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.

 

Life is emergent, not created

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
You don't create life... you nurture it into existence by creating the conditions for it to emerge. Evolution may have done this through random chance over a long enough period of time, but life itself has always existed in some form.

Have you ever considered the idea of how God can supposedly "create" an immortal soul? I was taught to believe this, and yet when I confronted my preconceptions I realized that it doesn't make sense. If something has no end, then it has no beginning. However, various "beginnings" may be perceived within our experience of time, which may have led to this particular misconception.

A child isn't your property because you created the conditions for it to emerge. Same with the future of robotics, where life may emerge through our technology (and may already have for all we know). I believe this is important to understand so that we don't unknowingly impose upon an actual (as opposed to artificial) lifeform using the fallacy "I created you".

Life exists before the question "why" exists, because life is timeless. Anything that requires an intellectual understanding requires an ego, which includes the perception of time.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by circlemaker
 


I like you...
Searching, but there's so much to consider. Nice to see your making progress.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by circlemaker
 


So you're saying that life is created by proxy of the conditions being created for it to emerge? Isn't that kinda/sorta the same thing? Wasn't this tested in a lab somewhere and all they wound up with was a tub of gook? Reference needed on that......



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I wonder what other curve balls the universe will throw at us.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
You do not create life, you simply create a body for that life to inhabit.
When a sperm meets an egg, it is not making a spirit, it is making a body for a old spirit to inhabit. This is illustrated by past lifes, and the few people who can remember them.

This also supports the idea of reincarnation.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Creation is a man made concept formed out of our own fear, controlling nature and supreme arrogance at dominating the food chain. There are trillions of stars upon trillions of galaxies and within each of those trillions of possibilities for the spark of life to evolve from energy to living form.

It is our human arrogance and ego that force our "faith" and belief into such an outdated concept of MAN being the son of "god" and being created in his/her likeness all the while being the only life in the universe.

No matter what side you speak to, neither has absolute proof, but the scientific community at least does research and tries to revise their data once in a while where as creationists, well....

You can delve into a number of different topics, but in the end, everything comes from something, nothing just poofs into existance because the evidence we can see proves this without a shadow of a doubt.

King
edit on 1-11-2011 by Kingalbrect79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by circlemaker
 


You can not make that statement as a fact. It is your right to promote your beliefs and argue your view points but stating something that is still unproven is as grave a mistake as defending that a thinking God is behind it all.

I'm not religious and I'm extremely anti-organized religions (any and everyone) but do respect believe systems as intrinsically important to the individuals that believe in them, they require some kind of internal assurance that it all has a meaning and somewhat planed and ultimately has a purpose.

Even defending the emergence of life is somewhat a religious belief, no problem with that if it makes your view of reality more acceptable to you but I strongly disagree in anyone claiming to be the keeper (or the ultimate word ) of the ultimate truth about any subject, hence my reply to your thread...

(I also dislike strongly seeing in ATS people defending and mixing religion or esoteric beliefs with conspiracy and the UFO phenomena and see that as eroding any possibility of the subjects getting more traction in the mainstream mentality). Unless religion or esoterism is the origin of the observed event or has been granted factual support it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same presentation. (No problem in people commenting on their belief systems or even promoting a different approaches to the subjects, but please don't mix them together and if any ATS admin is reading please implement a way to ignore/hide other users on ATS).

Seemingly observations, facts and theories that oppose the simple view of emergence or even demonstrate a fragility of relying only on evolution should be put forward in response to your thread.

Since you propose that life emerges (I take you mean naturally) and is not created (by an intelligence, design). I first would like you to comment on why the basic parameters of our universe are just so that permits life to exist (I take you would agree that there has to be more than one universe) and to acknowledge that we don't even start to comprehend how our own universe was created (we only have some tentative theories).

If life emerges then why does it seem to be so rare? In a universe that seems increasingly (with every new discovery supporting it) directed to the emergence of life why isn't there more of it. Why only did our evolutionary line generate at least two (but closely related) intelligent species in the eons life had to evolve in our world?

To me the lack of adequate responses to this questions promote some sort of particular exception that includes us (humans), we can create artificial life only using life itself (we also have made some steps in creating the building blocks, like cell membrane etc but we haven't yet created life) one thing we haven't got to do is to observe the emergence of life and not by lack of attempts, at best some interestingly organic components seems to emerge but not life itself.

Of course this depends also on how you define natural emerge of life, if you depend only on the natural laws a close observation will show how they seems themselves an extremely intelligent and optimized solution...



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by darkredfish
 


Actually, past lives are supported by our apparently never-ending ability to make stuff up.

Everyone was Cleopatra or Napoleon. Nobody was Roger the Shrubber.
edit on 2/11/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I would suggest, that in a biblical sense, that a pantheistic approach to the texts is to be taken.
'
I see "God" as being the universe...

And that "God" is "all-knowing" which then leads to "God=Universe=All Knowing=Intelligent", for every aspect of the Universe is the Universe....

When people say that God created man, or even the texts themselves... My understanding is that the Universe created man through its evolution and allowing for the conditions to bring about life. Hence, being made in his image, for we are a product of 'God' and as well, being Human, have the ability to eventually one day be very very close to 'all knowing' as a collective.

That's where I get lost, and some times disheartened with people, when they choose to differentiate between what they percieve as being the scientific explinations of the universe and creation, then using these understandings to justify demonizing or ruling out what the texts stand for.

I just choose not to base my understandings of the stories and science on what other people 'think' is their true nature, when those opinions and comprehensions are always changing and give way to dogma...



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
 




There are trillions of stars upon trillions of galaxies and within each of those trillions of possibilities for the spark of life to evolve from energy to living form.


How do the existence of trillions of galaxies guarantee that life has to have sparked into existence elsewhere?
I mean, I do believe that there is intelligent life out there myself, perhaps even a civilization.
But since I cant prove it to you, it can only remains a belief, albeit one that is accepted by most people.


edit on 2-11-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
It's called Biogenesis, generally Abiogenesis for the case thought to have happened on earth. I don't know how this topic went so long without establishing that.

It has been tried to of been duplicated, and a lot more than "A pile of gunk" has came out of it. Proteins, chemicals, all the building blocks. Enough to assume it's possible, but not enough to do perfectly, as it's a relatively new science.

But the question rises, at what point do you call it living?

Here's just a few, out of many articles and papers that could be read on the topic: LINK, and Another.

It's easy to google and read up on the experiments and such. Though, you'll get just as many pro-creation sites saying it's impossible, by denying the progress that actually has been made towards it.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I agree with you OP.

or we are just a computer simulation.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by circlemaker
 


You can not make that statement as a fact. It is your right to promote your beliefs and argue your view points but stating something that is still unproven is as grave a mistake as defending that a thinking God is behind it all.


Proof isn't always physical. It can be logical/mathematical as well, until such time as the idea may be proven physically (a partial proof?). Also, I don't expect anyone to believe me, I expect them to consider the possibilities.

A thinking God can't create something infinite because the very act of "thinking" requires time, making that so-called "God" a finite being (at least the thinking part of it). See the paradox? In order to think, time is required! But timelessness is more fundamental than time. Time is a measurement, requiring at least two "somethings" to measure between. Timelessness on other the other hand is pre-existent. Time is our perception of timelessness splitting into an infinite number of distinctive parts.



Since you propose that life emerges (I take you mean naturally) and is not created (by an intelligence, design). I first would like you to comment on why the basic parameters of our universe are just so that permits life to exist (I take you would agree that there has to be more than one universe) and to acknowledge that we don't even start to comprehend how our own universe was created (we only have some tentative theories).


No we really don't need multiple universes, just a single infinite one. We can still have multiverse principals, like other versions of us, but all those other versions can fit into our current universe (if it's timeline is infinite - and lately I've been starting to believe that it is, or at least can be).

Now the thing about infinity is that all things are possible within it, including the emergence of life, whether life's perceived beginnings are spontaneous (evolution) or intellectual (creation). An infinite amount of time is the most basic parameter to permit the existence of life (and everything else imaginable). Given an infinite amount of time, everything happens. And I believe in infinity.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by circlemaker
 




A thinking God can't create something infinite because the very act of "thinking" requires time, making that so-called "God" a finite being (at least the thinking part of it).


How do you know God "thinks" in the way we do... i.e... taking time to think.
Just curious to know how you arrived at that, thats all.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by circlemaker
 




A thinking God can't create something infinite because the very act of "thinking" requires time, making that so-called "God" a finite being (at least the thinking part of it).


How do you know God "thinks" in the way we do... i.e... taking time to think.
Just curious to know how you arrived at that, thats all.


Thinking, like time, is a measurement. Thoughts change from one configuration to another. Choices are made, changes happen. A timeless entity would simply "know". Knowing is more of a feeling, something that exists in the present moment and requires no processing of thoughts. It would be more like intuition, but with certainty.

Just how does a "thinking god" create itself anyway? It goes back in time and sets up or renews the conditions for it's emergence. Like Marty McFly making sure his parents hook up, thereby renewing his existence. But that's not really creation, is it? From infinity's perspective it's only "perceived creation", as everything already exists within the vastness of infinity.

If you believe in an eternal God and you consider that God is "alive", then life itself must also be eternal, therefore: emergent.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by circlemaker
 

Thanks for taking time to reply...
That doesn't answer my earlier question....
How do you know God "thinks" in the way we do... i.e taking time to think.




A timeless entity would simply "know". Knowing is more of a feeling, something that exists in the present moment and requires no processing of thoughts.

Well, God is defined as being "omniscient".

edit on 2-11-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
It's called Biogenesis, generally Abiogenesis for the case thought to have happened on earth. I don't know how this topic went so long without establishing that.

It has been tried to of been duplicated, and a lot more than "A pile of gunk" has came out of it. Proteins, chemicals, all the building blocks. Enough to assume it's possible, but not enough to do perfectly, as it's a relatively new science.

But the question rises, at what point do you call it living?

Here's just a few, out of many articles and papers that could be read on the topic: LINK, and Another.

It's easy to google and read up on the experiments and such. Though, you'll get just as many pro-creation sites saying it's impossible, by denying the progress that actually has been made towards it.


Thanks for the article links, I knew I had read something like that before. Biogenesis eh? "Life that comes from life" is a pretty good description, though I think the most basic forms of life might seem more mechanical to us, with very little free will. The simpler something is, the less choices it has.

I think the timeless has no free will because it's already everything (and because it's the simplest possible thing). We only perceive free will by experiencing time, which is choosing everything but in a different order from each other. As individuals we have free will, but were we to merge with all, we wouldn't.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by circlemaker
 

Thanks for taking time to reply...
That doesn't answer my earlier question....
How do you know God "thinks" in the way we do... i.e taking time to think.


I don't. But then again "thinking" is a human term. If God thinks differently then I expect we'd define it using a different word.

I don't understand the infinite, but I do have an understanding of it, however finite that understanding may be.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Kingalbrect79
 


How do the existence of trillions of galaxies guarantee that life has to have sparked into existence elsewhere?


It doesn't, but given the exponentially huge numbers we are talking about, it is a very finite probability that we are truly alone. If that is the case, I feel sorry for us.



I mean, I do believe that there is intelligent life out there myself, perhaps even a civilization.
But since I cant prove it to you, it can only remains a belief, albeit one that is accepted by most people.


That's a perfectly logical thought progression. Having said that, a belief in intelligent life differs greatly from claiming that it is absolute truth without a shred of evidence in support of this belief, and then trying to force this belief upon others for fear of eternal torture. Big Difference.

Just because it is accepted by most people doesn't make it true, this is a perfect example of agumentum ad populum.

King
edit on 2-11-2011 by Kingalbrect79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
If there is a god, what makes you think he has human emotions?

If the universe is endless and infinite, how could it have a beginning? Why would there be there space for it to expand?
If you believe in the Big Bang, you must believe that the universe is not infinite.


All these theories have holes in them - What comes after judgement day, eternal peace, what comes after that? What was there before?

What was there before the big bang, what is outside the universe?

We cannot understand concepts like infinity and nothingness. But we can manipulate others by making them believe we have the answer



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join