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.

 

Cosmogony, Abiogenesis, & Evolution

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
In a number of threads we have been spinning our wheels arguing over how to define the discussion, based on scientific terms. What the parameters of the discussion should be. It's been interesting I have learned some interesting things about science. However the goal seems to be to compartmentalize the discussion, I honestly don't think you can do that and discuss the totality of the scope of the issue.

The issue is did God start time with the beginning of creation of atomic matter from his energy in a type of big bang and then create life forms in full form and place them on this earth including man. For I cannot and will not chop the discussion into three sections, it's all or nothing. After all, either you believe the biblical account that even Jesus referenced or you don't. The biblical time lines are not literal so that portion is not really up for discussion.

This thread allows for no compartmentalization of the discussion, talk about and discuss anything from the alpha to the omega of creation or conversely how you think the universe developed and life started and then "evolved" on this earth.

I will be posting information on all areas as we go along.

Note: If you only want to discuss "the theory of evolution" I suggest you post in some of the many threads that are discussing it.

To start our solar system, if we were in a science fiction movie it would be called the "earth system" is located in the ideal region of the Milky Way Galaxy- not too close to the center and not to far way from it. This "habitable zone" as scientists call it, contains just the right concentrations of the the chemical elements needed to support life. Farther out those elements are too scarce; farther in the neighborhood is too dangerous because of the greater abundance of potentially lethal radiation and other factors. "We live in prime real estate", says Scientific American magazine. It is obvious that this spot was chosen as the best spot for humans to live in the galaxy.

Pure chance?
Never!
edit on 22-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I don't think anything here is by pure chance, I believe this Universe was created by a Designer, kinda like a hardwear Program. Did God created it? Sure, why not, I believe that, but what is 'this universe' all about anyways? really. When you wake up in the morning, and read about scientists debating rather or not a perceived third dimensional reality could and woould consist of a two dimensional inset hologram, it kinda makes you wonder if we are living in some kind of Created/Simulated reality. The Signs of a Designer here is almost too perfect, if you ask me. I believe, that if we lived in a Universe run off of pure chances, no karma, and no Single designer, then maybe that spiral wouldn't mean so much after all.

El 7



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
In a number of threads we have been spinning our wheels arguing over how to define the discussion, based on scientific terms. What the parameters of the discussion should be. It's been interesting I have learned some interesting things about science. However the goal seems to be to compartmentalize the discussion, I honestly don't think you can do that and discuss the totality of the scope of the issue.


Well, that's not the point of those other threads. The point is to discuss one thing at a time. You can't really get into the totality of the scope of anything unless you've got at least a rough understanding of its parts.



The issue is did God start time with the beginning of creation of atomic matter from his energy in a type of big bang and then create life forms in full form and place them on this earth including man.


Well, that's three entirely separate fields of science that you're dealing with.

Would you be able to provide any sort of proof of those three extraordinary claims?



For I cannot and will not chop the discussion into three sections, it's all or nothing.


So science must be a futile discourse, as it actually seeks to understand things, not lump them together for mass consumption.

It has to be discussed in three sections or we're going to be jumping around like caffeinated lemurs in here between entirely separate realms of science. Not just from evolution to abiogenesis, but from biology to astrophysics, which are two topics in science that are incredibly different.



After all, either you believe the biblical account that even Jesus referenced or you don't.


Ok, so you're a Biblical creationist.

Would you kindly lay out exactly what you believe?



The biblical time lines are not literal so that portion is not really up for discussion.


So what are the timelines then?



This thread allows for no compartmentalization of the discussion, talk about and discuss anything from the alpha to the omega of creation or conversely how you think the universe developed and life started and then "evolved" on this earth.


So this is basically a creationist shill tactic to link all fields of science that disagree with creationism together in an attempt to topple all the dominoes if even a single part of an entirely unrelated theory is incorrect...



I will be posting information on all areas as we go along.


I look forward to this 'information'.



Note: If you only want to discuss "the theory of evolution" I suggest you post in some of the many threads that are discussing it.


Well, at least you're taking your own advice on this one.



To start our solar system,


Whoa there little doggy....why are you starting there?



if we were in a science fiction movie it would be called the "earth system"


It's typically called the "Sol" system in science fiction, but whatever.



is located in the ideal region of the Milky Way Galaxy- not too close to the center and not to far way from it.


Whoa! Another question, where are you getting this information?

We are in the 'Orion arm' of the Milky Way, and we're actually quite far from the center of the galaxy, we're pretty much on the outskirts.



This "habitable zone" as scientists call it, contains just the right concentrations of the the chemical elements needed to support life.


You know, you're throwing out a lot of stuff without citation.



Farther out those elements are too scarce; farther in the neighborhood is too dangerous because of the greater abundance of potentially lethal radiation and other factors.


Again, where are you getting this from?



"We live in prime real estate", says Scientific American magazine.


Wow, you just quoted five words from a magazine that's been published longer than I've been alive without any context or reference to article.
Oh, I'm not doubting that the words are in there, I'm just confused as to the context.

Issue number? Anything? I'd like to see exactly where that external quote came from.



It is obvious that this spot was chosen as the best spot for humans to live in the galaxy.


So I take it you can conclusively prove that this is without a single doubt the most perfect, well chosen place in the galaxy?




Pure chance?
Never!


Um...you're basically arguing against something you can't win against with this argument. Aside from the above objection, namely that you cannot prove conclusively that there is no better spot for us to be than here, you simply can't say that life arose here because it was chosen unless you have supporting evidence.

I have a much simpler counter-thesis. Life arose here because it was the one of many likely places for it to arise, especially if we take your thesis that we're in the 'best spot' to live in.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
So you say God is energy ? Energy is infinite right ?

There, that would mean that God does not have to be created and also that God is the creator of everything. Just that first spark... The allspark



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


We are actually so far removed from the center of our galaxy, there was even speculation about Sol ( our sun ) to be part of another galaxy. Like the Magellan clouds.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

To start our solar system, if we were in a science fiction movie it would be called the "earth system" is located in the ideal region of the Milky Way Galaxy- not too close to the center and not to far way from it. This "habitable zone" as scientists call it, contains just the right concentrations of the the chemical elements needed to support life. Farther out those elements are too scarce; farther in the neighborhood is too dangerous because of the greater abundance of potentially lethal radiation and other factors. "We live in prime real estate", says Scientific American magazine. It is obvious that this spot was chosen as the best spot for humans to live in the galaxy.

Pure chance?
Never!
edit on 22-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


Actually, there are numerous (and I really mean numerous) spots in the Milky Way where our solar system would have no problem surviving.

The "habitable zone" as you call it, refers to the distance planets require to be to allow for liquid water, or what we consider the basis of life...and NOT the location of our solar system within the Milky Way. It has nothing to do with what elements are around and in what quantities. Depending on the type of sun, the habitable zone varies in size and location.

Your conclusion that this spot was "chosen" is pure speculation at this point. We have no evidence of any creator figure picking this spot or creating it. Fact is, this is where we live, and it's in the right spot for liquid water and therefore life. That's great, but nothing we know of would suggest this is anything other than pure (lucky) chance.

If you divide the distance between the sun and the farthest planet (Neptune) into equal parts of 16km, and if the habitable zone would require you to hit one exact 16km strip (which obv isn't the case...in reality, the habitable zone is a lot wider), then the chance of earth hitting that habitable zone are about the same as winning the lottery. As we know, people win the lottery every week. Now before you say "but there's billions of people playing the lottery", let me tell you that Sagan estimated there are over 100bil galaxies just in our observable part of the universe. That was over 20 years ago, technology made a ton of progress and the real figure is probably a lot higher. Given that, a planet sitting in the habitable zone probably won't be as rare as you think.

Some scientists speculate about life on planetary moons in our solar system (Europa) which is technically possible even though it's outside the habitable zone...

As for evolution, you're right, we don't need to talk about it in this creationism thread as it has NOTHING to do with how life started

edit on 22-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 





Pure chance? Never!


Considering that there are billions and billions of other stars in our galaxys so called "habitable zone", why not?

Even the concept of a galactic habitable zone is wrong. With the exception of galactic center and galactic halo, metallicity and radiation are similar everywhere in the galaxy, not much different from that of the Sun.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 





Pure chance? Never!


Considering that there are billions and billions of other stars in our galaxys so called "habitable zone", why not?

Even the concept of a galactic habitable zone is wrong. With the exception of galactic center and galactic halo, metallicity and radiation are similar everywhere in the galaxy, not much different from that of the Sun.


But it's exactly what you get when you search for information on pseudo-science websites like the Creation Institute. Those sites pretend to be scientific, but don't even apply scientific method when making conclusions.

The sad part is, a LOT of people completely switch of their brains and blindly accept anything as long as it is in line with their religious beliefs. Politicians use the same tactics by bringing in religion. A lot of people have no clue about specific policies and what they mean for them, but vote on the basis that "their" politician is "Chrisitian and just like them".

Science as a hole is like a giant unbiased jury. Everyone can come up with a hypothesis, but he'll face the entire scientific community trying to poke holes into his theory. ONLY if no scientific evidence against can be found, is something classified as a "theory".

Creationism doesn't follow those guidelines, religion won't allow for an objective peer review. In fact, often they claim they don't have to even back up their claims because religious scriptures are enough.

This is why I get a bit annoyed when those pseudo-science websites try to pretend to be "scientific". The uneducated part of the population will blindly believe it simply because it fits their world view...no matter how biased or illogical the conclusions are. And now we have idiots trying to top that by claiming it's science.

Clearly, those people have no idea about true science...and I don't even mean that as an attack. Not knowing about science isn't a crime. I might know a lot about real estate after years of studying and working in that field, and I had 8 years of biology at school amongst other science classes...but I have not the slightest clue how to cook. I also have no clue about how to dance. But at least I'm not coming along claiming to know how to cook and dance...and if I wanted to do those things, I wouldn't ignore teachers and factual books teaching me those things. Ignoring facts makes you ignorant...and goes against the mantra of this site. A good mantra by the way!

Another example regarding evolution:

According to Gallup, only around 5% of scientists claim to not believe in evolution...some of them even work in fields that wouldn't qualify them to make any statements regarding evolution. But let's assume for a second this was a game of probabilities and there would be a 5% chance that evolution is wrong (it isn't btw).

You are locked up in vault, and next to you is a bomb with a red and green wire. You are on the phone with a bomb expert and he tells you in order to disable the bomb, you have to cut one of the two wires. There's a 5% chance you should cut the red wire, and the expert tells you he's 95% certain if you cut the green wire, everything will be ok.

Which wire would you cut??

So if 95% of scientists tell you evolution is a sound theory, and only 5% tell you the opposite...and your life depended on it, which group would you believe? If you're seriously looking me in the eye and telling me you'd go with the guys who disbelieve evolution I'm gonna take the liberty of declaring you INSANE! Also, do not ever play poker if you value money...and if you do, please tell me when and where because I wanna play you all night long

edit on 22-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
On to the Sun and earth location

At about 93 million miles from the sun, this orbit lies within a limited zone that is habitable because life neither freezes or fries. Moreover, earth's path is almost circular, keeping us roughly the same distance from the sun year round.

The sun, meanwhile, is the perfect powerhouse. It is stable, it is the ideal size and it emits just the right amount of energy. For good reason, it has been called a very special star. (Perfect Planet, Clever Species-How unique are we?)

Pure Chance?
Never!



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
On to the Sun and earth location

At about 93 million miles from the sun, this orbit lies within a limited zone that is habitable because life neither freezes or fries. Moreover, earth's path is almost circular, keeping us roughly the same distance from the sun year round.

The sun, meanwhile, is the perfect powerhouse. It is stable, it is the ideal size and it emits just the right amount of energy. For good reason, it has been called a very special star. (Perfect Planet, Clever Species-How unique are we?)

Pure Chance?
Never!





You do realize that scientists are finding more and more earth like planets that lie within the habitable zone. Obviously they're too far for us to check for life, but just being in the habitable zone isn't as rare as you wanna believe.

Example

And we just recently learned how to find other planets...the amount of space we've been able to check is tiny compared to the visible universe from earth...and even smaller if you compare it to the whole universe. I know you'd like all this to be special, made "just for you"...but I'm sorry to burst your bubble, nothing we know would suggest some super-being made it all or that we're that special. We also might not even know about other life forms that aren't based on carbon...our sample size is tiny. There might be life forms that are very different from what we consider life...they could be silicone based for example.

Also, that you mention this again shows that you're not really interested in a discussion, because you clearly didn't read my previous post. Probability wise, being in the habitable zone isn't as special as you might think...or as special as some creationist websites want it to be.

edit on 22-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul




Ok, so you're a Biblical creationist.

Would you kindly lay out exactly what you believe?



The biblical time lines are not literal so that portion is not really up for discussion.


So what are the timelines then?



Genesis 1:1 is an unspecified amount of time that agrees with our current understanding of the time line of the beginning of the universe estimated to be anywhere from 10-15 billion years give or take, the exact number is unknown to both scientists and creationists alike. It also includes the creation of our Sun and our earth. So first God transformed his unlimited energy into all the atomic matter we have in the universe, it would look as a big bang of matter coming into the universe.

The creative days laid out in the Genesis after that are also of unknown length of time, they include the earth developing from just a round hunk of rock into something that a biological creature could live on. They include the ages of the dinosaurs, before man arrived. Also those days could differ in there times, some days may not have been as long as others, it is most likely that, although only a theory, that each day would get progressively shorter. Because it simply did not need to be as long as the previous one for development of the ecological systems that were forming up. The forth day was the creation of vegetation, the fifth day dinosaurs, the sixth day mammals in line with the fossil records, and finally man & woman only around 6000 years ago right at the end of the sixth creative epoch.

I want to go back to the very beginning of the universe.
Energy can create matter we know that, what a person must ask themselves is where did that initial energy come from? At the starting point how can raw energy form all the atomic particles in the universe the building blocks of everything? And how could raw pure energy form many different atomic particles at the same time, these atomic structures never existed before, this energy is creating them and they are all different in structure.

Pure Chance?
Never!



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul




Ok, so you're a Biblical creationist.

Would you kindly lay out exactly what you believe?



The biblical time lines are not literal so that portion is not really up for discussion.


So what are the timelines then?



Genesis 1:1 is an unspecified amount of time that agrees with our current understanding of the time line of the beginning of the universe...


If it's an unspecified amount, how can it agree with an estimate?


And the whole 7 days doesn't sound unspecified...I mean, they mention days and nights after all. Are you claiming they could have meant any random amount of time? That makes no sense. Why would they talk about specific timeframes and at the same time mean "random amount of time"?


Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

I want to go back to the very beginning of the universe.
Energy can create matter we know that, what a person must ask themselves is where did that initial energy come from? At the starting point how can raw energy form all the atomic particles in the universe the building blocks of everything? And how could raw pure energy form many different atomic particles at the same time, these atomic structures never existed before, this energy is creating them and they are all different in structure.

Pure Chance?
Never!


The only correct answer is: WE DON'T KNOW!!

Any other answer, like your "god theory" is pure speculation and just means you're filling a gap of knowledge with some mythical being...just like cavemen thought fire was an act of god because they lacked knowledge of how fire works.

It's the typical "god of the gaps" trap you're falling in...

So to answer your question. It might have all been a coincidence, it might have not, maybe it was a pink space unicorn farting and thusly creating the universe...but the fact remains, we JUST DON'T KNOW.

Basically, you're walking around, and every time you don't understand, you say "god is the only rational explanation". That's a very ignorant way to walk though life!

EDIT: Wait...I just reread your post. Are you seriously claiming mankind and earth are only 6000 years old, or did I misread that?
edit on 22-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





If it's an unspecified amount, how can it agree with an estimate?

And the whole 7 days doesn't sound unspecified...I mean, they mention days and nights after all. Are you claiming they could have meant any random amount of time? That makes no sense. Why would they talk about specific time frames and at the same time mean "random amount of time"?


First question, I can agree with this

Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years


Are our trying to defend the literal 24 hour creative periods, compared to what I stated, if you are, nice Straw man.


Edit to answer



EDIT: Wait...I just reread your post. Are you seriously claiming mankind and earth are only 6000 years old, or did I misread that?


Partly, the earths age is unknown as it`s creation is embedded into Geneses 1:1, so what ever science says might be correct as to it`s age.

Earth is currently the only place where life is known to exist. The planet formed 4.54 billion years ago,


As to mans time on this earth, I do stick to the literal points in the bible which means 6035 years.
edit on 22-11-2010 by Blue_Jay33 because: To answer another question



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Well, given that people understood the concept of years, why did he used to say "days" in the bible? They also knew about a "million" or "billion". Why use "days" as a code phrase?

And no, the length of time of a day doesn't vary greatly...because of the almost circular orbit


This whole thing is nothing but creationists trying to still "make it fit" the facts.

Finally, could you please answer my question about whether or not you believe in a 6000 year old earth



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Interesting post. What you're describing, a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, was considered anathema for centuries, until science showed that it didn't jibe with reality. But there are still people who would say that a literal reading of Genesis is the only right one.

A few questions...


Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Genesis 1:1 is an unspecified amount of time that agrees with our current understanding of the time line of the beginning of the universe estimated to be anywhere from 10-15 billion years give or take, the exact number is unknown to both scientists and creationists alike.

True, no one knows the exact number, but the only reason we know it's in the 10By range is because of science. It seems a little disingenuous to accept some of the findings of science and dismiss others that have just as much evidence for them simply because they don't fit what amounts to an ultimately unscientific telling of the origin of the universe.


The forth day was the creation of vegetation, the fifth day dinosaurs, the sixth day mammals in line with the fossil records, and finally man & woman only around 6000 years ago right at the end of the sixth creative epoch.

So did the mammals that were formed on the sixth day remain as they are for us to see today or was there evolution taking place to get from the forms that God placed on Earth to what we have now?

Six thousand years ago was when some of the earliest proto-states were coalescing around the Nile, around the Indus, and in Mesopotamia. So are you saying that man was created and then immediately started forming civilizations? You claim the fossil records are in line with your account of Genesis, so what about the evidence we have for permanent human settlements from about 4ky before your timing?


At the starting point how can raw energy form all the atomic particles in the universe the building blocks of everything? And how could raw pure energy form many different atomic particles at the same time, these atomic structures never existed before, this energy is creating them and they are all different in structure.

String theory - matter and energy have the same fundamental building block. What do you mean by "different in structure" when referring to atoms?



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




Why use "days" as a code phrase?


I can`t answer that, but the bible does say that 1000 years passes like one day to God, meaning that God views times different than we do, a being with no beginning and no end isn`t worried about it.

See my answer to your other question in my last edited post.



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Sorry, looks like we crossed replies.


Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
As to mans time on this earth, I do stick to the literal points in the bible which means 6035 years.

How do you make decisions regarding which parts of the Bible to take literally and which to interpret?



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 





As to mans time on this earth, I do stick to the literal points in the bible which means 6035 years.


I don't know how else to say this, but that is RIDICULOUS!

Common, you can't ignore facts so much that you seriously believe that. For crying out loud, we have skeletons of homo sapiens (aka "us") that are 250,000 years old. That's not even a small mistake you made there, you're not off by a "few years"...you are off by over 240,000 years!!

You are ignoring the entire bronze age for example, the Sumers...all those cultures didn't exist according to you.

Is the public education system really failing that much. I mean, that's stuff people learn in high school...you don't even have to go to college to know that stuff. Even if you never went to school, if you can google, you would know your statement is total hogwash within 1 minute.

I'm seriously baffled!!



posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
Sorry, looks like we crossed replies.


Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
As to mans time on this earth, I do stick to the literal points in the bible which means 6035 years.

How do you make decisions regarding which parts of the Bible to take literally and which to interpret?


Easy...you just take the ones you agree with literally, and make stuff up for the rest



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join