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.

 

Did the genesis of life occur just after the Big Bang, almost 14 billion years ago?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
according to the bible mankind's souls were around at the beginnings of the universe.

Job 38





4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?


and specifically:




21 Surely you know, for you were already born!
You have lived so many years!


additionally God who never refers to himself using a royal pronoun says let us create mankind in our image. Us...our...

Jesus said if have seen him (Jesus) you have seen the Father (God.) Jesus was a dead wringer for God. but we do not look like Jesus therefore we do not look like God. Instead we look like ourselves. so We look like a person who is our heavenly pattern who was with God when God was speaking in Genesis.

in the bible angels in general are not winged beings. they are either messengers or persons. the people who visited Lot were not winged creatures. Gabriel is referred to as a person or man. the beasts and cherubim was described as different looking with wings and so forth. regular angels never so that i am aware of.

so i can envision a case where God spoke the universe earth and the stars into existence but the process took cosmic time scales. and earthly life he sculpted and directed until one of his creations was ready to be a fit vessel for the souls of men.
the words used in Genesis are pretty misleading in terms of what their meanings and usages were in the original languages.

world, kingdom, earth, dirt,and region are all possible meanings of the word interpreted as planet world in the English translation of the Noah flood.

likewise the word clay also meant material in the construction of Adam and the word translated as rib is curve or helix in Hebrew.

the creation verses has a serious mistranslation in it that allows the would be fundamentalist and skeptic alike to believe the bible intends the world to be taken as a few thousand years old. the mistranslation of one word makes a huge difference in the meaning of the whole narrative.

In English translations the 2nd line of the narrative basically says the earth WAS without form and void. However; in the original texts it read the earth became void and without form. so sometime between line one and line two the world became a ruin.

elsewhere such as Isaiah say the world was created from the start perfect and fit to be inhabited. other evidence shows there was world wide flood as part of an event called the catabol or overthrow and it was this event or series of events that ruined the world leaving as it was in line two of the creation narrative. further the bible in various places says there was an age before Adam as well as the present age and that there is a third age yet to come. further evidence of the catabol can be found in various places in the bible as well as a world wide flood and cataclysm in which no creature survived let alone Noah and his dove. Noah and his dove came later and his flood was regional and he did not have every animal with him in the ark.

so obscured in mistranslation as well as the piece meal presentation of facts not of primary importance to theme and message of the bible is a hidden narrative, a hidden history within the salvation message which is the bible's primary theme.

not topical here but very interesting is the hidden information that is in the bible on what happened in the garden of Eden and the real reason for all the otherwise inexplicable evil that was visited upon individuals and whole tribes and nations in the old testament. Once you know this the whole thing makes sense. A lesser mystery but also important is what is the nature of Hell. it's not what is commonly thought.




posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Well this study certainly does shake things up and you are right that if this is all true, the life we are talking about would be something far different than what we have today. But of course that is part of evolution; life is always evolving, adapting, and changing so what you said isn't very surprising.
edit on 6-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Yeah, but the evolutionary path of life based on something other than organics would be far different than anything we have today. Let's just say we (organics) wouldn't be its end process. Heck, that's even assuming that non-organic life would evolve. Understand that I am thinking that something that formed in a universe composed mainly of energy and barely any matter at all would likely be energy based, not matter based.

And when I say it wouldn't evolve, that is not to say it wouldn't get more complex just that it wouldn't use the process we think of as evolution to do it.
edit on 6-2-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by uncommitted
 


First, you aren't one of those people who honestly believes that humans are the most evolved life form on this planet are you? Reason I bring that up is because all life is equally evolved for its environment.

The fact that life may have originated off world heavily suggests that all those variables that had to be "just" right in order for life to emerge on this planet aren't true. Or rather, there are probably other variables that if true will cause life to emerge as well. This means, we aren't as unique as we like to think we are. Granted if life arose due to different variables, it won't look anything like us.

To me, the revelations in this article just confirm more of my opinion about this planet and the life that inhabits it. None of it is any more special than anything else. We already know that Earth itself isn't anything special. The universe doesn't revolve around it. Its sun is an average star. It isn't anywhere special in the galaxy. Its galaxy isn't anything special, again average. We've found tons of planets orbiting other stars, many of them Earth-like. The only thing we've been missing is the key pieces of evidence that say that life here isn't special. But we can already see that with the fact that there have been multiple extinction events with different lifeforms representing the top of the food chain. Also insects outnumber humans by a great many for every one human. Life outside this planet will further prove this idea and intelligent life outside this planet would slam dunk it.


Hi,

Do I think human life is the most evolved? Not sure I implied that and certainly wouldn't agree. You could argue that a cockroach is more fully evolved for example but I don't see how that fits into the context of what I said.

As for your other points, I wasn't suggesting Earth was anything special (although as of yet we can't confirm that as such), what I meant was that life didn't just pop up out of the blue (pardon the pun), but a huge number of circumstances occurred that enabled it to do so - that's fairly much established. If one of the factors had been different, then maybe a different concept of life may have come into being, or maybe no life at all.

What I do have an issue with is the theory that fully formed life arrived on Earth and we (all earth life, plants included) is a direct result. What I do have no issues with is the possibility that Earth had almost the right recipe which required elements that were extra terrestrial before that recipe was complete.

Interestingly, when you say Earth is not unique, I'm not sure I've read that we are aware of any other planet that has tectonic plates and there are theories that they may have an input into creating just the right mix to create an environment that helped life to begin its process.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I understand where you are coming from, but hear me out here. We already know that matter based lifeforms exist, because our planet is proof of such. If we discover a more primal life like you describe in that it is energy based, who is to say that matter based life wouldn't be one of the evolutionary paths that this life would take? Your wording seems to suggest that you think that life evolved linearly. This isn't true, we know that evolution takes many paths (kind of like a true structure in computer programming). If we start with the premise that life started back then and it was vastly different, say energy based like you suggest, couldn't matter based life just be one branch of this evolutionary tree? Meaning that all evolution that we have witnessed so far on this planet is just one small branch of a much larger tree. This could also start to scientifically explain many paranormal events that describe incorporeal beings like shadow people.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

uncommitted
Hi,

Do I think human life is the most evolved? Not sure I implied that and certainly wouldn't agree. You could argue that a cockroach is more fully evolved for example but I don't see how that fits into the context of what I said.


Oh, I was just making sure you weren't one of those foolish people who believed that we are the most advanced species on the planet (implying that humans are more special animals than any other animal on the planet). I didn't mean to imply that you actually thought that.


As for your other points, I wasn't suggesting Earth was anything special (although as of yet we can't confirm that as such), what I meant was that life didn't just pop up out of the blue (pardon the pun), but a huge number of circumstances occurred that enabled it to do so - that's fairly much established. If one of the factors had been different, then maybe a different concept of life may have come into being, or maybe no life at all.


Agreed.


What I do have an issue with is the theory that fully formed life arrived on Earth and we (all earth life, plants included) is a direct result. What I do have no issues with is the possibility that Earth had almost the right recipe which required elements that were extra terrestrial before that recipe was complete.


What do you consider fully formed life? There are theories that bacteria laying dormant in comets may have helped jump start life on this planet. Considering the tenacity of life in that it will survive just about anywhere it can, this isn't so hard to believe.


Interestingly, when you say Earth is not unique, I'm not sure I've read that we are aware of any other planet that has tectonic plates and there are theories that they may have an input into creating just the right mix to create an environment that helped life to begin its process.


We may not be aware of plate tectonics on other planets, but I'd be willing to bet that it is a common feature of planets whose cores haven't cooled down too much. I mean, they are starting to think that Mars may have had plate tectonics in the past.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Evolution's purpose is to find what works best. That's why sharks haven't changed in so long or crocodiles. They are supremely adapted for what they need and what they do.

For an energy form to change to a non-energy form would require that organic become something more advantageous to it or for there to be considerable pressure for it to adapt to an environment where becoming organic is necessary.

Given what we know about the rarity of suitable environments for organic life to exist as opposed to energy rich environments ... I'd think that it would be more advantageous for an energy form to remain energy based and more likely that any energy life forms that exist are in situations where they would have remained as they are rather than seek to become organic. I'm thinking you'd be looking at the odd one that get trapped and forced to adapt or die for that scenario.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I think these topics are important to consider, if for no other reason than to keep the imaginations fired and the intellectual engines lubed and in good working order.

Realistically tho? I look at these announcements with something close to pity mixed with laughter for those taking themselves SO seriously in their fields of work, they likely believe this is actually authoritative or meaningful for a hypothesis.

How can it be? We have direct and verifiable knowledge of a spec of sand on a major beach during a Summer weekend. It's like landing deep in the Grand Canyon, setting up camp to one sedimentary wall of exceptional quality and declaring "Okay everyone! We can deduce what we need about Earth from THIS cross section!".

Hell, we didn't even know to understand what the seeming mass of magnetic anomalies was beyond the Heliosphere until Voyager I plowed headlong into them. Thankfully, nothing terminally dangerous and I wonder how much that 'field' surrounding our inner solar system is distorting visual or other forms of view out beyond it? We won't have any way to know until we have a clean look outside it and likely clear out beyond the outer rim of our known system boundaries. Voyager just left the inner solar system...and hasn't even begun it's journey yet, IMO.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


That's not necessarily true. Evolution is just trying to adapt life to survive in an environment. Think about when life first climbed out of the oceans. All the animals up to that point relied on living in the water and there was no advantage to breathing air, but then a few animals did crawl out and eventually adapt to be land based. These animals were probably lower on the food chain and were trying to escape their predators or find new sources of food that was being sniped by fiercer competition. Same situation here. What if competition of resources forced an energy being to evolve to a matter being so that it could continue to live on? Keep in mind, not all mutations are beneficial or necessary as well. What if an energy being just mutated into a matter being over time and it happened to be in an environment that allowed it to survive and continue to evolve?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


You just restated what I more or less said.

Evolution's purpose is to find what works best.

I suppose what you're saying is possible, but you are also looking at a major shift. When animals crawled out of water to land, they were all still organic no matter whether they were in water or on air. Their basic life blueprints were the same stuff.

You're talking about an evolutionary pressure to start accreting and using matter in their structure and having to develop an entirely different life system to deal with that. And for a time, you're talking about being able to shift back and forth between the two.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


No there is a key difference between what you said and what I said. You said that evolution is looking for the best way to survive, I just said that it is looking for a way for life to survive in an environment. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best way possible for it to survive, just that it can. I know it's a small difference, but it is a crucial difference to understand so that evolution makes sense. For instance, why do humans have an appendix or tonsils still? The best way for humans to survive (currently) is to not have these things, but we do anyways.

For the second half of your post, I know what I am suggesting sounds far fetched and I'm not saying that it is 100% true either, I'm just positing that it could help explain many of the unexplainable things in the universe that science either denies exist or doesn't want to touch. Of course it could also be that life sprung up two different times within the universe, one energy based and one matter based; and each one has totally different evolutionary trees.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Why only two?

If life finds a way, then wouldn't it also have taken advantage of environments that our carbon-based systems can't? Possibly basing itself in other elements, for example.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Heh, touche. There may be hundreds of thousands of different and independent evolutionary trees in the universe.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I actually have a much easier time believing that there are various different forms of life based in different elements and possibly energy than I do that life can morph back and forth from one system to the other (i.e. energy -> carbon -> energy).

I think that life can do amazing things to adapt and evolve, but I think that the foundation is the foundation. I have a hard time seeing a life form evolve from one foundation to another. That gets a little too much like some kind of weird abiogenesis, but then again, I can never finish off Mass Effect 3 Synthesis Ending.



Somehow, the idea that I'm fundamentally altering the base DNA of everything in the entire universe just sort of cuts the wrong way. Actually, it smacks of genocide to me, but that's another argument. And it also violates me sense of what ought to be plausible a bit too far.

What your DNA is comprised of is "you" at it's most basic level. It seems to me that there ought to be a point at which alteration just isn't possible without some kind of very final, fundamental shift. Maybe I'm not explaining it well enough what I'm driving at. I know what I'm trying to say but the words aren't there.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


The very same book also says the God appeared as a burning bush and implies our world is only 6000 years old!

There is as much proof for evolution is there is for creationism. Somehow I imagine both played their part in one form or another over millions, even billions of years.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Oh I understand what you are saying. It basically boils down to something like this:

If you have a house made of wood, you can always take the house apart and build something else. Say a large wooden rabbit (heh heh). However you would never be able to change the material of the house to something else like metal or brick. It will always be made of wood.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that this theory of energy life to matter life is true (for one reason, you are the one who brought up that life forming as early as it would, would have to be energy based), but with all the crazy stuff that goes on in the universe is it so hard to believe that it could be true?



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

andy06shake
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


The very same book also says the God appeared as a burning bush and implies our world is only 6000 years old!

There is as much proof for evolution is there is for creationism. Somehow I imagine both played their part in one form or another over millions, even billions of years.


Whatever your beliefs, can you explain how the bible states the world is only 6,000 years old? That appears to have originated in the 16th/17th century by amateur geologists - a theory that no one ever really took on board. I know a person then tried to build out their version of when in theory the characters known as Adam and Eve came to be and build a chronology based on that (with their assumption that Adam and Eve equal to the creation of Earth plus 7 days)........ but apart from (courtesy of Krazysh0t) a worryingly large percentage of Americans according to a recent survey, there has never, ever - let me say that again - never,ever been any non fringe group, be it a religious one or any other that has put their support to this - ever. Please feel free to correct me, but I will feel free to say what I think is a fringe group.

ETA: For the record, and this is only my reading, it's not that God appeared as a burning bush, but that what was in the bible claimed to be that from burning bush emanated the voice of God. Do you believe that? Doesn't really matter - if your voice is heard coming out of a phone does that mean that you are yourself the phone?


edit on 6-2-2014 by uncommitted because: ETA as above

edit on 6-2-2014 by uncommitted because: slight rewording



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by uncommitted
 


My point regarding the Bible is that it is a book written by Man, since Man is fallible then so must his interpretation be.


I was lead to believe the Bible shows the clear genealogy of Jesus, starting with Joseph and ending with Adam. It also shows exactly how long each one of them lived. For example it says A is the son of B, who lived 50 years. And B is the son of C, who lived 70 years. If you add up all the ages, the Earth turns out roughly 6,000 years old.
edit on 6-2-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

andy06shake
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


The very same book also says the God appeared as a burning bush and implies our world is only 6000 years old!

There is as much proof for evolution is there is for creationism. Somehow I imagine both played their part in one form or another over millions, even billions of years.


no it doesn't. first off there is a language problem. genesis does not give an age for the earth or the heavens (universe.) and the interpretation; of one day = 1000 years is BS for many reasons but the most important one is the bible did not say days in the creation narrative. the word used means eons, era or ages. so the supposition begins with a faulty translation and assumes the 1/1000 simile is universal in the bible it isn't. Isaiah says the earth was created ages ago. that it was not created as a ruin (using the exact same words in genesis narrative line two Toho and vahu) but fit to be inhabited. the gap in line two properly translated means the earth could have been created billions of years ago. as to the burning bush; well we were not there and it is pointless to gainsay it.
edit on 6-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


That's a better way of putting it.

I only said I thought any life forming that early would almost have to be energy because my understanding of that timeframe is that it was very "hot" radiation-wise and that only the most basic types of particles were forming/formed. So, it would be hard to imagine organic life which is based off of complex molecules forming when there are barely atoms. Both the lack of complex molecules and high radiation make it hard to think that complex life could form and survive unless it was based in energy.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join