Is Creationism a theory to prove Aliens created us?, page 1

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Rren
ID does not - repeat - NOT say anything whatsoever about the existence of GOD, one way or the other.

But it does. It doesn't say that a god made life on this planet, but it does say that the first lifeforms had to be made by a god, because either an intelligent designer is an intelligent living thing, or a supernatural thing. ID states that nature can't create life on its own, and a designer is required, therefore, the first organisms in the universe had to be created by a super-natural designer.

Correct me if i'm wrong here Nygdan, but isn't your point of contention hypothetical? What if the universe (matter-energy and space/time) is infinite. The Plasma Cosmology Model predicts this..."since we never see effects without causes, we have no reason to assume an origin in time for the universe—an effect without a cause. Thus this approach, in contrast to the currently dominant Big Bang cosmology, does not assume any beginning for the universe". If this model is correct isn't your point moot? You could even propose a steady-state model that would make it improbable, nigh impossible, to ever know the true beginning of our universe.

Also what if a super-natural creator was the designer of our world? IDT still doesn't propose to describe him, by definiton wouldn't a super-natural creator be impossible to describe scientifically anyway? You said, "ID states that nature can't create life on its own" and that's true, but where's your naturallistic model on how nature created life(can i disregard evolution until you come up with one)?

Life does not get simpler the closer we look (single cell is a complex as any city) by all observational data isn't life irreducibly complex(the 'quantum level' is just as complex as the macro, do you assume that's as far as it goes)? No matter what model/philosophy you adhere too you can never describe the actual beginning of everything...the question and the answer is infinite is it not? So why isn't ID, as an origins theory, as sensible to you as a naturallistic one? Just because it can't explain who created GOD?

I realize your opinion is deeper than that, but i get the impression that your almost offended by the idea that you just may need a GOD to get this whole ball of wax a rollin'. My point is, doesn't the same paradox exist in naturallistic and ID models (ie define the beginning of something infinite in nature). At worst why not deal with the specific theories and models, they (IDTists) have produced some testable hypotheses. It seems to me, again correct me if i'm wrong, that you saying naturallistic origins may be false but it has to be the default position of science, and i guess i just don't understand why that is.

Or any actual ID argument and leave the philosophy alone

Id is something of a philosophical consideration tho; that naturalistic science is not necessary to study and explain the world around us. The scientific aspects are that IDists will examine things in nature and conclude that they aren't capable of being formed by successive adaptive/functional stages, and thus are irreducibely complex.

I can agree with both of those statements. So you would agree that there is a "scientific aspect" to IDT(if so why all the hub-bub bud

)? Why not deal with that which science can make determinations about, ie irreducible complexity, specified complexity and the like, leave the rest to philosophers and creationists. Agree or disagree they are scientific questions are they not?

....please please show us the link, had no idea they found it

I fail to see why austalpithecines and the rest aren't a link between more primitive apes and man. The term missing link is from before these things were well known.

I like to use this site to learn about evolution. The link i gave takes you to the human phylogenetic tree. There are several debates, as i'm sure your aware, about which "line" lead to the next. One camp says Homo rudolfenis led to Homo ergaster another says it was Homo habilis both sides give evidence as to why the other is wrong. Why can''t i say that they're both right and neither could be our ancestor? So on down the line, is our species(modern man) descended from ergater or erectus again why can't i use the evidence, provided by evolutionists, to say neither?

My point was that common ancestory is not some sort of explicit fact of evolution, evolutionists still argue over the 'lineage' and that's excluding the 'kinds' debate or any creationist theory even. The best evidence for common ancestory is DNA not fossil (yes?) and i won't pretend to understand DNA enough to refute that, just wanted to be clear that we don't really know if we share a common ancestor with the apes, and if we do, we don't know what that species was.

Don't some evolutionists argue that some of our so-called ancestors shouldn't even be classified in the genus homo? I am not using any creationist sites or interpretations of the evidence here and i can make a case against common ancestory. Given the human phylogenetic tree, what happens to the theory if i remove habilis and rudolfensis from the genus Homo? Not trying to be overly critical but i really don't know the alternate theory to that "tree", do you? What line exactly do you see as fact, so much so that we've "stopped looking" for alternatives or a 'missing link' so to speak?

Source

Another debate centered around Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis is whether or not these two species belong in the genus Homo or would be better suited in one of the other hominid genera. Some researchers feel that all species within the genus Homo should have characteristics, such as locomotor patterns, diet and body proportions, that make them more like modern humans than like the australopiths. These researchers feel that the characteristics of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis are more ape-like than modern, a conclusion that would remove them from our genus. This would make Homo a monophyly (all species evolved from a common ancestor), rather than a polyphyly (the species evolved from more than one ancestor) as it is now thought to be. Other reseearchers think, however, that moving the two species out of the genus Homo does not solve the problem since the specimens do not easily fit into the genus Australopithecus as currently defined.

And numerous fossils connecting man to ape? I thought there was only a handfull literally (all of em together wouldn't fill a coffin) and while half an arm and a piece of a jawbone maybe a skull portion are enough to have convinced you...some of us rubes might need a little more.

There's quite a bit more than that
www.talkorigins.org...

I'm aware, more or less, of the fossil evidence for common ancestory admittedly not to the extent you are. But i still think you're overstating what's actually there and what's conclusive proof for common ancestory. Even evolutionists disagree on the lineage, so are you saying that one side is right because of (fill in blank for me) or it doesn't matter who's right. We share a common ancestor with apes because of (fill in the blank for me) regardless of the fossil evidence or lack there-of. Even a "kinds" model is possible given the fossil evidence if you wish to interpret it as such, is it not? I know that you don't believe a kind barrier exists. but it's not an impossibility to you is it?

(edit)Apologies to DaTruth:

Sorry man i totally hi-jacked your thread...i'll drop it there's plenty of threads to debate evolution, so again sorry i got carried away. To your topic:

Is Creationism a theory to prove Aliens created us? I would say no not really but it could be. Some believe the Bible tells of aliens and UFO's and such and that some sort of cross-breeding between man and alien occured in the past. So in that respect it could be, but for the most part creationism ain't about that. Intelligen Design Theory could be used in that vein. As you've read on this page it's controvercial.

Technically the Designer could be anything or anyone. You do reach a paradox, like Nygdan said, where you have to ask who created our creator and who his - so on and so forth. But that does not rule out that we are designed or that design is testable imho. And to be honest Nygdan is right, whether it matters or not, that most IDTists that i'm aware of place GOD (of Abraham for the majority) as the designer...but as i've said, ad nauseum, IDT doesn't prove or even comment on that. Your aliens and my GOD are just as likely in the ID model....for our planet anyway.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Rren]