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.

 

difficult question?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Just my suggestion that you all go back to the dictionary and pick appropriate words to define life that does not use appropriate words. Let me give you a couple of appropriate words.

Proved in 2004, was the term "Exact Uncertainty" after Heisenberg's Uncertainty.

Proved in 2007 mathematically, was the term "Parallel Universes" by an Oxford team lead by Dr. David Deustch.

Now way back in 1990 or so was the thought and still used is the concept of a "Holographic Universe" and "Hyperspace" or "Hidden Dimensions" to the Universe you think you see or feel or hear or touch or smell.

Now, after all of that, you have to have another term called "Faith" to come up with exactly how you explain anything after those above terms.

Until such proper words out of the dictionary come into definition, then perhaps "Creation" and "Intelligence" and "Evolution" are just merely other words to describe something that is still beyond human comprehension. Perhaps not!

And remember "Word" is something with a "w" at the beginning with "d" at the end and "or" in the middle.

Perhaps a metaphysics word that is new will mean according to a definition what you need to define the "Rule" of "Laws" governing this Universe to include Humans and Beings and everything else in all dimensions that probably exist in the "Grand Scheme of Good Design".

So there it is, the "Grand Scheme of Good Design" that includes life in a life-force universe of a metaverse which is a multiverse that includes all universes of a harmonic superverse.






posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Some really good posts here.

To answer the original question, the "Panspermia" theory of life was proposed by an authority no less than Francis Crick, who discovered DNA.

This theory is intended to answer the question as to how DNA could be so complex and so perfect given the limited amount of time that we know life has existed on this planet. (This is one of the essential questions that Evolution does not answer very well.)

I've seen several posts on this now, in various columns. I think it is a legitimate theory to examine -- would rise to the top if we found life elsewhere in the Universe (and this life contained DNA similar to ours.)

Check it out! There is plenty of info on the Web about this theory.

BTW, I am just answering the question -- not sure if I want to argue that this Panspermia theory is actually legitimate. Not yet.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Buck Division
 



This theory is intended to answer the question as to how DNA could be so complex and so perfect given the limited amount of time that we know life has existed on this planet.

Well we know that DNA is far from perfect as there are many problems with DNA structure which cause mutations, diseases, etc...

To put this in perspective, the limited amount of time the theory is referring to is approximately 3.85 BILLION years. That's 385,000,000,000 years.
I guess it's all perspective but the earth's age is only 4.5 billion years.
and our universes age is approx. 13.7 billion years.

Based on these numbers, I personally wouldn't say that it is a "limited amount of time".



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Based on these numbers, I personally wouldn't say that it is a "limited amount of time".


Let me clarify: It is a limited amount of time if you consider life originated on the earth. (It is really a matter of limited time AND space.) Given that human DNA has 200 million rungs, there are 4 ^ 200 million possible permutations of the 4 base pairs (i.e. four raised to the 200 millionth power.) THAT is a very BIG number, even when compared to the enormous size of our planet.

Compared to the size of the universe, the number is smaller and more reasonable.

I think that the above fact is the main argument for considering Panspermia as an explanation for the origins of life on our planet. But, I don't want to argue about it. I am not so sure Panspermia is correct either. I was just offering it up as a less commonly known theory, which has some legitimacy.

(Edited to get quote markup correct.)

[edit on 22-12-2007 by Buck Division]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_weishaupt
I ask this question: can anyone put forward an alternative origins theory beyond the two much discussed?


Sure. How's this? The biggest problem that people run into is that they automatically envision time as always running from the past through the present and into the future. It's the way we naturally perceive the world as animals, and it's what we're used to having been taught Newtonian physics. However, more modern physics doesn't place any particular limit on the way time flows, if it can be said to "flow" at all.

What this means is that the notion of there being some point in the past where things were "created" isn't necessarily accurate. Maybe a more accurate way of looking at things, particularly in a macro- and micro-cosmic scale, is that things tend to constantly and simultaneously pop in and out of reality. It's not that suddenly your chair can vanish into virtuality, but it's not entirely impossible. In fact, little subatomic bits of your chair are doing just that. You just can't see it, because those bits are almost instantly replaced by other bits.

So if we aren't tied to that whole idea of something in the past being the source of creation (or atomic manipulation), then it could happen any time, including right now, or in the distant future. It's all the same to time.

Another interesting component of contemporary physics is the idea of observer states. That is, things are in an indeterminate state of existence until something or someone observes it. If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to observe it, it doesn't fall, and it doesn't even really exist. (Of course, in real life there are other trees and birds and bugs and bacteria all around to make the tree "real.")

Anyway, rather than there being a need for a Creator Intelligence (God) at the beginning of time, it's perfectly reasonable to imagine that every living thing in the Universe -- including you and me and every blade of grass and bacteria and flying squid on a planet millions of light years away -- all contribute to defining and sustaining the Universe from moment to moment, into both the future and the past, by being alive and observing it.

What do we mean by observing? Consciously participating, including imagining. After all, what is imagination but pulling an image from virtuality by using consciousness?

Where did life come from? Basically, we imagined it, and it came into being in the "past." We pulled the necessary molecules together with our thoughts and intentions and they became alive. Think of it as "bootstrapping." Or maybe a temporal loop, except remember, time doesn't really move in a way that could be "looped."

What are the mechanisms? These are a little difficult to define right now, but they may be related to what we know as Out of Body Experiences (OOBEs), remote viewing, telepathy, and maybe most importantly, telekinesis. The ability to move things by intention, and regardless of time frame. It could be as simple as that. When you think of a red apple, and form a picture of it in your mind, you're actively moving all kinds of atomic bits around to make that happen. How? We don't know. But it happens. Is Stephen Hawking or some other supergenius on a distant planet "creating" the past by thinking really hard about it? Maybe so.

How do we evolve? By observing our environment, and making subtle changes to our molecular structure that allow us to survive when that environment changes. We may even get a little bit of a boost from living creatures in our "future," who manifest changes in our DNA and guide it toward survival and higher levels of intelligence and consciousness, using the mechanism above.

Anyway, you asked for an alternative theory. The nice thing about this one is that it doesn't rely on some kind of powerful Grandpa God in the sky to suddenly bring the Universe into being, and it doesn't rely on pure chance to have things evolve to get us where we are today. Another good thing about it is that everybody and every living thing in the Universe gets to participate to some degree.

The bad thing about it, of course, it that the mechanism is hard, if not impossible to prove. There has been some good research into "psychic" phenomena that suggests there may be something to it. Even the Army thought so. But the results have been very questionable.

However, it's as clear as the red apple in your mind that consciousness is absolutely and unquestionably capable of directly manipulating matter -- photons, neurotransmitters, etc. -- at least on a small scale. And maybe there's an alien superbrain(s) out there somewhere in the Universe that's a lot better at it than we are. When we're dealing with subatomic particles and molecules, being manipulated in non-linear time, maybe that's all we need to get the ball and keep it rolling.




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_weishaupt
I ask this question: can anyone put forward an alternative origins theory beyond the two much discussed?


Sure. My theory is exactly inbetween both of them. It's actually a hybrid of both.

I believe that an intelligent creator designed the Universe and our world, and physics .. and reality. But he did not do it over night, nor did he do it in seven days! Seven days yeah, when days are actually a billion years a piece maybe.

So what the creator did was design "evolution". This way, everything will work itself out and eventually come out precisely the way that the creator envisioned it originally. But it takes place slowly and gradually over very long periods of time. To us its alot of time, but to the creator I'm sure it seems much different. So the creator allowed all the laws he designed to govern the Universe to run their course instead of him constantly having to stick his hand in the fish tank so to speak.

So evolution was intelligently designed.

Think of it like the game "Sim City", the classic. Even though you are designing everything, once certain things are in place, other things spontaineously happen or are created. So you have all this control, and yet, you still arent in the thick of everything at every moment. You can sit back and let it all run by itself.

[edit on 12/22/2007 by runetang]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by runetang
 


Is there any reason, in the form of evidence, to make you think this idea is based in fact or is it based on religious faith? Just curious.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Soothsayer
So why not combine the two? God clapped His hands together, causing the Big Bang, or what-have-you. God had a plan, an idea... He began the work, He knows where it will end, so why muddle with the in-between?


Or in this case... God was young (it was billions of years ago) and decided to let a big (bang) firecracker go off... now look at him now. Old, and regretting it every day.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Whether or not God created the universe, I don't know. Whether or not God is responsible for evolution, again I don't know, but it's pretty obvious that evolution has indeed been occurring for millions upon millions of years! A visit to any decent museum's natural history department should help anyone see that...

reply to post by Nohup
 


The point about altering on a molecular level - that thought occurred to me a week or so ago whilst watching a nature documentary, which showed (among other fascinating things) a small fish which had evolved to look almost exactly like a squarish pebble! Practically invisible on the ocean floor, I wondered just how exactly the species knew that that was the best form of camoflage for it? This led me on to think about other creatures, in particular how certain butterflies knew that disguising themselves by colouring their wings like poisonous flower petals would deter predators? As they have such short life spans, how could they possibly be aware of what change is necessary and how to bring that about? Hmm...could it be that the idea of a certain flower being poisonous to the butterfly's predators is stored genetically?

Do creatures we consider to have very basic intelligence operate at a far higher level than we are aware? Or is evolution possibly an extension of instinct, and is instinct a lot more complicated that we think?

I dunno, I'm rambling, therefore quite probably talking a lot of pish....



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Well, the Evolution part is based on the current findings of science.

The Creator part is based on my faith, and my inability to accept Big Bang theory as fact.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
So evolution was intelligently designed.




Very well said.

I don't think we really need alternative theories at this point. Evolution explains how the Universe was formed. Intellignet design explains why. Pretty simple really.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I suppose that actually using the term "Intelligent Design" though does not include a "Spirit" to any design. Perhaps just as a debate, intelligence can be viewed to be good or bad, according to what another intelligence thinks about exactly what is or what becomes or what is decided to be 'intelligent'. Maybe just "Spiritual Design" can be debated with "Intelligent Design". The only reason is that there is no real reason to think that for some reason humans will be allowed to live in this Universe, forever -- given that Evolution as a Theory may not allow that to happen. Also as an example some scientists think that with the current path of the galaxies of the local group of around 50 galaxies that the Milky Way Galaxy (our galaxy) collides with the Andromeda Galaxy in about 3 billion years. If humans live, then perhaps we have to re-locate before that time to somewhere else. The linear time is getting shorter if the Earth and Solar System is around 4.5 billion years old already. Humans do not seem to be very intelligent at this point in time -- being stuckies (or inmates) bound to just this Planet.

So "Design" may be an appropriate word to use, but I am not so sure about the "Intelligent" part seeing that if the rest is all about in the paranormal instead of the current 'what you see is what you get' type of science, then humans have a long way to go before actually thinking that humans are anywhere near 'intelligent'. Is that good or bad that such an "Intelligent Design" seems to have included Fear along with the so-called Faith inherently given by the words in a religious text or other words of text constructed throughout all the years humans may have or will be on this Planet. Well, the adjective word before "Design" actually may not be the appropriate word still to use. I scratch my head still looking for a word to use. "Scheme" seems to fit also as in "Grand Scheme of Good Design" also but then again the definition of what someone else who is suppose to be an intelligence such as humans is given again as an opinion on why any of this type of action should be all equated to "Intelligence" in the first place. Before 'intelligence' for example can be included then you have to also consider the debate on why in the end, humans can seem to be not 'intelligent' in the end. Evolution Theory may dismiss that thought also in the future of the linear time.

Well the Realm of All is maybe also all difficult to explain in the end by seemingly a limited species such as humans. The thoughts may be there, but it also has to be practical according to the "Rules" or "Laws" of the Universe as humans give right now or even in the future after maybe numorus other headaches.




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I have the sort of mind that leans towards science and research - heck, I'm a paranormal investigator. I search for proof of the afterlife - (and have found it). But when it comes to evolution, I believe it applies to SOME things, just not ALL things. I simply can't accept the Big Bang theory and theory that says life formed accidentally in some crazy Soup and evolved up into everything we see around us today. I can't accept that man evolved from Apes either... I just keep going back to "Okay, then why are there still Apes?" (LOL!) No matter how hard I try, it just doesn't compute.

While I respect the views of those who do believe it, for me personally it just is nothing more than an attempt to explain how God did it. I think the more you study nature and the human body and all it's designs and the sheer complexity of it all the more you realize that there HAD to have been intelligent design involved.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Nohup has skilfully articulated most things I wanted to say. However, I want to go one step further. There is no reality. We are souls locked inside a virtual reality machine called Life. The story has been set by God and, at various times, different players enter (birth) and leave (death). However, you get rewarded for morally good things you do and punished for the morally bad things you do in this machine.

The story gives you clues along the way about how God created and then evolved this game (fossil evidence; quantum wierdness...). To add some extra spice, we have super moderators (Moses, John the Baptist etc...) who come along at regular intervals to teach us about God and to try to make us to enter into moral rectitude.

When the game is over, the plug is pulled and you see that the reality you have experienced was mere illusion. So that the CEO of a corporation who screwed over all his competitors and his employees suddenly finds his true power and worth to be ZERO.

Your actions are added up and you remain in a state of regret (Hell) or in a state of ecstacy (Heaven) until the Universe persists in this story. When the Big Crunch arrives, we are all destroyed until new players are created.

Does this make any sense? I don't really know. But it appeals to me.

[edit on 23/12/2007 by Heronumber0]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sotp
 



I wondered just how exactly the species knew that that was the best form of camoflage for it? This led me on to think about other creatures, in particular how certain butterflies knew that disguising themselves by colouring their wings like poisonous flower petals would deter predators? As they have such short life spans, how could they possibly be aware of what change is necessary and how to bring that about?


Evolution is not sentient. The species themselves are not aware of what type of mutation they need for survival. What happens is as follows:
EX:
Butterflies fly around and land on stuff.
Things eat the butterflies.
Throughout the generations, random mutations occur which involve among other things, color on the butterflies wings.
Things continue eating the butterflies but one day there is a random color mutation that makes the butterfly slightly harder for the predators to see and it survives to pass along the mutation.
The predators slowly evolves the ability to find the butterfly again and so they both continue evolving. One evolves better camo and one evolves better predatory senses/skills in a never ending pattern unless one makes an evolutionary leap and overtakes and eliminates the other.

This of course is a very simplistic analogy of what happens.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
reply to post by jfj123
 


Well, the Evolution part is based on the current findings of science.

The Creator part is based on my faith, and my inability to accept Big Bang theory as fact.


Thanks for the response. I was just curious as to your reasoning for your post. I appreciate the fact that you separate evolution by saying "the current scientific findings"
and
your faith.

The theory of evolution does not take The Big Bang into account. Just an FYI.

Once again, thanks for your response



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
It should be pointed out there are a number of other theories, and also a number of other evolution theories too, such as Orthogenesis, Lamarckian Evolution, and Evolution Through Self-Organization. That last one is the latest to come about because of the mathematical impossibilities of Darwinian Evolution.

Somebody also mentioned Panspermia. There are a couple of kinds of that. One is that organisms came here on meteors. The other is Directed Panspermia, which Francis Crick and astrophysicist Fred Hoyle (both atheists) support which says life was created elsewhere in the universe and brought to earth by aliens.

Another one not mentioned is that we started out in spirit form and devolved into material form. You should see the thread I started on in this section about Alfred Wallace witnessing a human form materialize. That almost leads some credibility to this one. It also puts a big thorn in the side of Darwinian evolution.

The Darwinian explanation isn't a good one as it conflicts with so many phenomena, not to mention the way the fossil record appears does not support that mechanism. But because any theory that goes beyond simple materialism is rejected, we may never get an alternate theory. However, there are many scientists which are doubting the Darwinian explanation and are drifting away from it even if there is no alternative to replace it.

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” - Sir Fred Hoyle (Atheist Astrophysicist)


[edit on 23-12-2007 by Elhardt]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elhardt
Another one not mentioned is that we started out in spirit form and devolved into material form. You should see the thread I started on in this section about Alfred Wallace witnessing a human form materialize. That almost leads some credibility to this one. It also puts a big thorn in the side of Darwinian evolution.


This is how the Bible and the story in Genesis implies things almost. I know it says humans were created by God, but there is a constant theme of the Spiritual being above, better than, pure, so pure you can only enter if you too are pure, so pure it is light, so pure that there is no matter, only spirit. Then you have the angelic beings who were tempted and "fell" and are now "evil" or bad and roam the Earth causing problems, while still apparently in a non-physical form, or a non-matter form.

If there is a spot that you can feel something, detect heat, detect sound, detect all these things in this one spot but see no matter in the spot, could it not be that there is more than we can sense, experience, comprehend, etc? That there are different levels of existence, and we are nearly at the bottom? Doing good deeds and living good means you ascend?

Ascend? to rise? to rise where? to what? what happens after you rise? is it happily ever after, or are you experiencing a new existence, or a new state of being, as opposed to reincarnating into another physical human being, or worse, going down the totem pole into some sort of Hellish existence.

Sometimes I want to apply the I-Ching Yin and Yang concept to the Universe, and say that for every spot in the Universe where there is no matter, just emptiness or vacuum or "space" or whatever, that on another level or plane of existence which is non-physical, these spaces are all places of habitation, travel, whatever .. by the spirits, or ascended beings. And all of the places where there IS matter, such as the planets, well, you can figure out their purpose yourself, but it seems we are stuck here in this arent we, and it seems they can go anywhere and arent stuck, right? so the previous analogy of this being a virtual reality has some merit. No one knows what happens after you die, what you experience or dont experience.

You could "wake up" with wires attached to you in a "machine" that resembles a CAT-scan machine, surrounded by white robed beings. Who really knows. But I do know one thing, I am fond of surprises!

[edit on 12/26/2007 by runetang]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_weishaupt
"Ideas can evolve and so can animals. It can be shown in laboratories using species that reproduce at extremely active rates. It is also evidenced in the many variations of domesticated animals and cultivated crops, both of which have evolved by means of Artificial Selection."
Surely what is being observed is adaptation not evolution.


An excellent point, and one I would have made myself. There is a very large amount of unused DNA info in all organisms that easily accounts for the tremendous adaptability we observe.

As to a third theory of origin, how about a spiritual continuum that is eternal, and therefore preexisting, of which we are all a part, and which manipulates matter for it's own purposes? Wait, that's pretty much God, huh? Ok, you stumped me.







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join