Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 10:46 AM
41 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 256 of 297 (633746)
09-16-2011 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Huntard
04-19-2010 7:44 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Huntard, posted 04-19-2010 7:44 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Larni, posted 09-16-2011 6:51 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 273 by Omnivorous, posted 09-16-2011 8:58 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 279 by AZPaul3, posted 09-16-2011 11:05 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 257 of 297 (633758)
09-16-2011 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 1:16 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 1:16 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 3:28 PM Larni has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 258 of 297 (633814)
09-16-2011 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Larni
09-16-2011 6:51 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Larni, posted 09-16-2011 6:51 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2011 3:39 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 260 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2011 3:51 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-16-2011 4:04 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 268 by Larni, posted 09-16-2011 7:17 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 259 of 297 (633816)
09-16-2011 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 3:28 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 3:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 4:08 PM Dr Adequate has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 297 (633819)
09-16-2011 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 3:28 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 3:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 4:02 PM crashfrog has responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 261 of 297 (633820)
09-16-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by crashfrog
09-16-2011 3:51 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2011 3:51 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2011 11:56 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 297 (633821)
09-16-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 3:28 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 3:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 263 of 297 (633823)
09-16-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dr Adequate
09-16-2011 3:39 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2011 3:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2011 7:15 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 264 of 297 (633827)
09-16-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by New Cat's Eye
09-16-2011 4:04 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-16-2011 4:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-16-2011 4:46 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 265 of 297 (633828)
09-16-2011 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 4:32 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 4:32 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 7:11 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 266 of 297 (633847)
09-16-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by New Cat's Eye
09-16-2011 4:46 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-16-2011 4:46 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-16-2011 7:40 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 267 of 297 (633848)
09-16-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 4:08 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 4:08 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 8:36 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 268 of 297 (633849)
09-16-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 3:28 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 3:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 297 (633851)
09-16-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-16-2011 7:11 PM


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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 7:11 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 270 of 297 (633862)
09-16-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Dr Adequate
09-16-2011 7:15 PM


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:
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/
This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2011 7:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Omnivorous, posted 09-16-2011 8:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019