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.
I don't think so. On the contrary, as we evolve technologically and spiritually/culturally, we will begin to co-relate science with the "supernatural". It's already beginning to happen. I'm not saying you have to believe in the Judaeo-Christian God, Allah, or any specific one. But to make a general statement that you find the notion of any supreme creator as "ludacris", is a very small-minded statement. Please give me your sound logic on why you think a idea of a God is ludacris; I bet you won't be able to.
Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by adjensen
Dear Adjensen,
There is a person who posted a thread titled, "What is reality, a new documentary..." He watched a video on quantum physics and had some questions. I tried as best I could to explain it; but, your understanding of physics may assist him. Please consider finding his thread and giving your perspective. Be well.
Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by madness mysoul
Surely this question should haunt you . How did life ever start when a single celled amoeba has more DNA information than your cells .
RNA DNA has not even been theorised to assimilate itself on some sterile rock
and then insert itself in a living cell that doesn't exist either
and then multiply and these cells become nerve cells , muscle cells etc. and stay together and learn to function as an organism , survive harsh environments and then branch off into different mutations to become you .
The question is not how you were created but how was life began on a rock that was red hot and sterile .
If you say that a spore came through space or an alien set up life on earth, how did he come to exist .
Yet you will digest theory about anything convenient that man puts forth .
Convenient meaning you don't have to answer to a God , when your dead your dead theory .
You were dead before you were alive .
Science states that you cannot destroy energy only change its state of being .
Doctors are starting to believe that the conscious goes on even when the brain ceases to function .
What do we actually know about these matters ?
How can we really say God does not exist ?
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I think there are a plethora of options for this universe, some that we have yet to or are currently unable to think of.
I do respect your input and politeness as always. It's good to have a reasoned tone amongst the screaming.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Kailassa
The nature of personal opinion is never scientific...well, unless you want me to hook myself up to an MRI. And this isn't an extraordinary claim. I can even point to the sort of deity I'd most not mind: a semi-interventionist deistic deity. By semi-interventionist I mean it interferes in big events like earthquakes and tsunamis, not day-to-day things.
Originally posted by adjensen
As an example, why do living things die from aging? Well, they die from aging because many of their cells die from apoptosis and can only be replicated a set number of times due to the Hayflick Limit, and that is a factor of telomere shrinkage, and there we stop. Biology has provided with a good explanation of the "how", but no "why". It is contrary to natural selection -- an immortal cell, or a complex being made up of immortal cells, would obviously have a tremendous advantage and unlimited opportunity to pass the trait down. And such cells do exist -- cancer, for example, is an immortal cell, and bacteria are cellularly immortal.
So the question becomes "why"? There seems to be a rule in our observed reality that higher beings have limited life spans, and they are pretty short ones. Why? This doesn't have to point to "intelligent design", or really to anything, but one has to ask oneself, "Why?"
Originally posted by Kailassa
The world keeps changing. For a species to survive, it must be able to adapt to the changing world. A bunch of creatures which lived forever could not adapt genetically, and they could not keep reproducing because they would extinguish their food supply.
Besides, when you know something is temporary it becomes much more precious.
The moments in my life when it's seemed I was about to die have been the times when I have gained insight into who I am, what I'm capable of, and what unseen strength is there to call on.
BTW, if it were a mechanism, then that would summon up image of life as the (quasi-)intentional union of creation and destruction, feeding upon while being fed upon. That is the Dance of Shiva. If the OP would really love to believe in a deity, then believe in that one, because the Dance of Shiva is a documentary.
Originally posted by eight bits
But why is a bottomless pit, isn't it?
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by Kailassa
The world keeps changing. For a species to survive, it must be able to adapt to the changing world. A bunch of creatures which lived forever could not adapt genetically, and they could not keep reproducing because they would extinguish their food supply.
This is a great argument for why this shouldn't happen, but doesn't explain why it hasn't happened. Natural selection is not intelligent -- it doesn't make decisions about whether something is a good idea or not, or whether it benefits the species or just the individual. If an immortal creature existed, assuming that the trade off wasn't sterility (which would raise another "why"? ) its longevity would clearly result in that trait becoming dominant.
. . . .
I'm simply saying that there is a question to be considered in the observation that immortal cells do exist, but not in a way that has resulted in an immortal higher level species (apart from speculation about these guys.) I don't think that one specific area of questioning would have much impact on one's perspective, but it's the overall process of going beyond the "how" that I think has value.
The survival of your genetic code not only depends on you passing it on, it also depends on your descendants passing it on. If a group develop extended lifespans, they are likely to put off reproduction until later in life, and not have so many children.
The main mechanism of aging, the deterioration of the protective telomere strands at the ends of chromosomes, is counteracted to some extent by telomerase, an enzyme which adds repeats of a gene sequence to the ends of the telomere strands. More telomerase means slower aging, but it also means a higher disposition to cancer.
Cancer seems a counterbalance to aging. Why? Naked mole rats don't seem to ever get cancer, yet they're not immortal, which seems contradictory. Why?
if such an immortal being came into the gene pool, by sheer longevity, they would logically dominate it, passing down the immortality (if it is hereditary,) until the entire species exhibited it. They wouldn't think about it, because it would just be a curiosity, at first -- this guy doesn't seem to get any older. Hmmm. His kids don't seem to get any older, either. Maybe I should have a kid with him.
It's just that, for me, it was the sort of exercise that got me to set aside the blinders of "if it isn't rational, repeatable or measurable, it's not relevant." Once I did that, things changed, and I started to think about God (or maybe, if you don't like the title, "being",) in a different manner, and that's where the connection finally happened.
I suddenly started feeling like Patti was with me, and that started me thinking about where she's at, and how all of that stuff works.