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.

 

Suggestion to Rename this Forum

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
i'd vote for something neutral like 'origins' or 'origins of life'

'origins of our species' could be seen as a reference to evolution, so could appear a bit biased in favour of the darwinists




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: aynock

Evolution isn't "origins" though. Evolution is a process for how life changes over time. It at NO point talks about the origins of life. So no, the phrase "Origins of Life" wouldn't favor "Darwinists" because origins of life has nothing to do with evolution.
edit on 9-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SgtHamsandwich


This way no one is excluded. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster camp can join in.

Hey now. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is holy and sacred. A bit of reverence, please.


On topic: I like "Origins".



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




So no, the phrase "Origins of Life" wouldn't favor "Darwinists" because origins of life has nothing to do with evolution.


i didn't suggest it would - i suggested 'origins of our species' would favour darwinists - the work in which darwin first published his theory was titled 'on the origin of species'
edit on 9-2-2015 by aynock because: filled out



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: aynock

Ok. I misread what you typed a bit. I see what you mean now. Though I definitely don't agree with "Origins" being a valid title.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Hey man we all believe in something. No one should be excluded from voicing that.

Holy Marinara, we praise thy name, Amen



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
at least crazy shot is open to the possibilities of a list of multipul choice answers could be given in how life arises.

One, we would have to determine if the universe *The space between the galaxies* even has a determinable age. So far we are judging off of surrounding galaxies. Which could exist within some sequence we might not even realize yet assuming the Universe has always existed. Second if the universe has a timeline with a begining and end that still does not discredit say an asteroid hitting our planet and spawning life from that. Or say, Life just developing on a planet. Maybe solar cycles effect and determine at what time planets can hold life? We can't even answer these questions.

So trying to define all *Origins* to that of Evolution simply is not possible at this current time. Yeah we had ancestors. But we honestly don't know how life even got here in the first place. So its debatable. Evolution is more of process of change rather than the drawing conclusion that seeded to start it all. Usually you need something to exist first before it can evolve persay.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Shadow Herder

For something to be created it needs a creator.
Evolution happens with or without a creator, it'll happen regardless.

The issue with renaming the forum is that it's a forum about beginnings, origins, and it might involves creationism. Evolution is an after affect of the beginnings.


And if a person is inclined to believe that there is a singular "Creator" responsible for life as we know it, wouldn't he/she have to take that theory one step further and ask; "Then who created the "Creator?" Etc...etc...etc..

I agree with the OP, "Origins & Evolution" would be a more fitting name for the Forum.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I am one who will support putting creation threads into the hoax bin. I also agree that the majority of convo in this forum revolves around the merits of evolution. Biology makes it clear that animals, plants, fungus, bacteria, etc, were not blinked into existance as creation and young earthers proclaim. This is far beyond proven even though there are still a few lingering deniers in the world. Why wouldnt this be considered a hoax topic? It is only a small group of people who are claiming they belive in something we know beyond any doubt is untrue. We don't give special recognition to the few who believe in other fairy tales. Why would we make a special consideration for creationists? Does anyone really expect some mind breaking evidence to come forth and prove that all of biology and science itself will be overturned at any point.

Discussing the merit of creationism is like discussing the merit of boogy manism. Or gremlins, unicorns, garden gnomes, fairies, elves, ogres, goblins, flying horses, dragons, and gods.

A creationist is like a child who checks his closet and under his bed at night. Finds them empty, and still claims that monsters are going to eat him. Lets do away with it once and for all.

Origins and evolution for the win. Lets step into the present and deny the most ignorant idea in the world.

edit on 9-2-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Ah come on now, did you have to go after my dragons?

Don't you watch "Game Of Thrones?"

They're badass!



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

A creationist is someone who makes those monsters under your bed. You need to widen your scope of reality.

Humans currently right now are *Creating* (Snthesizing life)

Your comments against *creationism* is not only ignorant but also invalidated by science.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

How about we just call it "Theories" ?



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I am one who will support putting creation threads into the hoax bin. I also agree that the majority of convo in this forum revolves around the merits of evolution. Biology makes it clear that animals, plants, fungus, bacteria, etc, were not blinked into existance as creation and young earthers proclaim.

A creationist is like a child who checks his closet and under his bed at night. Finds them empty, and still claims that monsters are going to eat him. Lets do away with it once and for all.

Origins and evolution for the win. Lets step into the present and deny the most ignorant idea in the world.


KK Creationists, Does not mean Christian. If you are going to be specific about *New Earthers* or what ever please be specific. I am a creationist and i don't believe in the Christian Nonsense. I believe Aliens spawned humans on Earth. Does that mean i believe a sky fart in the form of a consious noxious wind created us from the chasm in the sky? No.

Does this invalidate Creationism altogether? Again no it does not.

Yes life is and verymuch can be blinked into existance.

Why don't you buy a DNA printer and see just how easy it is to blink life into existance. Or if you can't afford one Why not order one on the net?




posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Woodcarver

A creationist is someone who makes those monsters under your bed. You need to widen your scope of reality.

Humans currently right now are *Creating* (Snthesizing life)

Your comments against *creationism* is not only ignorant but also invalidated by science.


Creationism is the claim that life was created by a deity. Not by scientists in a lab or aliens. That is synthesis of life by other living beings. You can't redefine the term creationist. We are talking about the origins of all life. Where did those aliens come from?

I do believe that scientist will be able to synthesize life at some point, but it is not currently being done.
edit on 9-2-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Why not just eliminate the argument from the name? Call the forum 'Origins of Life', and let everyone go to town.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Hey, just cuz humans label them deities or gods or w.e Dosn't make the statement any less true.

technology and physical superiority always leave an imprint on impressionable minds. never forget that.
What if some guy was flying around like neo, But the guy is just part machine part human. You wouldn't know unless you were informed and would probably think its an alien or some weird object in the sky lol. Gross exaduration but take away our capacity to understand through technology. Say back to the day of the romans and seeing a dude flying around.

If we were to create a subspecies of humans on another planet, Whose to stop them from call us Gods? Just because the specifics people desire are not the outcomes does not make *creating* anything less plausible. And does not require a space ghost to acomplish.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I think we should rename it:

"Origins &...Creationism?"

A little punctuation goes a long way. One ellipsis & question mark added a hundred layers of implication & innuendo.
edit on 9-2-2015 by Eunuchorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

By and large, I doubt that most "Creationists" would consider themselves to be in support of the "Ancient Alien" theories and vice versa.

While I also tend to believe that life on this planet was manipulated by ETs at some point in the past, I do not consider myself to be a "Creationist."

I believe that humans of the time who may have witnessed their presence probably viewed them as "Gods" and religion was born.

Today, I think most Creationist believe in a singular, supernatural God who created and reigns over the entire universe as we know it.

Hardly the same thing.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

They got around this predicament by inventing "Intelligent Design".

ps. Ancient aliens are real.



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

I would think by definition If a human spreads life. A quantity to create great biodiversity, that makes them a creatonist.

Even if we ourselves were not created by E.T. We will very soon be filling the roles people of all wakes of life deny that any other species in existance could fullfill here.

There really is no right answer, But only what we can see in the current present and the lessons of the past.

As a species, These things we talk about. As long as science progresses the way it is. Will be eliminated. No one world government will event do it because science and spirituality will merge together. Or we will become hopelessly brutal.

The outcome can come from either direction. We will be creating life and technology reguardless and continue to do so. But how we approach it with signifigance or non at all will chance how society as a whole respects what we create and it will effect how our creations act as well.

Once life gets passed the point of self reflection to where technology becomes available to manipulate matter into life. It really puts a whole new perspective on the Denying creation and having us being created by something that creates everything. As it really dampers out the 2 by taking the keyfactors of both and combining them into one. Which literally is the ultimate truth of the observable universe as far as i can see. Things do in fact come out of existance via evolution. And otherthings well, Come about in a totally non natural sense. And the longer our modern society exists on this planet with its advancing technology. The more that line of natural vs Engineered Earth will become more blurred.

Vs our Terra forming efforts on Mars. For the marsian people and life to be created on that planet. Creationism will be a 100% recorded statement. And that seems to be a pretty hottopic in astrobiology right now. Terraforming mars.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join