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.

 

Primordial soup with a dash of lightning?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
The chances of everything happening by chance, is no chance. Plus an infinite amount of time given in a constantly inhospitable environment? I have yet to meet a soup, that can survive the infinite amount of time, needed for life to take hold.
Dosn't soup evaporate? Take a glass of water for instance. You have a glass and the water comes out of the sink. You can sit and watch the glass forever to see if water will somehow end up in the glass. Or you can stand up and become part of the equation.

There is far less chance, of everything happening by chance, then the chance there is a Supreme being as part of the equation.
Far less chance, after chance, after chance. How many points are there, in the story of evolution, where science has to use, an obviosly frail chance happening, to replace the word God?
Thank God for evolution.

Would evolution be so mindful as to put finger nails at the ends of our fingers? Can you imagine trying to pick a sliver from your ass or whatever body part without fingernails? Scratching that same ass wouldn't work as well without them either.Would evolution be harder to believe if we didn't
have fingernails? Thank God for evolution.

Science lately, has come to the conclusion, that laughter is good for both your physical, as well as
mental health. I know there is probably a clinical way to explain laughter. Human emotion along with it. What can explain the reason for laughter? Would evolution be harder to believe if we didn't laugh? Well it is good for something so Thank God for evolution. Very mindful indeed.

Can scientists make a star? Can they produce anything that will burn and burn and burn everyday and never stop? Hardly even flicker? Science can explain all that goes on involving stars . Stars are really no big deal. The Earth just happens to be spending enough time, the perfect distance from the Sun, for mankind and evolution all to happen? Science loves to speak maniacal numbers like hundreds of millions of trillions of billions of years. It seems science wants to be granted an infinite amount of time just to let evolution get started.

Most of the time, I believe when science is being truthful. They say the earliest civilizations go back
to around six thousand years ago. Ten thousand tops.That number seems to get larger if the conversation leans towards creation. Coincidentally the Bible does seem to add up the same number for mans creation. Six thousand years ago. Funny the Bible even goes further in the use of the number Six in relation to man. In revelation, it is the number of a man. the average height of man is six feet.God created man on the sixth day.The depth of which a man is buried is six feet. Five is the angelic number. Six being the human number closer to Gods number 7. There in lies the problem. At any rate, thank God for evolution.
Then there is the bombadier beetle.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by randyvs]




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I would argue that the whole "God" or "Nature" thing is pure semantics.

God created us from dust and breathed life into us.

Life was created when (possibly) electricity zapped a primordial soup.

If you use the word "God" and "Nature" interchangeably, you come up with the same damn argument. Life was created out of stuff that used to be non living and some "force" breathed or zapped life into being.

Since religion and science are arguing the same damn thing, why make such a big deal out of what each other calls that "force?" What does it matter to you what someone else calls it?

Christians dont need to convert scientists to get into heaven the last time I checked. And scientists dont need to convert Christians to do what they do. If Christians would mind their own business, (tend to the beam in their own eyes) like their Jesus instructed, there would be no problem. If scientists would stop proclaiming that the ridiculousness of a 6000 year old Earth disproved the possibility of a Divine altogether, there would be no problem.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 





Christians dont need to convert scientists to get into heaven the last time I checked. And scientists dont need to convert Christians to do what they do. If Christians would mind their own business, (tend to the beam in their own eyes) like their Jesus instructed, there would be no problem. If scientists would stop proclaiming that the ridiculousness of a 6000 year old Earth disproved the possibility of a Divine altogether, there would be no problem.


Is there a problem?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Not if you dont consider mindless bickering, attempts to eradicate each others beliefs, and slaughtering each other for 2000 years a problem, no.

If all that is fine with you, then there is no problem.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by randyvs
 


Not if you dont consider mindless bickering, attempts to eradicate each others beliefs, and slaughtering each other for 2000 years a problem, no.

If all that is fine with you, then there is no problem.


Actually, I think it's the religions fighting with each other not the sciences versus the religions; so your comparison doesn't really work. But, I get what you're saying anyway. It's just that people seem to always feel better about themselves and their beliefs (whether scientific or religious) when they can get others to agree with them.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Ifyou would take the blinders of "religion" off, perhaps you would have a better view:



This one is a must 'read'...and the music is tranquil....so relax and enjoy.

(I think it's relevant...):




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvsMost of the time, I believe when science is being truthful. They say the earliest civilizations go back
to around six thousand years ago. Ten thousand tops.That number seems to get larger if the conversation leans towards creation. Coincidentally the Bible does seem to add up the same number for mans creation. Six thousand years ago. Funny the Bible even goes further in the use of the number Six in relation to man. In revelation, it is the number of a man. the average height of man is six feet.God created man on the sixth day.The depth of which a man is buried is six feet. Five is the angelic number. Six being the human number closer to Gods number 7. There in lies the problem. At any rate, thank God for evolution.
Then there is the bombadier beetle.



Can you define what you mean when you say "civilization' ? You are lying or misinformed no matter how you answer.

www.nature.com...
For example.

Forgetting how silly your claims are, lets say the earliest known "civilization" is 6000 years ago.

How in your mind does science get the dates 6000-10,000 years old right, But you scream they are invalid when any date gets anywhere past 10,000 ?

en.wikipedia.org...
You do not accept that the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but in your mind you seem to accept science can/has dated civilization back to 6000-10,000. (You are wrong btw)

Can you see how this seems ... odd ?




[edit on 8-8-2010 by nophun]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 35Foxtrot
 


I included the secular in that statement because of the attack on religion by the USSR.

en.wikipedia.org...


The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion[1] and its replacement with atheism as a fundamental ideological goal of the state[2][3]. Toward that end, the communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools.[4]


Neither side is innocent, though it could easily be said, "Religion started it."

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





Ifyou would take the blinders of "religion" off, perhaps you would have a better view:

I don't even own blinders. Religions definetly not my cup, but I follow you.

Both videos are great. The are professional in every way and seem careful not insult people for what they believe. The one thing you must understand is you can start each video off with the words .

This is how God did it. Still you would come away making the same amount of sense of everything that was said.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by weedwhacker




Both videos are great. The are professional in every way and seem careful not insult people for what they believe. The one thing you must understand is you can start each video off with the words .

This is how God did it. Still you would come away making the same amount of sense of everything that was said.


I just want to point out the the maker of the first video is DonExodus2 a former Christen who posts videos (and posted when he was a theist) debunking Creationism/Intelligent Design.


I actually would highly recommend you watch some of his videos Randy. www.youtube.com...

Particularity the earliest ones when he considered himself a theist.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by nophun]

[edit on 8-8-2010 by nophun]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Ok why not. I'm reminded of Robert Deniro in Analyze This. He tells
Billy Crystal, "Ok Doc but if you turn me to a fag. I'm gonna kill ya!"
Great movie,

I found the link on autism highly informative. Might need to reconsider my position on vaccines now.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



I think that is the first post from you that never made me want to throw my laptop out the window.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


I can say this, I see no need for insults coming from anyside of these issues. For me if some one posts a video. With the narrator talk'in chit.
All I hear is chit. So I was rebellious to that and will still be.

I tried not to be insulting in the OP while presenting another side to this issue, I see as one of the most important questions in life. I take it seriously.
So naturally professionalism is what I look for first. Sometimes I was being to sensitive. So being that way also helped me iron out some of that.

Oh hey laptops arn't cheap.





How in your mind does science get the dates 6000-10,000 years old right, But you scream they are invalid when any date gets anywhere past 10,000 ?

No I don't think I would scream at dates of fifty thousand even a hundred thousand after that, I think you're get'in iffy. Amounts of time that suggest eons are simply hard to swallow from a leymans point of view.
Even in science the leyman is sometimes proven correct after all. That is to say common sense thinking.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
In revelation, it is the number of a man. the average height of man is six feet.God created man on the sixth day.The depth of which a man is buried is six feet. Five is the angelic number. Six being the human number closer to Gods number 7. There in lies the problem. At any rate, thank God for evolution.
Then there is the bombadier beetle.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by randyvs]


This paragraph is grasping at best. As the discussion on civilization has already been covered I'll address the other parts. Nowhere in the world is the average male height 6 feet, let alone the average height of the entire world. Furthermore, even if the average height was 6 feet, what about height before the modern age? Average height was much lower in Biblical times, so why would the number six be chosen if it didn't correlate to height until 2000 years after the Bible was written?

As for burying people six feet under, that's just an expression. There is actually no set depth for burials. Some places have a minimum depth of 1.5 feet, while others are as high as 12 feet. In a place like New Orleans it is completely impossible to bury someone six feet under because the land is so low, the grave would flood with water. Even at 2 feet the risk is not completely gone. Furthermore, the practice of burying people six feet under only goes back as far as London's Great Plague of 1665, when an edict was made stating that people had to be buried at least six feet under in order to help stop the spread of plague.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





As for burying people six feet under, that's just an expression. There is actually no set depth for burials. Some places have a minimum depth of 1.5 feet, while others are as high as 12 feet. In a place like New Orleans it is completely impossible to bury someone six feet under because the land is so low, the grave would flood with water. Even at 2 feet the risk is not completely gone. Furthermore, the practice of burying people six feet under only goes back as far as London's Great Plague of 1665, when an edict was made stating that people had to be buried at least six feet under in order to help stop the spread of plague.


This is some knowledge. I love how on ATS you can post something. Someone nows about it or can find info about it, right now.
Thank you Excalibur. Great info on that. Sadly I can't even debate any of
it. It all rings with the truth. Makes sense.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by nophun

No I don't think I would scream at dates of fifty thousand even a hundred thousand after that, I think you're get'in iffy. Amounts of time that suggest eons are simply hard to swallow from a laymans point of view.
Even in science the leyman is sometimes proven correct after all. That is to say common sense thinking.


That is the problem, Randy. 50,000 years or even 100,000 is just a fraction of the age of the Earth.
We can go back 10,000 years with dendrochronology (Tree rings). I am guessing this is why your myth switched from 6,000 to 10,000.


www.nature.com...
web.utk.edu...

Ice core samples have brought back 50,000 years.
www.talkorigins.org...

Radiometric dating gives us .. Yes 4.5 BILLION years.
Take it or leave it this is the age of the Earth.
en.wikipedia.org...

To try to put this in prospective.
Light travels at 300,000 km a second, It takes the Sun's light 8 minutes and 31 seconds to reach us.
That is 8.31 light minutes away from us. (I hope I did not really need to explain that
)

The farthest known galaxy (A1689-zD1) is 12.8 billion light years



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Randy, I would think that you should know by now that the idea of primordial soup being struck by lightning is a strawman. Its a misconception set out by Creationists and then knocked down as laughably absurd.

The thing is science hasn't quite figured out how life formed on its own during the first billion years of the Earth's history. There are multiple scientific hypotheses regarding Abiogenesis. None of them, to my knowledge, violate any fundamental laws of nature or the Universe, all could have happened naturally without outside intervention. We are just trying to figure out exactly which plausible method is the one that actually began life on Earth.



There is far less chance, of everything happening by chance, then the chance there is a Supreme being as part of the equation.


This assertion has absolutely nothing behind it. I hate to say it Randy but this is an argument from ignorance. You can't imagine life coming about by natural chemical processes and so you have to add a God to the equation, science isn't allowed to do that. They have to find the real answer and cannot rely on supernatural explanations.



Would evolution be so mindful as to put finger nails at the ends of our fingers?


Evolution is not mindful of anything, it is not a consciously directed process. Nature also carves beautiful waterfalls, massive ice bergs, and awesome canyons and yet it wouldn't take much at all to say those are all naturally formed and didn't require a God. We understand the mechanism of evolution just as we understand the erosion that created the canyon.



Would evolution be harder to believe if we didn't laugh?


No, because we wouldn't know that we were missing anything. You see laughter didn't evolve in us first. You might as well be asking if evolution would be harder to believe if all apes had three legs instead of two... No, it wouldn't, because that's the way we would have evolved in that scenario and such would be evident from our evolutionary relatives.




It seems science wants to be granted an infinite amount of time just to let evolution get started.


So after resorting to the "fine tuned for life" argument and asking whether scientists could make a star (why did you ask that exactly?) you claim the time scientists give Evolution is infinite...

1-1.5 Billion years after the formation of the Earth, that's not infinite even if it is a LONG time.



They say the earliest civilizations go back to around six thousand years ago


Depends on what you define civilization as. Oh sure the first really big civilizations got started around that time. Sumerians and such. But human beings have been around for 200,000 years. We've found cave paintings that are well over 10,000 years old, as well as instruments like flutes. Tools, clothing, and lot's and lot's of remains older than 10,000 years have also been found. The Bible never puts an accurate figure on the time frame for the Creation of man. Most of the math done by Creationists is derived from the ages people supposedly lived to in the Bible, but if we look we see people living into their 900s. Every ounce of evidence we've found shows that people lived shorter lives in the past, not longer ones and certainly not nine centuries worth. So trying to claim real archeology supports the Bible based on botched Creationist math is a bit of a stretch.

The Bombardier Beetle is meant to say what exactly? What of the various types of parasitic wasps that lay their eggs in caterpillars and other insects, the eggs hatch and the insect is eaten alive from the inside out... Surely if a good God had a hand in evolution no such system would have ever developed.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


There you are. I thought maybe you were boycotting me.



Randy, I would think that you should know by now that the idea of primordial soup being struck by lightning is a strawman. Its a misconception set out by Creationists and then knocked down as laughably absurd.

Well I never said I wasn't naive about some things. You mean there are misleading creationists?



Evolution is not mindful of anything, it is not a consciously directed process. Nature also carves beautiful waterfalls, massive ice bergs, and awesome canyons and yet it wouldn't take much at all to say those are all naturally formed and didn't require a God. We understand the mechanism of evolution just as we understand the erosion that created the canyon.


I would agree with this too. It says God created the Earth so he gets credit for the canyons and waterfalls the earth forms over long periods. Not hard to accept.




The Bombardier Beetle is meant to say what exactly? What of the various types of parasitic wasps that lay their eggs in caterpillars and other insects, the eggs hatch and the insect is eaten alive from the inside out... Surely if a good God had a hand in evolution no such system would have ever developed

I'm not at all sure that there is any suffering or mercy to be weighed
concerning the world of insects. Maybe we should be glad that dosn't happen on our level.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Let's say for a moment that God really is real and he created the Universe, I doubt he wants to waste all sorts of time carving each individual canyon. Much quicker to set up geology to do it for him naturally. The same goes of evolution, if there is a God he could well have set up this world to take its own evolutionary course without his direct intervention.

This would be, unfortunately for most religions, is more of a Deist God, one who sets the Universe in motion and then sits back and watches the show.



Maybe we should be glad that dosn't happen on our level.


Tell that to a woman in child birth


[edit on 8-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 





Let's say for a moment that God really is real and he created the Universe, I doubt he wants to waste all sorts of time carving each individual canyon. Much quicker to set up geology to do it for him naturally. The same goes of evolution, if there is a God he could well have set up this world to take its own evolutionary course without his direct intervention.


Ok now you're talk'in to me baby. I think I could at least take some stock out on this as a huge possibility cause this would really have no conflict at all with the spiritual aspects of what I feel about Christ.
Ya I like that.

Nophun



(I hope I did not really need to explain that )

Let's just say I wouldn't have known any difference if you left that out.
So I don't sound like a smart ass hopefully.

Certainly there are more things between Heaven and Earth than what meets the eye.
I am at least seeing things, more clearly, from a different point of view. So I gain no matter what, in that respect and have lost nothing.

This is actually a thread that was concieved a few weaks ago. I couldn't find it til today. I just threw
it out here to see what the answers were to a few points it made.
Thanks to all who dared enter here. Titen n Nophun. get a nod.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by randyvs]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join