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.

 

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

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
How can we be so sure that this isn't Gods way of creating life?

God isn't some man in a cloud, God is woven into the very fabric of the universe. Maybe life forms without religious gods but not without the true God.
edit on 1/4/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Sorry to be a bore, but there are at least two threads on this subject already.

One of them was started by me (ahem).



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Unfortunately, the 'OP' looks to have begun this thread with a provocative agenda for controversy. Neither the article in Quanta magazine, nor England's original paper discuss God. The Salon website introduces the controversy, and even though the 'OP' could have followed links to the Quanta article, and/or England's original paper, the 'OP' chose to link to the Salon website.

Jeremy England:

Every species of living thing can make a copy of itself by exchanging energy and matter with its surroundings. One feature common to all such examples of spontaneous “self-replication” is their statistical irreversibility: clearly, it is much more likely that one bacterium should turn into two than that two should somehow spontaneously revert back into one.


www.englandlab.com...

First and foremost, what England states here is the fact that statistical irreversibility is a natural in-built prohibition for a system to be immortal. All life dies, and the process of dying begins after a small pause once any 'living' system has reached its highest level of organisation and complexity (adulthood). It requires a lot of hard mechanical work for a highly-complex system to feed and maintain itself with the necessary energy it needs to remain at optimal organisation and efficiency.

Firstly, the environment has to be such that it allows life to appear and evolve. It must contain all the required aspects for life's evolutionary adaptation to changing conditions within the environment. The changes to environment have to occur very slowly indeed. If they happen too fast, life dies. It would seem that life can adapt itself to whichever stasis of equilibrium lasts the longer, and hopefully evolve the necessary adaptations within the speed of environmental changes in order to survive.

Systems have to evolve into greater complexity for increasing longevity. Systems are modular, where the sum is greater and expresses differently than its parts. The human body is a very highly-organised, highly-complex modular system whose sole function (I would suggest) is to enable a growth and a limited longevity for our mental person-hood. Physically, we are conceived, birthed, and grow to adulthood, then a short pause where optimal body stasis is maintained (long enough to reproduce and care for the off-spring into adulthood), and then the system begins to age, falter and dies. There is no irreversibility in this natural process. Adults cannot grow back into childhood to re-begin the process over and over again, ad infinitum.

England's theory is not new, the idea has been around for a while. Clearly, thermodynamics play a big part in the appearance of life, but at some point, at some level of complexity, life itself takes over the job of supplying the demands of its own energy needs, by taking materials (including other life forms) from the environment to fulfil its own energy needs.

The real debate here is at what point does a cluster of inanimate objects organise into a life form, and what 'cause' directs it?

Many would have it that the 'cause' is God, a rather disingenuous proposition. We always have to remember that science didn't cause God's absence, it simply uncovers it in all of its investigations and repeatable experiments. The evidence is such that it can be confidently stated that God never actually existed, no matter what protestations can be cried at it. Of course, some would say that no evidence of God is not evidence that God doesn't exist...and I agree; but we are not talking of no evidence, we are talking of evidence of God's absence that leads to the logical conclusion that God never existed. So the cause that compelled inanimate objects to organise into a simple life form can indeed be a random event of fluctuation within the thermodynamic.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Religious fundies won't be worried about a scientific theory. Myth is untouchable and therefore perfect. That's the attraction.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
Sorry to be a bore, but there are at least two threads on this subject already.

One of them was started by me (ahem).


Sorry about that. I did search ATS for this topic and nothing came up.

I gave you a star and flag just for good measure.
edit on 4-1-2015 by lostbook because: word add



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
It is mere jargon posing as Natural Law. Laughable.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
How can we be so sure that this isn't Gods way of creating life?

God isn't some man in a cloud, God is woven into the very fabric of the universe. Maybe life forms without religious gods but not without the true God.


That weave gets tighter and tighter the closer we look and not find a god in the mix.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

God is the universe.

The universe is alive.

This idea isn't new however. It's just that people are now open minded enough to receive the idea.

I would suggest reading the following book -

The universe: a vast electrical organism.

A Google search will bring up many free pdfs since this is an antiquarian book with an unknown publishing date (but it is known it predates the 1940s).



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I don't see any new science here, nor anything for anyone to be scared of.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I don't see any new science here, nor anything for anyone to be scared of.


There is no science and the whole thread is in a forum to do with conspiracys in religion

I guess thats the point, the theory if it is, is a conspiracy to make people believe what they want them to believe.
Also makes me realise some non creationists accept that their beliefs in science are basically a religion.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: lostbook

Religious fundies won't be worried about a scientific theory. Myth is untouchable and therefore perfect. That's the attraction.


It is just as much a postulated "myth" that life, everything spawned from nothing, as you say, and those thinking this are just as much "religiously fundamental" in that view, as opposed to that which say God did it.

And there are no facts known to support either basis, except for testimony of old writings, so you aren't worried about it either since you claim to already know better? It can't and has not been proven by science where and whence it all came from.

The known facts are still limited by being encapsulated in a small zone of knowns, but swimming in a larger ocean of the unknown.



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I think it is safe to say that all Properties of life were present when the singularity was formed. And life evolved from the singularity as it expanded and became Our known universe.

It is being said that time and Space started With the Big Bang. But that is only partly true.

The odd thing is that People cant understand that there was time and Space before the Big Bang. Because it cant be scientifically proven. But what existed before the BIg Bang to initiate its event/happening?



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
The title is cute.......Christian right........

Like Christians and the "right" are the only ones that believe in a God.......like there arent how many other religions out there?

Even spiritualists believe in a creator.........so do Pagans, Hindus, Muslims etc etc etc.......

Its clear what the point of this thread and this hit piece's intent was........

But the ignorance shines as a beacon, excluding all other belief systems world wide that believe in a supreme creator.....

And they call those of us with a faith divisive........



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
More bonehead atheism that does not make any sense at all.Still have to prove where life came from anyways.No one can,why it is called theories and faith.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Yeah, in the beginning " nothing " exploded and thats where all life came from....Good line of reasoning leading to this conclusion....
a reply to: lostbook



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
The title is cute.......Christian right........

Like Christians and the "right" are the only ones that believe in a God.......like there arent how many other religions out there?

Even spiritualists believe in a creator.........so do Pagans, Hindus, Muslims etc etc etc.......



Hey! Don't forget Spiritual Atheists.

www.centerforabetterworld.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Yep, life is so inevitable that we still have yet to find it anywhere else but here ...


I'm not saying it isn't out there, but it seems a little early to call it inevitable and imply that it's as common as dandelions in my yard when we are still the only known source of it.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook


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?

Actually Steven Hawking has postulated this some years back. It's all theoretical and would not even consider it science.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

If there was a way to TUG or even carry a celestial object/Planet
and place it in a GROWTH assessed location near a STAR

Or if there was a way to control PANSPERMIA events

Or even generate a projective reality for metaphysical souls
to learn within with physical bodies

Who would many consider the designer of such settings



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

God is Light and the heat is The Fire of The Holy Spirit (Love) if scientists want to claim our creator is lifeless and call The Holy Light and Holy Fire (Love) , "The Big Bang Theory" or thermaldynamics then that is their choice but Light and The Fire/Love is ALIVE . May God give all scientists and atheists the wisdom to Know this.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join