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.


Entropy Disproves Abiogenesis

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2022 @ 12:04 PM

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TzarChasm

Imagine you are a dog. You live amongst a god like creature known as human. They are able to feed you, keep you warm...your existence is kind of attached to them. You have learned to love a couple very deeply, as they have loved you as well over the last 15 years.

Another human you recognize from periodic visits walks up to you as you sit in that stark white room, in a kennel, awaiting their visit. You don't feel great, but in the past when you didn't feel great, these visits always seemed to help.

This human picks you up, tells you its going to be ok like they always do. They give you a shot, like they always do. But now you are really drowsy and begin to fall asleep....

From the perspective of the human everything was ok. They compassionately ended the life of a faithful friend. To the dog, its was not ok, as they didn't even get a choice. They weren't even aware a choice was to be made. They lived amongst a race of magical gods, so who knows what can and cannot happen.

My point is: we are dogs when compared to even other humans like Williams Sidhis. A 300 IQ is stunning to contemplate. Its hard to understand. His IQ was in a relative vacuum of 130 IQ's, so it was highly unactualized. He was front loaded with human hormonal interactions, and human synaptic connections. So the limits of what that IQ could do was certainly limited. But he lived amongst us, and few really were able to understand him. The world crushed him, and he ended up nearly fully unactualized. But imagine if he were to have lived among a species of being with a matched IQ, and a few thousand years of development with that IQ. How would you even contemplate their motivations?

The question you ask is the right question. But its a question that is almost impossible to answer from within the closed system that is Earth (at least closed biologically).

Its likely that life is common. Its also likely that life that is intelligent is not. And also likely that life that gets intelligent enough to leave their own solar system is even less common. Just think of all the things that have to happen to get to that point.

Either we assume that somewhere out in the unfathomable depths of the universe, a society exists that possesses sufficiently advanced technology capable of terraforming and bioengineering, or we assume that no such society exists and we are very lucky or very cursed by the inherent juxtaposition of reconciling our existence with our futility.

The first possibility tells me, based on tenuous fleeting interactions and general absence of communications, that someone is afraid of us or afraid of hurting us. Neither of those conclusions are particularly reassuring.

The second possibility tells me that we are resentful of the human condition and crave some manner of "upgrade" which will eventually be engineered by our brightest and most reckless minds whose job is to alter the fundamental definitions of our people and reinvent society. Or... they fail entirely and civilization as we know it is doomed like dozens of empires and countless extinct species before us. Again, neither of these conclusions are particularly reassuring.


edit on 18-1-2022 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2022 @ 12:08 PM

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I made a thread a little way back titled The Queen Of The Trees. I think the video I included lends itself to simplifying how it works.

I've heard good things about that documentary, I'll have to check it out some time.

We look at birth as the beginning, and death as the end of life. I don't think there is ever an end. Death is just the next phase. Just a reset.

It is hard for us to understand, because our ego will not allow us to see that we all start out as tiny microorganisms with no identity. Early enough in our development, you can't tell the difference between a cow, a pig, or a human, with your naked eyes.

We are blinded because we only see what we want to see. The magic is in the fact the we are all living on this planet together and are dependent on the other inhabitants, and environmental factors, much like the inhabitants in a terrarium.

Without death life ends. Death is at the core of abiogenesis. That is where the first law comes into play.

" The energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside."

The co-dependence of many facets of our environment are further proof that the system could not have come to be in a piece-by-piece manner as proposed by evolution. I gave some examples in this (link) post that I made not too long ago. The interconnectedness of life doesn't show we all mutated from some ancient microbe over time, it shows the necessity of the entire biosphere to be in place for the whole to function. Not to mention the cosmological factor where we have been in an inhabitable zone for the entirety of human history, and that doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. These are all hallmarks of a well-designed system, not random chance creation.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Either we assume that somewhere out in the unfathomable depths of the universe

Considering the entirety of all things we can see with the naked eye are on a small 400nanometer band within an infinitely large spectrum of frequencies shows there is potential not just in far places, but in different frequencies. The reason I harp so much on why evolution is wrong is due to an explorable potential that might otherwise be ignored if someone thinks they're just a mutant accident that will one day return to eternal unawareness
edit on 18-1-2022 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2022 @ 12:58 PM
a reply to: cooperton

"Explorable potential" I think you mean exploitable. Exploitation of physics, information technology and esoterica to gratify the ego.

edit on 18-1-2022 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2022 @ 01:28 PM
a reply to: cooperton

it shows the necessity of the entire biosphere to be in place for the whole to function.

We have over the years found the bread crumbs that have led us to the knowledge that life starts at a molecular level. We just don't understand what we have learned.

We can look at a sperm and a ovum under a microscope. We can watch each stage of development, until that merging develops into a fetus, than a child, than an adult. There it stops for us. But it does not stop for the biosphere.

When we speak of life after death, we think in terms of the resurrection of the body, restored to the full measure of its existence. Yet that is not were life began.

I don't think we can ever really deal with the massive complexity that I believe is at play in the cycle of life.

It is almost science fiction to believe that a rib bone taken from the ashes could be used to create cells that could form a a living being. But the possibility is written in our minds.

As long as we look at life only as a life-form, while rejecting the all that forms life, I think we will miss the mark.

It is like looking at a beautiful picture that becomes obscure when reduced to just pixels.

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in