The Brilliant New Science That Has Creationists and the Christian Right Terrified

Hello, ATS. A scientist at MIT is saying that science is proving that life can develop WITHOUT god. His theory revolves around the properties of Thermodynamics and how heat energy drives the processes which allow life to form within the "SYSTEM." The point he makes is that life doesn't come from a god but from a system which is already conducive to living things.

“[U]nder certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life,” he was quoted as saying in an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider. In essence, he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

In other words, coming to life is an automatic process which happens under certain conditions; no God necessary.

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

Pretty interesting what this guy has to say. I think the gist of what this guy is saying is that the Universe itself is life and that it's already conducive to create living things, and that life on Earth probably started at several places and not in just one place. Pretty cool idea. I had a similar idea years ago when I was speculating on the origin(s) of life. Still cool though. What says ATS?

www.salon.com...

It takes a scientist to figure out the obvious?
This is old news to me.
Newsflash! The Universe is alive.

You may be right in your title. However I think the Christian Right already has enough to worry about, the Devil. Oh, wait, to them, this science and the devil are the same thing. One more lie by the devil to sway the sinners and less faithful in the last days. All part of the Armageddon Scenario. .

a reply to: lostbook

The entire premise is based on faulty logic that presumes all these highly convenient things which support his so called theory, just sprang into existence, and also follow highly law abiding processes, are just doing a perfect job of self sustainment all by themselves, even though they all must follow some magical predetermined set of rules, which are also just magically there by themselves, and continue following laws and rules that nobody made because the universe just made itself and everything in it, and it all just keeps on going because nature automatically created itself too, and it keeps going by itself too because, well, it just happened? And finally this guy just figured it all out? How wonderful!

The laws of thermodynamics do not properly account for the influences of life. life needs companion life to evolve, something to mix with to thrive. Just like putting a single piece of log in a fire, it will not keep burning without a companion. Two logs in my stove or one log with coals from a previous log burning will keep burning but it doesn't work so hot by itself. Life forms need other life forms to take off properly, most often they need other types of life to evolve.

This variation was supplied to earth from seeds of other planets. That is why earth is thriving with advanced life. Now we are talking in the beginning, that is a different story, where is the beginning. It is in some sort of structured energy. Frequencies are needed of a kind compatible with the life.

So this guy's idea is just an idea, but in reality the formation of life in the beginning is almost incomprehensible to us. Something formed god initially, god probably was formed from the original life scattered around everywhere, a communication between all life.

But I am just a mouse, and what does a mouse know. If I am going to get people mad at me I might as well piss off both sides and do it right.

a reply to: lostbook

I'm a scientist. I don't believe in fairy tales.

But this "theory" shows nothing. He's saying there's a thermodynamic model that explains life started.

No kidding.

We're here, right? It has nothing to do with God, or not having a God, or whether or not space aliens created us.

originally posted by: skunkape23
It takes a scientist to figure out the obvious?
This is old news to me.
Newsflash! The Universe is alive.

Yeah, it doesn't take a scientist to realize that the Universe is alive; the planets are alive, etc... We are the organisms that live on a planet; I believe that every planet has its own organisms (lifeforms). In that respect, we are like planets to the micro creatures which live on each and every human, and on and on....

We all know that life doesn't exist until mainstream science prove it for us.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Well-said.

a reply to: lostbook

Scientists saying life doesn’t need a God is a meaningless statement.

When I read the headlines of this article I was exited until I read it and realized the meaninglessness of his logic.

It's like saying you don’t need God to have sex or have a baby!

Do they expect to see or find God in physical phenomenon?

These scientists keep saying this ridiculous “you don’t need God for life” as if they understand God or any spiritual understanding of God…THEY DON’T.

So why do they even bring up God in their postulations?

What do they expect to see a God at the end of their mathematical formulas?

If you don’t see God at the beginning of these formulas you won’t see him or her at the end of them

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: lostbook

The entire premise is based on faulty logic that presumes all these highly convenient things which support his so called theory, just sprang into existence, and also follow highly law abiding processes, are just doing a perfect job of self sustainment all by themselves, even though they all must follow some magical predetermined set of rules, which are also just magically there by themselves, and continue following laws and rules that nobody made because the universe just made itself and everything in it, and it all just keeps on going because nature automatically created itself too, and it keeps going by itself too because, well, it just happened? And finally this guy just figured it all out? How wonderful!

Yeah, I took note of that as well. His theory doesn't explain what put the system to create life in place-in the first place. However, I think his point is that a living system is prominent throughout the Universe which is conducive to life; this system obviously had to be put in place by a God but God doesn't manage a life creation process as we are taught. Life is a relative property of a living system.

Wow, new science that says that life evolved from effectively nothing with no evidence and no logic, no proof.

Where have I heard that before, oh that's right.

Same old same old just in Christmas paper.

I am terrified, truly terrified.

No science, no tests no logic and no evidence Still NO PROOF, shesh just prove it and I will shut up.]

originally posted by: rickymouse
The laws of thermodynamics do not properly account for the influences of life. life needs companion life to evolve, something to mix with to thrive. Just like putting a single piece of log in a fire, it will not keep burning without a companion. Two logs in my stove or one log with coals from a previous log burning will keep burning but it doesn't work so hot by itself. Life forms need other life forms to take off properly, most often they need other types of life to evolve.

This variation was supplied to earth from seeds of other planets. That is why earth is thriving with advanced life. Now we are talking in the beginning, that is a different story, where is the beginning. It is in some sort of structured energy. Frequencies are needed of a kind compatible with the life.

So this guy's idea is just an idea, but in reality the formation of life in the beginning is almost incomprehensible to us. Something formed god initially, god probably was formed from the original life scattered around everywhere, a communication between all life.

But I am just a mouse, and what does a mouse know. If I am going to get people mad at me I might as well piss off both sides and do it right.

You're a very smart mouse. Maybe one of those Secret of Nymph-mice. Remember that movie?

www.youtube.com...

To answer this scientist directly I WOULD SAY THIS:

Sure what he describes is a cause and effect phenomenon that doesn’t have a God saying: “Peek a boo I'm here”

What he describes is a CONTEXT for life. Wonderful

Still he says life needs this or that to be such as closeness to the sun.

Well it matters that some design or circumstances have been evolved bringing all the elements at the right time and place for Life and those contexts are still mysterious and unfathomable by science because you’ll always run into an unknown in examining psychical phenomenon.

That unknown or unseen IS GOD

THAT IS GOD!

England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary.

I've never, in all my Life, heard or read a Creationist say that Life was "accidental"!!!

& upon further reading the young scientist doesn't mention God, Creationism or anything inbetween.


Sensationalist headline was unnecessary to the theory.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: lostbook

Scientists saying life doesn’t need a God is a meaningless statement.

When I read the headlines of this article I was exited until I read it and realized the meaninglessness of his logic.

It's like saying you don’t need God to have sex or have a baby!

Do they expect to see or find God in physical phenomenon?

These scientists keep saying this ridiculous “you don’t need God for life” as if they understand God or any spiritual understanding of God…THEY DON’T.

So why do they even bring up God in their postulations?

What do they expect to see a God at the end of their mathematical formulas?

If you don’t see God at the beginning of these formulas you won’t see him or her at the end of them

Why do they use, bring God up in these science issues.
Simply because its not science and the only way to garner support and get attention is create an us and them attitude and get all the good little evolutionists talking like they are here

On its own the article is valueless, throwing in God and evolution makes it relevant and hip.
Its all ho hum and they want to add value to ho hum

a reply to: borntowatch

You’re saying they are doing old grudges for science

grudge science?

Maybe we should blame the writer of this article who wants to make a pointless point

a reply to: lostbook

Oh, you are talking about the NIMH mouse. Yeah, I guess I do read a lot of the National Institute of Mental Health research. I also read a lot of NIH. I guess I live in a cartoon world observing stuff that might be fantasy from NIMH.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I've never, in all my Life, heard or read a Creationist say that Life was "accidental"!!!

& upon further reading the young scientist doesn't mention God, Creationism or anything inbetween.


Sensationalist headline was unnecessary to the theory.

You're right. Creationists don't claim that life was an accident, usually just the opposite.

I also agree that this guy isn't the one mentioning God either. I think it's the people reporting about it that are making those connections.

This MIT guys seems to be saying that Life in an inevitable result that arrives from Non-Living Systems if and when the conditions are right. It seems to me like an explanation of how complexity, specifically the complexity of life can come about from less complex, non-living systems which goes against normal entropy when viewed in respect to the laws of thermodynamics.

I don't really see what the problem is with that either. Many theories have been around showing similar ideas. Although it sounds like this guy may have come up with some formulas for it, which is pretty cool.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: borntowatch

You’re saying they are doing old grudges for science

grudge science?

Maybe we should blame the writer of this article who wants to make a pointless point

I won't take sides here. Just presenting this article to ATS for discussion. However, I do applaud this scientist for his bravery and thinking outside of the box. Science is still learning, growing, and expanding. Based on current knowledge this guy's theory sounds like non-sense but what if there's some merit to it based on what we don't know?

a reply to: lostbook

I remember in biology they had something called abiogenesis. This sounds like that.

I would have to more closely study this theory