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.
Originally posted by thegameisup
Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by jiggerj
Or maybe the easier answer to all of everything. There is actually a God who created us.
I know, I know, you don't want to hear that......But regardless of what people think about evolution, you can't have something alive from nothing unless something or someone in this case created it.
Sorry for all of you non creationists, but god is real....
Who created god, and who created the entity that created god, and so on.....
It's infinite, there is not start point.
Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by jiggerj
Life is nothing more than a chemical process. Put the right ingredients in, and out comes life.
Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by jiggerj
Any thoughts on this?
A book you may be interested in reading; titled: "Signature in the Cell" - by Stephen C. Meyer.
To be clear, the author makes the design argument for the origin of life from a standpoint of statistical analysis.
I know some people here will throw a fit over it - but the reality is that their best theories are incapable of ruling out the design hypothesis. Though how far one wants to take the design hypothesis with regards to the process of natural selection is a separate issue.
Basically, it boils down to statistics. I won't break it all down in the forum, but it includes a lot of work done by Bill Dembski - someone of prodigy in statistics.
The book is not a typical "design vs evolution" argument. It breaks down much of the biochemistry within the primary systems of a cell and the history (and controversy) leading up to these studies. It's as much a historical work as it is a proposition for the design hypothesis.
I would, honestly, recommend it as a read to anyone interested in biology or its related fields. Just like I recommend reading "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature." - While not necessarily opposing views (the author of The Red Queen largely takes a pure-evolution stance - presumably to include the origin of life, while the author of Signature in The Cell makes the design argument largely for the origin of life). Both books are great reads and contain a lot of information along with interesting tid-bits of history and plenty of thought-provoking view-points.
Then read The Seven Daughters of Eve... that will really get your mind stirred up in a tizzy if you read it in conjunction with the other two.
Originally posted by micmerci
Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by jiggerj
Life is nothing more than a chemical process. Put the right ingredients in, and out comes life.
If this is so, why haven't we been able to replicate it? Has anyone been able to "put the right ingredients" (ALL NON-LIVING) together and come up with a living organism?
Originally posted by bias12
reply to post by Aim64C
Rather than using the argument of the lowest common denominator, use a positive argument. List the evidence in favor or your argument, don't simply say I can't prove mine.
Originally posted by Cole87
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
"Or maybe the easier answer to all of everything. There is actually a God who created us."
Really.... Highlight the word "easier" - By that logic God made us - then what made God? and what made whatever made God? and what made whatever made whatever made God? Do you see me point - maybe we don't understand the beginning because we look at everything linear - as our perception of time is linear - so we search for a beginning, a start, thus a creating a creator - but that view as whole is skewed. Maybe there was never a beginning and there will never be an end, just a circle.
"The more we learn the more we realize we know nothing" - (cant remember)
Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by jiggerj
When you put a car together, you didn't start with something that could drive you to work. The pieces had to come together, and fuel added to make it work. It's no different for cells, except that properties of chemicals allowed the instance in which they could come together with none to assemble them.
Originally posted by Semicollegiate
The definition of life is a long list of qualities and abilities that include
reaction to the environment
growth
reproduction
Probably the first thing that was alive had its "food" come to it, so it only needed to reproduce and grow. The "Food" was actually the chemicals that are found in blood or sap, and those chemicals were floating around in the water next to the first living thing. Most of the chemicals found inside of cells were in the environment also, like enzymes and sugarsedit on 13-7-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Reflection
Explain how amino acid chains form proteins using this code.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Sorry, I don't see consciousness as possible without form, without some kind of machine to generate thought. Also, if life were the ultimate goal, we'd have aliens waving to us from every planet. We would have picked up radio transmission from every point in the universe.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Also, if life were the ultimate goal, we'd have aliens waving to us from every planet. We would have picked up radio transmission from every point in the universe.
Originally posted by Orderamongchaos
It is puzzling to me that people find it easy to believe that a creator magically "poofed" everything into existence yet hard to believe that simple life spontaneously arose from organic molecules. Believing neither happened and you simply admit that you don't know would be more understandable than defaulting to the creation myth. It is okay to not know how an event happened, it really is.
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters and symbols ad infinitum. The relevance of the theory is questionable—the probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time even a hundred thousand orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but not zero).