The Creation of Man

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

Harte,

If the parallel worlds theory takes care of the paradox, why do you still need the casual cause for origination? Why coming of the guy from whatever else a future with some spores in his pocket is not enough of a cause? You mention he will arrive not where he started for himself. I care more of the things he brought, not where he ends up being. The thing is, if we have different times connected in however many universes, it still means all of them exist at all times, so we do not need the origination factor, at least for the life. All it takes is bacterial ? sporal ? viral supply of several cubic centimeters to quickly make for the whole of our life diversity on earth and beyond. Suppose for simplicity, only two of the many worlds exist. Then world ?A? supplies life from its future to the past of world ?B? and conversely, world ?B? supplies the past of world ?A? with its life. Increase the number of the worlds from one or two to as many as you like, the principle is the same: life is made in labs and fills the world(s) at their early stages.

Then life multiplies, evolves as directed, but not more than that, no rabbits from sludge, and later fills the cosmic space both indirectly and assisted. Hoyle suspected there are a lot of bacterial clouds in the interstellar space. If you would like, you can find info about his former collaborator Chandra Wickramasinghe through the Web search.

 

[StarLord]

Re: The Creation of Man

Dmitri, do you feel that bacteria, viruses can survive the absolute cold of space?

 

[Arez]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"virtualgirl\")</div>

Here is a mind bender for you.

I spent the day talking with one of our new members, TXMOTO about the bible code, the creater and man. We came up with this scenario, so go grab your asprin and bring your thoughts.


Let's say that a timetraveller went back in time to the dawn of man, planted the DNA from which man evolved and left the bible with the hidden text of our future and creation. Man evolved coming full circle back to the timetraveller. Therefore, the timetraveller would be his own creater. :blink: 'oh:



HAVE FUN!!!![/b]

i have read the bible code and all it looks like is some drunk person has picked out certai letters and made them spell into different words.

some guy did the same thing in moby dick. about president kennedy i think it was. it may be true but it looks fake to me.

lol they use the excuse of it takes a computer to find out the code in the book.......well yes because the computer does every single possible thing it can do to try to find sumthing that makes sense like use every 2nd word or every 3rd word. its just a random chance that it works.and because its a holy book it makes it look even more believeable to holy ppl. and ive seent he tv programe telling us everything that has happened and where it shows it in the book.........hmm yeah i like to hear things that are going to happen not sumthing that has already happened

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

Dmitri, do you feel that bacteria, viruses can survive the absolute cold of space?

StarLord,
Bacteria are wonderfully fit for that. L. Orgel worked on life origin all his life and then decided, and wrote a paper about it with F. Crick, that panspermia is the realistic option. He wrote: "You could take E. coli and rapidly cool it to 10? K and leave it for 10 billion years and then put it back in glucose, and I suspect you would have 99 percent survival." Bacterial spores are so well protected that they survive hundreds of millions of years in coal deposits. Some bacteria live in boiling springs. Viruses are even more stable. It looks they are much more stable and protected than earth environments would require. I guess they are made to be so.

 

[virtualgirl]

Re: The Creation of Man

WOW!!! I must say, that I am impressed. When I created this thread, I never dreamed it would survive this long. I've been scanning through it and there are alot of excellent point. When I read post like these, it reaffirms how proud I am to be part of such a wonderful group.

Dmitri: You are correct. Bacteria can survive anything. As they say, where there's a will, there's a way. If they can't survive, they usually mutate.

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

Virtualgirl: I agree they mutate, but in a strictly regulated fashion, to use already present in them (or given to them as upgrades) adaptive mechanisms and ways. We mutate in such ways too. For example, there is a lot of gene amplification going when it is needed. Observation of these processes gave rise to the erroneous perception of evolution as making fish from soup. No random mutation can create/ add new information to genomes.

I love this forum too: a lot of great points and people.

 

[Arez]

Re: The Creation of Man

StarLord,
Bacteria are wonderfully fit for that. L. Orgel worked on life origin all his life and then decided, and wrote a paper about it with F. Crick, that panspermia is the realistic option. He wrote: \"You could take E. coli and rapidly cool it to 10? K and leave it for 10 billion years and then put it back in glucose, and I suspect you would have 99 percent survival.\" Bacterial spores are so well protected that they survive hundreds of millions of years in coal deposits. Some bacteria live in boiling springs. Viruses are even more stable. It looks they are much more stable and protected than earth environments would require. I guess they are made to be so.

yepu are exactly right. thats how life started. nothing on earth a frozen rock comes crashing down the heat fro the atmosphere makes it heat up all of them little bacteria fro the rock come to life....there we have it life. which would also prove that there is life out there somewhere. which there is life out there. i hate listening to scientists about it is impossible for there to be life in outer space. that we are the only life in the whole universe.........WELL STOP LOOKING AT MARS FOR SIGNS OF LIFE FORMS THEN.

 

[Harte]

Re: The Creation of Man

StarLord,
Bacteria are wonderfully fit for that. L. Orgel worked on life origin all his life and then decided, and wrote a paper about it with F. Crick, that panspermia is the realistic option. He wrote: \"You could take E. coli and rapidly cool it to 10? K and leave it for 10 billion years and then put it back in glucose, and I suspect you would have 99 percent survival.\" Bacterial spores are so well protected that they survive hundreds of millions of years in coal deposits. Some bacteria live in boiling springs. Viruses are even more stable. It looks they are much more stable and protected than earth environments would require. I guess they are made to be so.

Dmitri,
Bacteria and viruses can survive under some of the harshest conditions, it's true. But your post only mentions temperatures. There is deadly radiation abundant in space. From looking at panspermia websites (pro and con) I don't see that anyone has really dealt with this question.

As for your earlier post about causation, let's take your example of worlds A and B:

"Suppose for simplicity, only two of the many worlds exist. Then world ?A? supplies life from its future to the past of world ?B? and conversely, world ?B? supplies the past of world ?A? with its life. Increase the number of the worlds from one or two to as many as you like, the principle is the same: life is made in labs and fills the world(s) at their early stages."

The traveler from world "A" cannot exist because the one from world "B" has to start (or cause) his existence first. This cannot be because the world "B" traveller must first be created (or caused) by the non-existent world "A" traveler. This is the grandfather paradox on a cosmic scale. How is it possible for you to exist long enough for you to go back in time and kill someone who caused your existence in the first place? If changing a past creates a new universe, however, then the paradox goes away.

Here's how it must be:

A traveler from Universe "A" supplies life from the future to a past. (Where that life came from is an open question.) The past he has entered is not his own because he comes from a universe where the past did not contain him. That means it's a different universe - call it Universe "B". In the future Universe "B", a time traveller goes into a past. It cannot be his past because he comes from a universe where the past did not contain him. It is possibly the past of Universe "A". If the traveler from "B" seeds "A"'s past with bacteria, it will not be what causes life in "A" because there was already life in "A" before there was life in "B", since life in "B" was caused by life in "A".

What I'm getting at here is that it is possible that life in our universe came from time travellers. If it did, those travellers were from a different universe since a thing cannot create itself.

It strikes me that your time travelling panspermia theory is really philosophically similar to evolution in that both expect something to be created from nothing. If you feel that a thing can create itself, then what's your beef with evolution?

 

[StarLord]

Re: The Creation of Man

Not necessarily, if you had the basic 'stock' already present from billions of years of evolution here on this planet, started from the debris that coalesced and formed this planet which would contain the necessary bacteria and virus which would also be augmented by other debris brought in as the planet grew.

Why bother with 'life' from a different Universe when you have billions of Galaxies here in our present Universe, any one of which could more than possibly lend us a few ETs whose sole task is to see that certain species of bipedal forms, among other forms of life, have the necessary acoutrements for finding and sustaining a higher conscoiusness than the fodder that sourrounds it.

This would credit both theories that evolution along with exterestial intervention was part and parcel of the process.

 

[Harte]

Re: The Creation of Man

Not necessarily, if you had the basic 'stock' already present from billions of years of evolution here on this planet, started from the debris that coalesced and formed this planet which would contain the necessary bacteria and virus which would also be augmented by other debris brought in as the planet grew.

Why bother with 'life' from a different Universe when you have billions of Galaxies here in our present Universe, any one of which could more than possibly lend us a few ETs whose sole task is to see that certain species of bipedal forms, among other forms of life, have the necessary acoutrements for finding and sustaining a higher conscoiusness than the fodder that sourrounds it.

This would credit both theories that evolution along with exterestial intervention was part and parcel of the process.

Harte,

...I like the idea of time loops, physical existence of the Universe at all its times, and the creator of life being its own creator and then modifier at later times, although the upstream source may not be exactly a single source ancestry. This way we do not need the origination factor... About time loops: this is not only permitted by modern physics, it is actively debated, more on the ways and details rather than on the general principle. Also laws of thermodynamics may well be local, even if our whole universe is local. Anyway, they do not contradict time loops very much... If life exists on time loops, and the Universe has multiple connection points, even if we consider only one trajectory, then we do not need origination factors, RNA primordial worlds and associated nonsense. Life and intelligence are inmost parts of the matter.

Starlord,
I agree with you. The Earth could have been seeded by already existing life in this universe. Dimitri's point is somewhat different though. In disavowing that life can begin in a "primordial soup", Dmitri is trying to get something for nothing. He is saying the life that seeded earth could have come from our future. I am merely saying that that violates causation and that to me is unacceptable. How can a thing create itself? That, as I said, is the grandfather paradox on a cosmic scale.

In the ordinary Intellegent Design and Panspermia theories, the puzzle of the origin of life remains unsolved. Only the origin of life on earth is explained. Dmitri wishes to explain the origin of life in the universe by utilizing a timeloop having no beginning or end, similar to the question that is at the heart of the grandfather paradox. My thinking is, if you are going to use some weird time loop that throws causation out the window, then what's your beef with evolution. It's a lot less weird.