It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Primary/Adaptable is Life in the Universe?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
First of all, the idea that we are the only life, or only intelligent life, in the universe is absurd. To me that's obviously just the vestiges of an old, geo-centric, superstitious world view. I here want to go beyond the question of whether or not there is life out there. There is an aspect to this that is really quite important, but never seems to get directly discussed. This is perhaps partially because it's difficult/impossible for us to answer. It's also probably because to many people who think they and their worldviews are 'normal,' the idea itself seems quite strange.

Do you think it's possible for life to develop, and even evolve, in drastically different ways, due to drastically different conditions? I know we have found organisms on this earth that have survived in ways and environments we had previously thought impossible for life. For instance, say a planet that is basically firey. Could bodies somehow develop and evolve in an environment of fire? Basically, could extremely different types of bodies evolve to suit completely different planetary conditions? Can you imagine fire-like beings inhabiting fire-like planets? Some esoteric philosophy speaks of things such as this.

Which really ties into, how primary is life to the universe? If life/consciousness is primary and fundamental, you can see how it would find a way to manifest in radically different conditions. If it is just an accidental biproduct of the physical universe, as seems to be the typical point of view of materialists, you would probably argue there would be no reason for it to manifest in conditions much different than here on earth. I just think it is an interesting topic, and one worth looking at directly, which I never really see.




posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
It is funny how bacteria on Mars is considered life while an unborn fetus is not considered life.

Just wait the grey men are coming with a great delusion as to the sudden disappearance of millions around the world. they will appear and will tell you that those monotheists who were not open minded were taken to a rehabilitation facilities on another planet and will be brought back once they complete their re-education.

BTW, that last paragraph was loosely quoted supposedly from St Germain an ascended master of the violet flame in the 1970's to Elizabeth Clair Prophet.


edit on 9-3-2014 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

TheJourney
First of all, the idea that we are the only life, or only intelligent life, in the universe is absurd. To me that's obviously just the vestiges of an old, geo-centric, superstitious world view.


Hello.

Until we find life elsewhere, reverse-geocentrism could also be at play in asserting that life might be everywhere when all we have is evidence for life here, but, nowhere else ... yet.

I personally think that life, and even intelligent life might be all over the universe (not visiting Earth), but, until we actually find any signs, the safest position is to say "I don't know" instead of making emotional proclamations about what is absurd and what is not.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Lol yea just hold your breath and wait!!! If you wait long enough you might do evolution a favor :p



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 


The latest figures have it at 20% of all stars have a rocky planet in the Goldie locks zone.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Here is an idea to ponder. When scientist look at stars they are looking at a time that is not local, non existent to the observers local reality or simply put the 'now'.
If this is a true statement than we should only work off life in our own solar system for any basis to extrapolate true data from. We can then surmise that life as we know and understand it is completely adaptable under pretty much any condition from organisms high in altitude to the deepest thermal vents underwater. Life is everywhere it seems. Life adapts to any condition it seems.
Possible conditions effect the time it takes for complex organisms to evolve but the signs indicate that it will happen eventually.
Planets are always being effected by other bodies with gravity and are always moving into positions that better suit balance and equilibrium.
edit on 9-3-2014 by UltraverseMaximus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

KonstantinaValentina

TheJourney
First of all, the idea that we are the only life, or only intelligent life, in the universe is absurd. To me that's obviously just the vestiges of an old, geo-centric, superstitious world view.


Hello.

Until we find life elsewhere, reverse-geocentrism could also be at play in asserting that life might be everywhere when all we have is evidence for life here, but, nowhere else ... yet.

I personally think that life, and even intelligent life might be all over the universe (not visiting Earth), but, until we actually find any signs, the safest position is to say "I don't know" instead of making emotional proclamations about what is absurd and what is not.





The belief in life outside of earth is just...obvious given the numbers. 100,000,000,000 galaxies. Each with about 100,000,000,000 stars. 1 planet with life? Think about how superstitiously geo-centric you have to be to believe that.

I don't have a problem with 'I don't know' in any case, though.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 


Here is my view OP.

If there is life out there (which i think), it is not something that developed and happened by accident. If there is life out there , it’s because some other intelligent species out there designed it and put it there just like they did on Earth.

It’s not enough (what mainstream scientists claim) that life can occur by accident when different chemical reactions or processes take place. In order to create life, there has to be created advanced organic cells with mass. But even that is not enough, because those cells must also be equipped with super advanced genes that (amongst other things) carry the information about the configuration of the body the cells are going to build. Such complex things like this can only be created in laboratories by intelligent beings.

Therefore. If there is life out there, it’s not going to be just some primitive bacteria’s . It’s going to be a multitude of life forms that pretty much are going to resemble the life on Earth. The hunt for bacteria life is imv. a waste of time and money, but that’s sadly what mainstream science has been suffering from the last decades, because everything that they are doing are based on the evolution theory.

According to some ancient texts, the aliens that initially terra formed and colonized Earth, also terra formed and colonized other planets before they got to Earth. Some of these projects was however abandoned. Thus it can be possible that we can find some planets that sometimes In a remote past had and supported life forms, but which now are completely extinct.

If the mainstream scientists are going to waste time and money on chasing bacteria’s like Nasa has announced on their future missions to Europe, they are going to be sadly disappointed, but eventually all space science bring some good . Thus we can conclude that their beliefs in evolution will definitely lead them astray and waste money and time, but fortunately (and despise this) . If they eventually find a planet that supports life, it’s either going to be the full packet or nothing.

edit on 9-3-2014 by helius because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2014 by helius because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I think that, first of all, many scientists can't even agree on why or how life exists. So therefore, your premise is not so implausible. I would also say that a more evolved species would likely have the fire capability that you described.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Well, it seems as though the universe is fine tuned to harbor life, Earth is a perfect example of that, YOU are a perfect example of that. Life is primary in my opinion and it exists everywhere. Life is very stubborn and seems to pop up in the most unlikely of places on Earth, I don't see why that would be any different on a universal scale.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
The life that is out there in the firmament is not anything you want to mess with.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by KonstantinaValentina
 


That is exactly the way I see it !! A big, "Ditto"!! And, "I don't know", is my favorite saying on such topics. All anyone can do is follow the science and ask a lot of questions.

edit on 10-3-2014 by RUFFREADY because: spelling




posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 





First of all, the idea that we are the only life, or only intelligent life, in the universe is absurd. To me that's obviously just the vestiges of an old, geo-centric, superstitious world view. I here want to go beyond the question of whether or not there is life out there. There is an aspect to this that is really quite important, but never seems to get directly discussed. This is perhaps partially because it's difficult/impossible for us to answer. It's also probably because to many people who think they and their worldviews are 'normal,' the idea itself seems quite strange.


If we take a phenomenological view of the cosmos, the idea that we are the only life in the universe isn't such an absurd notion. We have yet to find that life and we cannot infer with any certainty that there is life elsewhere. Conviction that there is life or no life however is the absurdity.


Do you think it's possible for life to develop, and even evolve, in drastically different ways, due to drastically different conditions? I know we have found organisms on this earth that have survived in ways and environments we had previously thought impossible for life. For instance, say a planet that is basically firey. Could bodies somehow develop and evolve in an environment of fire? Basically, could extremely different types of bodies evolve to suit completely different planetary conditions? Can you imagine fire-like beings inhabiting fire-like planets? Some esoteric philosophy speaks of things such as this.


First the conditions to start life are required in order for it to develop. So far, all we know is that life as we have come to understand it requires the exact conditions and exact history of earth to form. There is no otherworldly context which we can apply to our imaginings.


Which really ties into, how primary is life to the universe? If life/consciousness is primary and fundamental, you can see how it would find a way to manifest in radically different conditions. If it is just an accidental biproduct of the physical universe, as seems to be the typical point of view of materialists, you would probably argue there would be no reason for it to manifest in conditions much different than here on earth. I just think it is an interesting topic, and one worth looking at directly, which I never really see.


Because my inferences rely on a phenomenological viewpoint, in my opinion, life on earth is the beginning of life in the universe, and only through humanity will it spread to other worlds. If I witness something not of this earth exhibiting qualities of life, my mind will change.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join