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.

 

what if evolution and creationism were both true?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Belcastro

Well, here is the thing, evolution in no way or shape precludes a deity, deities, or divine noodles creating life in the very first instance. But it also does not deal with the origin of life. So it does not matter. Creationism is one of the possibilities on how life started, but it is an un-testable one.

Thus the evidence for evolution is very high, it is why it is labled a theory of science. Creation through supernatural means? Yeah not so much. It is a matter of faith. As a polytheist my ideas will be different from a monotheists. SO that sort of means two different faith groups are going to think the other is full of shi....oh wait.




posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Belcastro

Well, here is the thing, evolution in no way or shape precludes a deity, deities, or divine noodles creating life in the very first instance. But it also does not deal with the origin of life. So it does not matter. Creationism is one of the possibilities on how life started, but it is an un-testable one.

Thus the evidence for evolution is very high, it is why it is labled a theory of science. Creation through supernatural means? Yeah not so much. It is a matter of faith. As a polytheist my ideas will be different from a monotheists. SO that sort of means two different faith groups are going to think the other is full of shi....oh wait.



Creationism is the young earth theory... Which is just stupid...


A creator who allowed for evolution is something else.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Creationism also has an "old earth" form though they are much quieter than the young earthers. Many of them are deists, where "god created the universe then observed what happened from the outside".



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

actually i thought about throwing the three earth ages at him, after his post to me.
many Christians see no problem with the earth being billions of years old, and a creator for all things in the universe.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   

many Christians see no problem with the earth being billions of years old, and a creator for all things in the universe.


Thank you for adding sanity to this post!



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Noinden

actually i thought about throwing the three earth ages at him, after his post to me.
many Christians see no problem with the earth being billions of years old, and a creator for all things in the universe.




This is dead on. It's only a small minority of fundamentalist Christians that still buy into the literal genesis account as 100% truth. Then there are the trolls. They just scream the loudest (despite understanding the least about science and reality) so the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
edit on 6 21 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Creationism also has an "old earth" form though they are much quieter than the young earthers. Many of them are deists, where "god created the universe then observed what happened from the outside".



I think creationism is specifically whoevers 7000 year old theory...

That's not saying old earth Christians might not mislabel themselves creationists, but I think that is a specific doctrine. Akin to a Protestant vs a Christian or religion.


I could be wrong there..



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Belcastro

You should take a look at the microbiology going on everywhere in life. I believe "god", like many others, is consciousness as it permeates it's way through every living organism giving it a sense of "intelligence' non-local to its physicality. A couple of fascinating videos I want to show you.


1. A didinium hunting paramesiam

2. Self-replication of DNA

(starts 3:00)

Our bodies are literally loaded with hundreds of trillions of nano-robots working uniformly together creating self-organizing cells, which creates self-organizing species (people) which then goes on to create artificial intelligence. And so on...
There have been peer reviewed studies done on the theory that consciousness is relayed via microtubules in the cellular structure, ( www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) and is responsible for mitosis of the cell. The preponderance of studies in this field and our understanding of quantum physics might one day prove there is a "god" but not in the way most religions are hoping to expect. Of course, confirmation bias will play a large role in their acceptance that our "god" might only be a digital one. That we are trapped in singularity and god is nothing more than a binary self-replicating algorithm of fractals connecting the universe in a matrix of self-awareness, extending its consciousness through every sentient being as a means to subjectively understand itself.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall


literally loaded with hundreds of trillions of nano-robots


Literally? I don't think so. I understand that they function similar to machines, but calling them robots is a reach and a half.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

well, there's a hundred trillion atoms in a single cell and there's about a hundred trillion cells in the human body. So for the sake of argument, let's say a lot. Hundreds of trillions may have been a bad hyperbole. But why would calling them robots be a reach?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall


literally loaded with hundreds of trillions of nano-robots


Literally? I don't think so. I understand that they function similar to machines, but calling them robots is a reach and a half.


Perhaps robot isn't a bad description of a cell because a robot also follows the structure/function model. Robotics today is actually scary - they will be able to self assemble and reproduce. So what will be the fundamental difference between a robot and a human? I don't know the answer, but reading some of the current literature on robotics is mind bending, to say the least. A totally autonomous robot which can self assemble and reproduce would have to be called a new life form, I think.

This is a funny story - the robot actually did it again a few days later - it learned how to open the gate and get out - they will probably pull the plug on the poor thing.

RUNAWAY BOT
It’s happening: A robot escaped a lab in Russia and made a dash for freedom

qz.com...


edit on 25-6-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall


literally loaded with hundreds of trillions of nano-robots


Literally? I don't think so. I understand that they function similar to machines, but calling them robots is a reach and a half.


Perhaps robot isn't a bad description of a cell because a robot also follows the structure/function model. Robotics today is actually scary - they will be able to self assemble and reproduce. So what will be the fundamental difference between a robot and a human? I don't know the answer, but reading some of the current literature on robotics is mind bending, to say the least. A totally autonomous robot which can self assemble and reproduce would have to be called a new life form, I think.

This is a funny story - the robot actually did it again a few days later - it learned how to open the gate and get out - they will probably pull the plug on the poor thing.

RUNAWAY BOT
It’s happening: A robot escaped a lab in Russia and made a dash for freedom

qz.com...




We are miles away from self producing robots lol. I don't think it is scary at all..

All of the "AI will kill us all" stuff assumes that we will allow it to...


We would have to build a 100% human free inferstructure for it to even gain the ability to take over ANYTHING.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I always felt that God created the universe, Earth, and life. Gave it a start, hundreds of millions of years ago, and let it evolve its own way. Could there be a better more ultimate example of a free will experiment than letting life evolve in what ever direction it chooses?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall


literally loaded with hundreds of trillions of nano-robots


Literally? I don't think so. I understand that they function similar to machines, but calling them robots is a reach and a half.


Perhaps robot isn't a bad description of a cell because a robot also follows the structure/function model. Robotics today is actually scary - they will be able to self assemble and reproduce. So what will be the fundamental difference between a robot and a human? I don't know the answer, but reading some of the current literature on robotics is mind bending, to say the least. A totally autonomous robot which can self assemble and reproduce would have to be called a new life form, I think.

This is a funny story - the robot actually did it again a few days later - it learned how to open the gate and get out - they will probably pull the plug on the poor thing.

RUNAWAY BOT
It’s happening: A robot escaped a lab in Russia and made a dash for freedom

qz.com...




We are miles away from self producing robots lol. I don't think it is scary at all..

All of the "AI will kill us all" stuff assumes that we will allow it to...


We would have to build a 100% human free inferstructure for it to even gain the ability to take over ANYTHING.


Not really:

Evolving Self-Assembly in Autonomous Homogeneous Robots: Experiments with Two Physical Robots



Abstract This research work illustrates an approach to the design of controllers for self-assembling robots in which the self-assembly is initiated and regulated by perceptual cues that are brought forth by the physical robots through their dynamical interactions. More specifically, we present a homogeneous control system that can achieve assembly between two modules (two fully autonomous robots) of a mobile self-reconfigurable system without a priori introduced behavioral or morphological heterogeneities. The controllers are dynamic neural networks evolved in simulation that directly control all the actuators of the two robots. The neurocontrollers cause the dynamic specialization of the robots by allocating roles between them based solely on their interaction. We show that the best evolved controller proves to be successful when tested on a real hardware platform, the swarm-bot. The performance achieved is similar to the one achieved by existing modular or behavior-based approaches, also due to the effect of an emergent recovery mechanism that was neither explicitly rewarded by the fitness function, nor observed during the evolutionary simulation. Our results suggest that direct access to the orientations or intentions of the other agents is not a necessary condition for robot coordination: Our robots coordinate without direct or explicit communication, contrary to what is assumed by most research works in collective robotics. This work also contributes to strengthening the evidence that evolutionary robotics is a design methodology that can tackle real-world tasks demanding fine sensory-motor coordination.


www.mitpressjournals.org...



Robots master reproduction
Modular machine assembles copies of itself in minutes.

www.nature.com...



edit on 25-6-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: Barcs

well, there's a hundred trillion atoms in a single cell and there's about a hundred trillion cells in the human body. So for the sake of argument, let's say a lot. Hundreds of trillions may have been a bad hyperbole. But why would calling them robots be a reach?


Honestly I had no problem with the hundreds of trillions statement. Robots are made by humans, designed for a purpose. That's why the term nano-robot jumped out at me. I get that they function like machines, but if they weren't designed, IMO, they can't be literal robots. That's my interpretation at least. So then we have to figure out if they were designed or not, which proves very difficult and requires more info.

I honestly can't wait until we perfect nanobot technology. It could mean the elimination of 90% of all diseases and ailments. Humans are getting close to controlling their own evolution, give it 20 years or so and we'll be doing things with genetics we can't even dream of right now.
edit on 6 25 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Well they would have to have been designed because they don't just appear on their own. They are designed based on the particular proteins responsible for their role. It's fascinating stuff.


Our bodies for a lack of a better term, are giant manufacturing plants with workers and assembly lines. So who's the plant manager? it''s not the brain. But we seem to think the brain is responsible for consciousness. However, there must be a driving force behind physiology.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Belcastro

SO that sort of means two different faith groups are going to think the other is full of shi....oh wait.


You're both running around in (prepared) circles anyway, you're running too fast. Slow down and talk to the worm:

edit on 26-6-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

What circle do you think I am running in prey tell?



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden
human philosophy

As discussed here:
comment 1
comment 2
comment 3 (keyphrase: accurate knowledge... of truth)
comment 4
comment 5

I had a more extensive reply why I included all those comments and how they relate to my metaphorical use of that video but I lost it because of a wrong click when searching for those comments.
edit on 27-6-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join