with their own self conscious 'life forms'. Therefore, your own logical stance should tell you created universes digressing backwards is a very real and possible concept.

If you're especially clever, you should also realise this means the amount of 'virtual' people will eventually outnumber the amount of 'real people', as one real universe can hold almost an infinite amount of virtual universes. Therefore mathematically we are more likely to be living in a created simulation than the 'original'. An Oxford Prof of computer science did a paper on this I believe. He turned a lot of atheists, which is funny, seems like only human logic can resonate with people's ideas of Gods.

Once again, I'm on the fence. I follow the hard evidence and apply my own critical thinking where need be - I don't jump to conclusions - for or against anything, including a creator. But most importantly, I know when to put my logic unit aside for second, and experience through my heart/spirit.

If you are truly a man of logic, you would understand how easily possible it is that we are a created universe and not the original abiogenesis universe. In that case, it would very much matter who our creators are, even if they themselves arose 'naturally'.

It's really not a black and white topic that can be shut down with a cheeky bit of Ozcams Razor and some 'who created him? but then who created him? but then who created that and who created that?' elementary school style arguments. I get your point completely, its one I used myself much when I was a stone-cold atheist. But now I understand there's a multitude of possibilities. From the moment mainstream science is postulating an infinite amount of parallel universes - I know we are nowhere near the answers either way.

Peace

reply to post by FatherStacks


It's just the flavour of the year for desperate creationists. Epigenetics = genetics ain't everything = evolution didn't happen = God Did It.

The sort of thing that appeals to pre-Enlightenment minds; or do I mean pre-human minds?

reply to post by Another_Nut


for fooks sake - its not that difficult

if you claim that present life " must require a designer "

then the alledged designer must follow the infine regression path , which :

demands explaination of how the regression jumps the age of the current universe / escapes the current universe

OR requires a special pleading that the alledged designer was not designed

I will spell it out - the " explain the alledged designers orign " does NOT posit that a designer is impossible - merely that the alledged designer needs a special pleading to explain its origin

get it yet ?

reply to post by DazDaKing

(posted by ignorant–ape)
just to note your entire premise is so fatally flawed - I refuse to tell you why - its that freaking obvious

Amusingly enough, DazDaKing, your post shares the same fatal flaw ignorant_ape detected in the OP's. Odd that, eh?

Astyanax
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

(posted by ignorant–ape)
just to note your entire premise is so fatally flawed - I refuse to tell you why - its that freaking obvious

Amusingly enough, DazDaKing, your post shares the same fatal flaw ignorant_ape detected in the OP's. Odd that, eh?

Fatal flaw in what? I am not proposing a theory to you. I was merely saying there are more ways to look at it than initially meets the eye.

I am aware of the problem a creator poses in terms of his own conception - dont #ing patronise me. I am simply saying that does not detract from it being a potential truth. I took ignorant_apes attitude to be very much 'there are your options, and because one is more complex it has to be wrong basically'.

And a I wanted to say was you could look at it with a different angle to that. Abiogenesis and ID can exist simultaneously, just like evolution and creationism.

It's the same old ATS # of people turning it into something black and white. You've done it here again, by making it seem like I've taken a side, and now you are attempting to draw me into a two sides debate by calling out my intelligence. You clearly completely missed the point of what I was saying. Perhaps I am not as clear as I wish.

ignorant_ape
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

for fooks sake - its not that difficult

if you claim that present life " must require a designer "

then the alledged designer must follow the infine regression path , which :

demands explaination of how the regression jumps the age of the current universe / escapes the current universe

OR requires a special pleading that the alledged designer was not designed

I will spell it out - the " explain the alledged designers orign " does NOT posit that a designer is impossible - merely that the alledged designer needs a special pleading to explain its origin

get it yet ?

i never claimed life requires a designer.

ever.

and do u really not understand the "who created our creator " argurment is just a way to avoid thequestion?

who said our designer hadto had one?

again thats like saying the life we create, since it had a creator, its creator (us) had to had a creator.

that is exactly whar yiu are arguring against !

personally i think life and consiousness area fundamental part of our universe and that ouruniverse may be consious

Astyanax
reply to post by FatherStacks

 

It's just the flavour of the year for desperate creationists. Epigenetics = genetics ain't everything = evolution didn't happen = God Did It.

The sort of thing that appeals to pre-Enlightenment minds; or do I mean pre-human minds?

Lmao, how sweet is it that within this same thread you expose yourself for the high-horse riding, self-righteous type of guy you are. Now I understand why you drew me into this, you can't stand people arguing for the existence of God, it genuinely pisses you off doesn't you.

You are 110% content with your explanation of how we came to be and you thoroughly enjoy intellectually owning those who cannot formulate arguments against yours.

Sigh, why are so many atheists such ugly people. If someone wants to believe God created them let it be. Don't throw in snide remarks about their intelligence, that ironically only discredits yours.

If you want an actual, honest and intellectual debate about the creator I'm here - to do it from an unbiased viewpoint.

However, ATS has long taught me that an unbiased debate about creationism is near enough impossible here. Just people looking to reinforce their own beliefs and ideas of intellectual superiority.

I'm out - forget I ever said anything. I should have known my words would go over heads. The fact ignorant_ape thought I didn't know the crux of the 'who created the designer' argument says it all. You people must think anyone who speaks of a creator is stupid - even if that person doesn't believe in one and is simply trying to provide some additional insight in how oneself looks at it.

Screw you all lol.

ignorant_ape
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

I will spell it out - the " explain the alledged designers orign " does NOT posit that a designer is impossible - merely that the alledged designer needs a special pleading to explain its origin

get it yet ?

I'm glad you spelled it out. I originally read your attitude to be that of 'this means God can't exist'.

Yes, you're right, it does of course require 'special pleading'. Once again though, that doesn't detract from it as a possibility. Those questions can be answered in sensical ways, although I suspect if that was the actual case (a creator), the answers to these questions would be very nonsensical from our perspective.

I've always felt I need a 'special pleading' to describe how out universe came together in this exact way - allowing me to be what I am, act how I desire, and feel how I do'. It is not the evolution of life that gets me, it'a what life actually is, how it's experienced and how it all pieces together that blows my mind. The fact I have so much love for certain people and can share such amazing experiences, even with animals and such. It's all too beautiful, even with the suffering. To me, that has always needed 'special pleading'. It's one thing to say a universe can spontaneously just start, but for it to turn out like this and allow this exact moment to manifest...truly magnificent.

So from my point of view, either way I'm sort of stuck. This is all too brilliant to call an accident, but then at the same time I know nothing of and cannot prove a creator. It leaves me in an awkward position, where I can see the beauty of both arguments. Unfortunately, this also means I'm usually caught in a lot of cross fire ;]