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.

 

Was life on Earth Inevitable?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Life from water? Life from a meteorite? Life from God?
There is a new equation: Life from a 'released build up'.


Scientists often feel forced to regard it as almost miraculous. Now two US researchers suggest that, on the contrary, it may have been inevitable.They argue that life was the necessary consequence of available energy built up by geological processes on the early Earth. Life sprang from this environment, they say, in the same way that lightning relieves the accumulation of electrical charge in thunderclouds

www.nature.com...

It's a good read, and I'm looking forward to see if this actually goes somewhere.
Basically, they compare the origin of life to lightning. When the right materials and required accumulate, and the right conditions are provided, 'it just happens'.

On a side note, It's a step forward for Omnism.


[edit on 16-11-2006 by Gear]




posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Nothing 'just happens.' This is another failed attempt by science to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized. Let's say that there theory is true that things were "just right" for life on earth. Why earth? Why wasn't it "just right" for pluto? Or "just right" for Saturn, or maybe Venus? Honestly,this theory doesn't hold water.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Nothing 'just happens.' This is another failed attempt by science to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized.

Why do you think the existence of life can' t be rationalized? Its a chemical process.


Let's say that there theory is true that things were "just right" for life on earth. Why earth? Why wasn't it "just right" for pluto?

Because conditions are different there.
I mean, why aren't there plate tectonics on pluto? Because the conditions aren't right for it. Why aren't the conditions right? Well, why should they be? Why is it cold in antarctica and hot at the equator? Because of a miracle, or the amount of insolation?


Honestly,this theory doesn't hold water.

Why?

The researchers call this process a "collapse to life", which in their view is as inevitable as the appearance of snowflakes in cold, moist air.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Nothing 'just happens.' This is another failed attempt by science to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized. Let's say that there theory is true that things were "just right" for life on earth. Why earth? Why wasn't it "just right" for pluto? Or "just right" for Saturn, or maybe Venus? Honestly,this theory doesn't hold water.



Why does there have to be a reason? Yes it could have happened on any other planet, and it might actually have.


Just because it happened on earth dosent make it special.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why do you think the existence of life can' t be rationalized? Its a chemical process.


Let's say that there theory is true that things were "just right" for life on earth. Why earth? Why wasn't it "just right" for pluto?

Because conditions are different there.
I mean, why aren't there plate tectonics on pluto? Because the conditions aren't right for it. Why aren't the conditions right? Well, why should they be? Why is it cold in antarctica and hot at the equator? Because of a miracle, or the amount of insolation?

Why?

The researchers call this process a "collapse to life", which in their view is as inevitable as the appearance of snowflakes in cold, moist air.




Why do you think the existence of life can' t be rationalized?


Because I believe in a God;that's why.


I mean, why aren't there plate tectonics on pluto? Because the conditions aren't right for it. Why aren't the conditions right? Well, why should they be? Why is it cold in antarctica and hot at the equator? Because of a miracle, or the amount of insolation?


Don't you think it a bit strange that conditions are "just right" on any planet? I assume that there is indeed other lifeforms out there, are we to also assume that conditions were "just right" for them too, for no other reason than "blind evolution?" No need to argue,we all know that that is what these two "scientists" are suggesting. That all life throughout the universe has come into being through the process of "blind evolution."



[edit on 16-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 16-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
How insane does this sound? Now listen because this is what science proposes. "Everything just poppped into existence." How crazy is that? It just,out of no where,popped into existence,huh?
Okay. Of course,I am reverting to the creation of the universe,but,this theory here sounds about as ridiculous to me.

[edit on 16-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 16-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Because I believe in a God;that's why.

Ok, but then you can't really say that the theory doesn't 'hold water'.

Also, why does it matter if you beleive in god? Does your beleif in god make you think that gravity isn't responsible for the movements of the planets?

What if god created the universe in the big bang, knowing full well that, somwhere, in the universe, the conditions for naturally formed life would be right, and life would arise?



Don't you think it a bit strange that conditions are "just right" on any planet?

No. Why?

are we to also assume that conditions were "just right" for them too, for no other reason than "blind evolution?"

Evolution has nothing to do with it. Its chemistry. The conditions on mars are 'just right' to produce what we see, Mars. Why expect a miracle to have resulted in it?

If we have a planet where there is water and carbonate rocks, then the conditions are 'just right' to have the water dissolve the carbonate. Thats not a miracle, its just the way things work.

That all life throughout the universe has come into being through the process of "blind evolution."

They are saying that life is in inevitable result of chemical and geological reactions, that just like if you have proper temperature, moisture, and air content, you will get snowflakes. It has nothing to do with evolution, which is how life changes once it actually exists.

"Everything just poppped into existence." How crazy is that?

Science does not have an answer for 'why there is existence'. Further, science is merely an attempt to look at the evidence, and rationally analyze it.

It just,out of no where,popped into existence,huh?

Science does not say this. Scientists have no idea where reality came from. It might not even be a question answerable with science.

Of course,I am reverting to the creation of the universe,but,this theory here sounds about as ridiculous to me.

I don't think 'god did it' is a satisfactory answer, and its pretty clear that its not a usable or workable answer. Saying 'god did it' didn't get us to land on the moon or discover genes.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Nygdan,
believe it or not,I can't disagree with anything you said..


Ah...why do I do this?

Here is my actual opinion about science in general. I think that science is a good tool to use to try and explain things. I also think that most scientists want to know if there is a "creative force" presiding over the universe. However,as you alluded,Nygdan, such a question may not even be answerable by science.

Initially science was designed to study what can be known. That which is unknowable was left in the realm of philosophy and religion. However, since the mid to late 1800s,science has decided,at least in my opinion, to intrude into the arena of philosophy and religion. That,to me, is a big no,no.

Chemistry,which is a science I know little about.. As is quite obvious...
I am more into physics. Anyway, if chemistry is what caused life on earth to come about, then so be it. However, there has to be an initial source for all things. Anyone knows that you can't get something from nothing.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Nygdan,
believe it or not,I can't disagree with anything you said..

Ah...why do I do this?

Because you're a masochist, like the rest of us.



I think that science is a good tool to use to try and explain things.

Yep. I think thats what most scientists think of it as too. As the saying goes, it explain the 'how', but not the why. Science can describe the big bang, but it can't tell us 'why there is something, rather than nothing'.

That which is unknowable was left in the realm of philosophy and religion. However, since the mid to late 1800s,science has decided,at least in my opinion, to intrude into the arena of philosophy and religion. That,to me, is a big no,no.

How has it intruded? Science stays out of metaphysics and the supernatural. The origin of life may merely not be supernatural is all.


However, there has to be an initial source for all things. Anyone knows that you can't get something from nothing.

This is appaprently not true. When physicists look at truly empty space, where there are no atoms or subatomic particles, etc, they find that other ephemeral particles pop into and out of existence, sometimes its called the 'quantum foam'. Things come out of nothing, and then go back into nothing.
Perhaps thats a good illustration of what science is doing. It can see these particles pop into existence, observe them and study them, perhaps even explain how they come into being or what factors influence it, but they can't penetrate beyond existence, they can't follow them back into the non-existence from which they seem to come.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

How has it intruded? Science stays out of metaphysics and the supernatural.


Well, for example, In the 1800s there was massive "investigation" of spiritualists. Now,I can understand if the spiritualist is trying to claim that he/she raised someone from the dead,maybe science getting involved. However, to me, from what I have gathered, science outrightly went out to try to prove,a task they have yet to succeed at, that there was no existence beyond the grave.

Let me ask. Why? What does science or anyone else have to gain from such a venture? If it is proven that there is indeed an existence after death, then everything that science has "proven" must be called into question,not to say that it isn't anyway. In this scenario,science loses. If it is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no existence beyond the grave, then you have a disheartened poplation. Society loses. What were scientists of the 1800s hoping to gain from "proving,"as was their aim, that there is no existence beyond the grave?

[edit on 16-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 16-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 16-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Nygdan,



Things come out of nothing, and then go back into nothing.


With all due respect I just cant see how this could be true. It would violate the law of cause and effect or for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Trying to imagine somthing being created from nothing defies logic. I think it would make more sense to imagine they are coming from a parallel univerise or another demension.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Nygdan,



Things come out of nothing, and then go back into nothing.


With all due respect I just cant see how this could be true. It would violate the law of cause and effect or for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Trying to imagine somthing being created from nothing defies logic. I think it would make more sense to imagine they are coming from a parallel univerise or another demension.


Most definitely. However, physics still has a long way to go before it explains things at the subatomic level. This "nothing" that particles are jumping in and out of is "something." We just don't know what that "something" is as of yet.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Nygdan,



Things come out of nothing, and then go back into nothing.


With all due respect I just cant see how this could be true. It would violate the law of cause and effect or for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Trying to imagine somthing being created from nothing defies logic. I think it would make more sense to imagine they are coming from a parallel univerise or another demension.


That may be true.

scientists have theorized that the particles may be coming from another universe due to the wormholes that might be forming in the foam.


the formation of wormholes therein; speculation arising from this includes the possibility of hyperspatial links to other universes.


Read more on quantum foam on wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
well
the universe is a quite complex place
what makes it more confusing is the fact that it isn't everything there is
the most likely scenario (as proposed by M theory, which i have trouble understanding on more than a general level) is that we live in a sea of universes

so, the universe is a sea of star systems, and the universe itself is part of yet a greater sea

the possibility of life NOT existing in at least 1 instance through all those possibilities is just so slim



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Nygdan,
believe it or not,I can't disagree with anything you said..


Ah...why do I do this?

Here is my actual opinion about science in general. I think that science is a good tool to use to try and explain things. I also think that most scientists want to know if there is a "creative force" presiding over the universe. However,as you alluded,Nygdan, such a question may not even be answerable by science.

Initially science was designed to study what can be known. That which is unknowable was left in the realm of philosophy and religion. However, since the mid to late 1800s,science has decided,at least in my opinion, to intrude into the arena of philosophy and religion. That,to me, is a big no,no.

Chemistry,which is a science I know little about.. As is quite obvious...
I am more into physics. Anyway, if chemistry is what caused life on earth to come about, then so be it. However, there has to be an initial source for all things. Anyone knows that you can't get something from nothing.






Your last statement disproves yourself, because this would also mean that its impossible for god/gods tojust pop into existance

creative force does not mean concious, omnicient, omnipontent god.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear

creative force does not mean concious, omnicient, omnipontent god.


When I say creative "force" that is exactly what I mean. I am not talking about a "force" like electricity or just plain ol' energy.

[edit on 16-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear

Your last statement disproves yourself, because this would also mean that its impossible for god/gods tojust pop into existance



You seem to imply that God's existence has the same determining factors as a physical system does. It does not. You cannot apply physical laws to a spiritual body.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Who would have known that this would have turned into an argument over the origins of the universe, rather than life?
It's unrelated, people!

I'll stay on topic.


Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Nothing 'just happens.'

Obviously not.
This doesn't say that life 'just happened'. It suggests that life Is the result of a build up or resources in the right conditions.
Look at it this way: A new born baby.
Where does it come from? Does it just happen? Does it just pop into existence? No.
It grows in the womb when given the correct nutrients. Without the correct nutrients, (resources) and if it was not in the womb (conditions), It cannot grow, and will die.
Or, if you like, look at the example they gave. Lightning doesn't just happen.


Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
This is another failed attempt by science to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized.

What exactly do you mean by 'another failed' attempt? What other theories of this nature have failed and been outright disproven?


Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Why earth? Why wasn't it "just right" for pluto? Or "just right" for Saturn, or maybe Venus?

Together with:

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Don't you think it a bit strange that conditions are "just right" on any planet? I assume that there is indeed other lifeforms out there, are we to also assume that conditions were "just right" for them too,

Earth's chemical makeup is entirely different to that of the other planets. As are the conditions, due to the location and distance from the Sun.
On a side note, should life actually exist in this solar system, then that does not prove this theory wrong. It will actually support this theory.
The materials and conditions on those planets would be 'just right' to start, and form life, but It would be a different makeup to life on Earth. It could not survive in our conditions, as we could not survive in 'theirs'.


Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Honestly,this theory doesn't hold water.

Actually it 'holds more water' than the other theories.

  • Life from water.
    Back when the land was too hot for life, and the ocean was too cold, the right materials required either formed in foam, were blown into a rock pool, where conditions were right to form.
  • Life from a meteorite.
    The Earth had ideal conditions to support life, but lacked the materials. Then one day a meteor hit Earth carrying the correct proteins to start life, or even actual dormant bacteria.
  • Life from clay.
    I'll be honest here... I have no idea how this one is supposed to work. It just doesn't seem likely to me.

  • Life from God.
    6010 years ago there was nothingness in the universe. Three days later there was life. But not just anylife, complex organisms, some whom had language.
    Hmm... but weren't you the one who said 'Nothing just happens'?



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Ive always thought life started on earth with the only thing nature can provide that humans seem to have, that no one can explain.
electricity.

what is that 'spark' in our head that makes all the right nerves KICK giving us feelings, emotions, movement rah rah rah?

I believe lightning is the cause.

some sort of cellular activity on the ground after rain fell or maybe salt water or something... was struck by lightning at precisley the right time, and the right place, and it sparked ... life!

least thast how id like to imagine how it started.

enevitable?
No.
Possible?
Yes.
Probable?
No.
Miracle?
Yes
Result of religous Creation?
NEVER!



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear

Your last statement disproves yourself, because this would also mean that its impossible for god/gods tojust pop into existance



You seem to imply that God's existence has the same determining factors as a physical system does. It does not. You cannot apply physical laws to a spiritual body.


This last statement is pure opinion and something that is unproveable. One because physical laws apply to everything in outr universe so if why not apply to spirits, that the first thing id like you to explain, citing some sort of proof or experimental evidence. And secondly prove that spirits even exist, citing some sort of proof or experimental evidence



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join