It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 06:46 AM
reply to post by randyvs

I fail to see how something must have been created by some super-being just because it's "complex" and we can't explain the process (yet). Hundreds of years ago, people thought of lightning and volcanoes as "acts of god"...we now know they were wrong. It seemed complex a few hundred years ago, but today, it isn't complex anymore to the point where we need to claim it's "god's work".

As for the primordial soup, scientists managed to recreate this just a few months ago. They didn't create all base elements, but were able to come up with the majority in just under a it's not unreasonable to assume the same happened in nature over the course of billions of years.

Randy, you looooooooooove attacking evolution, but why is it that you fail horribly at applying the same scrutiny to creationism? Show me just ONE scientific proof for the existence of a creator!! There is none! Bible scriptures don't count for obvious reasons, we never saw god on any "sensors" like radar, he doesn't communicate with us...there is absolutely no proof.

I know you're gonna say "but I have a relationship with god". So are you SERIOUSLY claiming god speaks to you, pretending to be a Christian god, and then visits billions of other people claiming he's the Hindu/Muslim/Gulugulu god??? Why would he chose to be seen as schizophrenic??

Anyway, you got something right...the primordial soup was very likely created by lightning, it's been recreated in a lab. Your thread title is therefore fine

Also, the people claiming everything has been created through "intelligent design" this and you'll realize how ridiculous this thought is given the total absence of any evidence/proof.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by MrXYZ]

posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by randyvs

I think you missed it, what Titen-Sxull meant, with the "Deist" hypothesis (for it was only that...maybe more of an analogy, but not sure).

Point is....YOU seemed to like it (for, as an analogy, it WAS good), but your "titan-skull" (
) lost it when you immediately diverted into the "christ" worship thing...loses all coherence at that point.

I am sorry to tell you --- are you sitting down?

The guy commonly known today as "christ", if it was even just one individual (more likely an amalgam of many) was/were....HUMAN, and not "divine" in any way, shape, form or origination.

Sorry to be so blunt.

The concept, whether the actual person existed as described or not, IS laudable, there is no doubt. Therefore, this "revisionist" effort that was undertaken ( aka the "new" testament ) was a valiant effort to (at great risk to prevailing other 'powers-that-be" at the time, in that era) ... a valiant effort to create a SECT that branched off away from the "hellfire and brimstone" attitude of the 'original' bible..."bible 1.0", if you will....

The "new" testament can be considered the 'beta' bible version...sleeker, streamlined, more user friendly. It was brilliant of the writers who contributed, really --- bringing it 'down-to-earth', so to speak.

(However, as I run with the 'beta' became victim to the age old problem of too many cooks...AND, it was adaptable enough to be subverted by others, who have strayed from the original intent...because it was so vague, it was open to vast interpretations.)

Instead of this ephemeral 'something' in the sky, they created the icon of a real, living breathing person --- someone they could sell better to the ignorant masses, as they figured the masses could relate better to the 'tangible'...even if they never actually met the person in physical reality.

Do you see what a clever, clever marketing job they did?? Even before the concept of "marketing" even least, not in codified terms anyway ( like, there weren't any Universtiy-level courses on the subject..

If all of that rubs you the wrong way...well, sorry. I know I was very unhappy when I learned that Santa Claus wasn't really real....I remember I pretended not to know, for several years, to keep the extra christmas presents coming....!

The myth-makers behind the "christ" story weren't very original, actually. I'll try to find the link, but I've seen plenty of sources that compare many other ancient human belief systems, that pre-dated "christ"....the story is pretty much the same, in each:

---"virgin" birth (or other 'miraculous' formation)
---great sagacity (wisdom) exhibited
---very gentle nature, the "turn the other cheek" attitude (and lesson)
---the iconic figure is killed (sacrificied) in some horrific manner
---ressurection, and the "mystique" and legend is passed on down for generations.

Same ole, same ole....

Humanity still has a lot of growing up to do, and casting off quaint notions that most "religions" try to infect the minds of people with is a good place to start.

[edit on 9 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:58 AM

Also, the people claiming everything has been created through "intelligent design" this and you'll realize how ridiculous this thought is given the total absence of any evidence/proof.
reply to post by MrXYZ

Are you sure this arguement isn't against evolution. Think about it.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by randyvs]

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:02 AM
reply to post by randyvs

Well, rewatch the video...does this look like INTELLIGENT design?? Given the amount of adversity (inhospitable universe, birth defects, etc.) we face I wouldn't call it intelligent.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by randyvs

MrXYZ's video was very compelling FOR evolution, not against.

Want to learn more about evolution? Animals that "look" as if they've been "designed"?? Some, on cursory glances, think so....but, a deeper examination tells us otherwise.

These examples: Many, many imperfections exist -- as you'd expect from accidents of history, IF there were no "designer".

This specific example: The re-curring laryngeal nerve. It is a nerve that in Humans, as well as other animals, connects the larynx to the brain.

Does it run directly from the brain the short distance, only a few centimeters, to our throat, where the larynx is located? NO!!! Why not?? What possible reason would a "designer" have to route the nerves ALL the way down to our chest cavity, near the heart, then BACK up into the neck, to reach the larynx??

AND what about other animals...say, a specific one with a very long neck? Like a giraffe......this is only four minutes long, and has a wealth of info that you cannot refute:

As Sarah Palin might say, "Bring on the refudiation!! (sic)"

(Sigh----I bet that "word" is going into the 'Urban Dictionary' before too long...maybe already Stephen Colbert's "Truthiness".....)

[edit on 13 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:39 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Which would mean the "designer" is incompetent. If that's the case, he's not all powerful and not the being most religious groups pray to. The whole concept is flawed. There's a minuscule chance that everything was designed by some super being (even though we have ZERO evidence supporting that hypothesis), but even if that's what really happened, it would mean that being isn't anything like religious followers believe him to be.

And of course there's always the fun question, which religion is right...if we assume one of them is right at all. Christians will claim they're right because the bible says so, Hindus will quote their scriptures and rituals, and Muslims do the same alongside the thousands of different religions on the world.

They have ZERO proof, yet continue to attack science with their often flawed knowledge of science.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by MrXYZ

You guys arn't getting anywhere with this stuff.

Look at part of my OP

The chances of everything happening by chance, is no chance. Plus an infinite amount of time given in a constantly inhospitable environment?

Now look at what you wrote.

Well, rewatch the video...does this look like INTELLIGENT design?? Given the amount of adversity (inhospitable universe, birth defects, etc.) we face I wouldn't call it intelligent

Seems we are using the same argument in a lot of ways.

The nerve thing dosn't seem ridiculous to you guys at all?"Oh look how this nerve raps around and does all this extra manuevering.
This is not an intelligent design".

That's totally assinine. Those two videos are a joke IMO.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by randyvs]

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by randyvs

Nature doesn't evolve according to chances...that's a human concept. And it doesn't require chances either to evolve.

Like we know what happened back to the big bang thanks to the examination of background radiation. What triggered that even is unknown. It's unknown because we lack knowledge or the technology to examine it. So for now, the answer is "WE JUST DON'T KNOW"...and not "GOD DID IT". If you use god that way, you should call him "god of the gaps" because he's filling a gap in knowledge and nothing more. And only until we explain things scientifically. Just like we explained fire, meteors, volcanoes, rainbows, or how stuff flies. It's just a matter of time.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by randyvs


How can someone see the video about the laryngeal nerve, and not understand its implications??

That, my friend, appears to be the ulitmate denial of "norance" (made-up about knowledge, instead?).

And, as pointed out....the sentence you repeated from your OP is an opinion, nothing more.

An opinion that is just a stab in the dar, really --- saying that even given an "infinite" amount of time, "nothing" will happen randomly?

That is sad.....don't know who says that originally, but it clearly shows either a lack of experience and understanding, or a mind hopelessly warped by fantasy and myth, and a misguided 'hope'....some sort of deep-seeated NEED to 'believe', despite all evidence to contrary.

Not sure, don't recall, how FAR back that was supposed to account? Is it the assertion that the very stars and planets themselves could not even form??? From the building blocks of atoms, and ultimately molecules...before that, the very more basic stuff, stuff that theoritical physics and cosmology are still delving into....

...are you aware that the majority of the elements we find freely on this planet can ONLY be formed in bowels of stars (or other very energetic environments), and are later distributed out into the Universe via the supernovae of stars??? Gold, for example....others above atomic number of, oh....eight for instance (carbon).

It takes tremendous forces to fuse atoms into elements...these are the forces taking place within stars, the larger, the more gravity and the greater the forces --- and heat.

There is a REASON the Periodic Table is arranged the way it is...but, this involves a load of science, and some people just don't care to be bothered to learn it.

(Tied in to that science of chemistry, is also organic chemistry --- the basis for life, as we define it. Even more difficult to grasp and comprehend, and to fully get it requires a great deal of education. I am not schooled deeply in it, but am able to glean the basics, because I can use the gray matter that resides in my skull. AND, I enjoy the learning of new information).

Back to matter, and elements formation...

THEN, the bigger stars EXPLODE! (Only above a certain size threshold will a star nova....) Scattering those elements about...over time, they coalesce, forming other stars, planets, moons...etc. Some exist as disassociated matter --- dust. Some are gaseous, and remain that way...until eventually gravity works, and mutual attraction takes over. It is NOT a simple process, it is very dynamic, chaotic...and takes millions and billions of packets of time that we have labeled as "years".

For our convenience --- since it's the nature of the planet we've evolved on, and its orbit about its parent star (Sun), and it's a handy human-scale reference that people can grasp, due to its familiarity.

BUT...millions or billions? People find that more difficult to wrap their heads around --- hence, the "easy" way out! "religion"...

I also would argue you may substitute the word "easy", up above, with "lazy"....

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in