|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
What I find strange is that the whole thread is the opposition of two possibilities only. That is, it is dogmatically held that life must either have started on Earth through the natural process of abiogenesis or it otherwise had no choice but be created by God in one fell swoop or at least be intentionally designed by an incomprehensible supernatural intelligence.
Both views take for granted that life must have had a certain origin localised either in space or time. I find such an assumption to be highly dubious together with the whole nonsensical Big Bang paradigm it nicely fits into. Why should life have by all means started once rather than just be an intrinsic feature of existence is beyond me. Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. There are other avenues to explore for f's sake! Lately I see some awakening of interest in the panspermia ideas exemplified by the Journal of Cosmology and so on yet that is not enough to which this thread is a good demonstration. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Yoink! I'm going to add this to my sig.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Well, Larni, that quantum version of the linear progression of complexity has got serious troubles too. That assumes a physical possibility of the three scales of existence being perfectly separated at a certain point. That is, the micro scale of being once existing on its own in an absolute fashion and total absence of the other two levels. That is another highly dubious mathemagical proposition. It preposterously claims that the ordinary classic and cosmic scales of existence could have developed from the quantum, sub-atomic level like a mighty plant develops from a tiny seed.
Not anything possible to observe, confirm or falsify, thus depending on the blind faith and religious fervour of a typical big bangist for its acceptance. What is observed is only that the three levels of existence are being present all at once, being mutually dependent and forming a dialectical unity. No planets teeming with life without the galaxy superclusters and their constituent quarks is the real deal at any observable instant, I am afraid. Also there is one more bit of trouble and blatant contradiction in the allegation contained in your signature. That sub-atomic quantum chaos is miraculously assumed to be the point of lowest universal entropy. Another bit of ludicrous absolutism I was talking about in my previous post. For that assumes that purported Planck unit allegedly well alone in existence at the mythical time zero to be a point of highest possible disorder and the state of highest possible order all in an absolute once.In reality, of course, it represents only the point of highest quackademical absurdity inside of a typical theoretical mythematician's head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Three things can't, by definition, be in a "dialectical unity". Dia means "two." Una means "one."
You've produced what I think is the English language's first three-way contradiction in terms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Yes, but in dialectics any two opposites when united produce a third term. That was implied here as the conscious human observer is an emergent property of both cosmic and quantum scales impossible without either just as either is not possible without the other one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It preposterously claims that the ordinary classic and cosmic scales of existence could have developed from the quantum, sub-atomic level like a mighty plant develops from a tiny seed. Why is that preposterous? Emergent properties via superpostion could foot the bill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Well, Mr. Inadequate, that game two can play, my friend. I get your hint but can easily dismiss everything you have ever said here as just a syllable stew. You may not like it much too if to add my insult to your injury, I'd rub your learned nose in the concoction of your learned mouth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Well, you can say, of course, that depth is an emergent property of breadth and height. That is, if you start modelling from drawing two lines, the second perpendicular to the first. May it though mean that the depth can physically evolve from breadth and height in linear time, like a plant does from a shoot with the shoot itself developing from a seed of a dimensionless point?
I reckon not. That would be just mistaking one's own process of modelling for the real physical evolution. That's a laughable extrapolation of a mental process onto the whole of existence to which the quackademical BB hypothesis is a good example. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Well, you can say, of course, that depth is an emergent property of breadth and height. That is, if you start modelling from drawing two lines, the second perpendicular to the first. May it though mean that the depth can physically evolve from breadth and height in linear time, like a plant does from a shoot with the shoot itself developing from a seed of a dimensionless point? No, but I can add sodium to chlorine and get salt, which has deliciousness. Those atoms by themselves are nothing like salt... and taste terrible Er, wait... unless you think salt was intelligently designed Talk about preposterous
I reckon not. That would be just mistaking one's own process of modelling for the real physical evolution. That's a laughable extrapolation of a mental process onto the whole of existence to which the quackademical BB hypothesis is a good example. Yeah, but you just took a stupid example, and are extrapolating that to all examples... so you just fell into your own trap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Well, yes, you add sodium to chlorine to let deliciousness emerge and I have no trouble with that. All I have trouble with is your subsequent ludicrous pretence that in the process you have managed to trace the ultimate origin of deliciousness.
The idea you defend here pretends that this was the first instance of salt ever, that is sodium and chlorine had never met before and then it goes on to assume both sodium and chlorine are ultimately traceable to nothing at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Well, Mr. Inadequate, that game two can play, my friend. I get your hint but can easily dismiss everything you have ever said here as just a syllable stew. You can indeed make false statements about me. Indeed, your capacity to make false statements seems limited only by your inability to make actual statements as opposed to stringing together meaningless collections of words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Am I in a solido matrix hell, here?
My point of object/abject concordance appears to be way above any concrete reality ibversesive apparetiff. I can't help but think that this is beyond any chemo-sesmic endosiemithalic entrety? What's going on? Edited by Larni, : No reason given. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, yes, you add sodium to chlorine to let deliciousness emerge and I have no trouble with that. Well then, there you go: A higher state emerging from a microscopic one... I thought you did have a problem with that? That is, unless you think the deliciousness of salt was intelligently designed...
All I have trouble with is your subsequent ludicrous pretence that in the process you have managed to trace the ultimate origin of deliciousness.
Where have I done that? Please don't speak for me... I'm right here and you can ask me. I contend that deliciousness has no "ultimate origin". I presume that it is something that gradually emerged with the evolution of the tongue. There would be various states of it with no clear indication of a "beginning".
The idea you defend here pretends that this was the first instance of salt ever, that is sodium and chlorine had never met before and then it goes on to assume both sodium and chlorine are ultimately traceable to nothing at all. No, not at all. You've grossly misunderstood. And there has never been "nothing".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
That's lame, Inadequate. You are losing your plot here. In what way any one's ability to make allegedly false statements can be limited by their inability to make supposedly actual ones is beyond me. All that is extremely vague, dearest. That's inevitable though.
Those ideas that you are desperately backing are so vague and ill-defined, your defence of them can be nothing but vacuous allegations and name-calling undiluted by any argument. Try to define what is false and what is actual first. Here's a good guide to teach you stop crapping at your mouth: index
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024