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 ImaFungi
Non empirically, there is proof that the universe is full of life. Empirically hundreds of years ago the world was flat, and a star was the size as my pinky nail. Some times logic, reason, deduction, inference, probability, and statistics, can give one glimpses of truth.
Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by dragonridr
Was the big bang observed? Has inflation been observed? Has the expanding universe been observed? Is dark matter observed? Has dark energy been observed? Has a singularity been observed? Has an event horizon been observed? Has neutronium been observed? has strange matter been observed? and on and on and on...
Is the fact that the only known cause of code is intelligence not an observation? Which by your standards would constitute proof, if observations equal proof?edit on 6-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)
Was the big bang observed? Has inflation been observed? Has the expanding universe been observed? Is dark matter observed? Has dark energy been observed? Has a singularity been observed? Has an event horizon been observed? Has neutronium been observed? has strange matter been observed? and on and on and on...
Is the fact that the only known cause of code is intelligence not an observation? Which by your standards would constitute proof, if observations equal proof?
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
For starters, those percentages to appear to be inaccurate, at least based on current estimates. He gives a % for "all material" then gives the same % for "other material". The "other material" should be part of "all material
Current estimates put the percentage of ordinary matter in the universe anywhere in the 3-10% range
4.6% Atoms. More than 95% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory! The actual density of atoms is equivalent to roughly 1 proton per 4 cubic meters..
everything else is comprised of dark matter, dark energy, which we can't even see or detect. So how can we make assumptions on what may or may not be hospitable amongst that huge portion of the universe?
But please let me know if I'm incorrect on any of this.
i will describe in laymans terms how the universe arose. The universe came into being by the collision of 2 particles. Before the collision obviousy there was nothing but earlier collisions. Our universes collision just happenend to be perfect resulting in our universe. Where did the particles come from? From a particle colider in a much bigger universe,a bit like cern but in a particle colider which is many times bigger than our universe. Im affraid its turtles all the way down. Yes theres intelligent design involved,someone has to build a colider,and thats about as much influence the intelligent designer has. All you need is particles coliding and a machine to colide them. All this will be proved in time with the observations of the cosmic background radiation and the results of particle coliders. It is important to remember that size is infinat
Originally posted by HarryTZ
(Taken from multiple posts I wrote in another thread)
~~~~~~~~
Assuming that the Big Bang theory is correct (as opposed to some other theory, such as the currently rejected Steady State theory which claimed that the universe did not have a beginning), you must acknowledge that the universe had a cause. Call this whatever you like; I will call it 'God'. Now, since time and space did not exist until after the Big Bang, God must be both beyond time and space. There could not have been a 'time before' God, because both the concepts of 'time' and 'before' did not exist. This means that it was causeless, that it always existed and always will.
It is quite obvious that, in order for the universe to exist as utterly complex as it does, there must be some, shall we say, 'Divine Intelligence' behind its complexity. This is made especially obvious when we look at the four Fundamental Forces of Nature, which are:
The Gravitational Force - This is the weakest of the four forces, but it is what allows matter to be attracted to, and eventually, conglomerate with, other matter. Without gravity, There would be no stars, no planets, and consequently, no life.
The Strong Force - This is what keeps subatomic particles 'attached' to atomic nuclei. Without this force, the universe would be a mess of unbound quarks, leptons and bosons. Life could absolutely not form in these conditions.
The Electromagnetic Force - This force is described by electromagnetic fields, which are determined by the negative or positive charge of subatomic particles. Without it's electromagnetic field, Earth would be under constant bombardment by solar radiation, rendering it totally lifeless.
The Weak Force - This force is one of the most complex of the four forces, but essentially, it determines whether or not a specific neutron in the nucleus of an atom will become a proton. Without this force, all atomic matter would be fundamentally identical, with no differentiation of elements. Obviously, life could not have formed in a universe like this.
It is no coincidence that these forces exist, and in exactly the right proportions for life to eventually form. It is also obvious that some unbound conscious intelligence is responsible.
But before the universe, what was there for God to be conscious of? Nothing. But God was obviously conscious.
I think the issue is that people believe that consciousness has to be conscious of something, or else it is not conscious. This is a misconception. Consciousness does not have to have a subject for it to exist.
It is now easy to understand that the term 'consciousness' is not an abstraction of some phenomena, but a term used to describe the infinite and unmanifest potential in which all phenomena can exist.
~~~~~~~~
I am sure everyone has heard of the theory of dark matter. Dark matter is like 'God' or intelligent first cause; It cannot be observed directly, however we assume that it exists because of the effect (or, in God's case, the cause) it has on the universe. Objectively, both theories are equally plausible, however many scientists have developed biased opinions on the matter and reject any idea of a creator all together (probably due in part to the stereotypical fanaticism of many theologists). In that, they have successfully deflected possibly the most important and fundamental question in science, which is, "what caused the universe".
~~~~~~~~
Here's a very interesting paper which talks about the potential for an infinite amount of phenomena, existing as consciousness. It was translated from Portuguese:
English translation
Original Portuguese version
Basically what it describes is that the math behind any phenomena that exists must have been predetermined. It makes it close to impossible to refute the existence of an intelligent creator.
Originally posted by squiz
The simplistic theory of evolution is perhaps one of the "loosest" inferences as is cosmology IMO.
These days, phylogeneticists -- experts who painstakingly map the complex branches of the tree of life -- suffer from an embarrassment of riches. The genomics revolution has given them mountains of DNA data that they can sift through to reconstruct the evolutionary history that connects all living beings. But the unprecedented quantity has also caused a serious problem: The trees produced by a number of well-supported studies have come to contradictory conclusions.
Originally posted by squiz
It does not explain the mechanisms.
It also ignores the abundance of orphan genes and singleton proteins.
It can be interpreted in different ways. We can have the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution. They are not the same thing. You seem to think evolution is equal to the modern synthesis, which has crumbled beyond repair.
Also it is not as neat and tidy as you would like to believe.
These days, phylogeneticists -- experts who painstakingly map the complex branches of the tree of life -- suffer from an embarrassment of riches. The genomics revolution has given them mountains of DNA data that they can sift through to reconstruct the evolutionary history that connects all living beings. But the unprecedented quantity has also caused a serious problem: The trees produced by a number of well-supported studies have come to contradictory conclusions.
The 200th anniversary of Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the Origin of Species prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis. The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.
The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century.
Sixty years on, the very definition of 'gene' is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level.
Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by rhinoceros
Wow, none of that is a problem? Ok. You have got to be trolling. That is just a tiny sample. There is no way you could have read all those and watched the videos in the time it took you to post your denial and subsequent story. This looks like that, and a just so story for every occasion eh? This is not about evolution. Evolution is true. I am sure, the modern synthesis is a archaic relic, there is nothing modern about it. It is your religion, It would be like arguing with a religious fundamentalist, no different.edit on 7-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)