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: 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.
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.
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."
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Either we assume that somewhere out in the unfathomable depths of the universe
it shows the necessity of the entire biosphere to be in place for the whole to function.
originally posted by: Toothache
a reply to: cooperton
100% false. The earth gains new energy from the sun every day. You know this, yet you continue to lie about it conflicting with abiogenesis. You don't have a clue, and really need to stop making garbage threads.
originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: dragonridr
If this is how it works....
Who wrote the two programs?
You missed the point completely. To make it simple the laws of the universe ie nature causes the restriction needed for life to evolve
originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: cooperton
Abiogenesis disproves itself because water and carbon already contain organic compounds (living-matter)
Where did the living matter come from as opposed to non-living matter.
Abiogenesis falls short, narrow in scope and intentionally ignores this argument in its own favor, like news media's do, it's called omitting facts.