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.

 

Is Creationism a theory to prove Aliens created us?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Ok I know I’m going to catch a lot of flack for this one but think about it. Evolution basically says that we evolved with out any help from outside forces. Basically it was natural selection and mutations yet they are still looking for the missing link. Creationist say that God or a "God" used intelligent design to create us right? So Aliens who could be perceived as gods depending on how you look at things could of created us. Maybe we are getting prepared for the real truth of things? I really don't know that length of creationsist arguments but this is how i see it. Any thoughts?




posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Basically what I believe too....



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I'm on the evolutionists side of the argument, only because the Christian fundamentalists annoy the hell out of me. But I really do think that EBEs had a major hand in creating us and getting us to where we are today. Mostly, evolution has physical proof that evolution does happen, and I think that most of it happened without any outside help. They just put the polish on it.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Creationism isn't a theory to explain anything, its not a scientific theory. Creationism certainly wouldn't help show that aliens made earth life anyway, even intelligent design creationism. This is because intelligent design states that basic biological setups are too complex to form naturally, and therefore there has to be not only a designer, but a supernatural designer.

Evolution isn't still looking for the 'missing link' between man and primitive apes, there are numerous fossils connecting man to ape already.

Also, and I don't want to single enkis_my_hero out cause lots of people do this.....please don't post a response wherein you simply agree in a single line or two with another poster.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
..... This is because intelligent design states that basic biological setups are too complex to form naturally, and therefore there has to be not only a designer, but a supernatural designer.


(emphasis mine) Nygdan your statement is completely false, and what's worse i know that you know that. Invoking the "god did it" BS is done by opponents of ID not from anyone inside the ID community. ID does not - repeat - NOT say anything whatsoever about the existence of GOD, one way or the other. It's a way to dodge the questions without having to actually deal with the issues. Typical imo and getting very old. Perhaps if your so sure about your position you'd reply to Mattison0922's post in My testing IDT thread. Or any actual ID argument and leave the philosophy alone..seems you guys are the only one's promoting it.


Evolution isn't still looking for the 'missing link' between man and primitive apes, there are numerous fossils connecting man to ape already.


Nobody's looking for the 'missing link' anymore....please please show us the link, had no idea they found it...you could go down in history here Nygdan(i'm assuming you discovered it being it aint reached the 'streets yet'
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. Please correct me if i'm wrong but a link to the 'missing link' and the related fossils would be appreciated. Of course i think you've just been a little too liberal with what's in evidence and what's supposed to be...course i could be wrond it's bound to happen sooner or later.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
There is no one missing link. Because evolution is a gradual process, every new type of prehistoric hominid found is a missing link, and there are dozens of them, because of evolution. Every gradual step brings a different link
en.wikipedia.org...
Instead biologist look for a common ancestor, which may or may not have been found. Whether it has been found is beside the point, the basic evidence of near complete skeletons (Lucy for example www.asu.edu... ) being found proves that a previous version of man has been found.
Rren, if nobody means God when they speak of ID, what is the intelligence behind the design, if not God, or Allah, or Brahma, or Yahweh, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Hey creationists, check this one out
www.news.com.au...

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.


ha, reason wins out over even the most faithfull.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   

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.



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.


....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.


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...



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

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]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Nygdan is correct and anybody who reads knows this is so. Firstly, Creationism is NOT a theory and there are reasons for this and it is so for the same resason that Creationism is not a recipe or a musical score. Each of these things have requirements and Creationism does not meet any on the requirements for any of the three.
On the missing link Nygdan is right again. The whole concept of the "missing link" was based upon misassumption and erroneous conclusions. No one, therefore, in either anthropology or paleontology, is looking "the missing link" just as we are not looking for Atlantis.
Your homework for the week is to lookup the term theory and understand what is required for a postulation to be elevated to theory. If you do this you will avoid sounding uninformed by calling either ID or Creationism..... a theory.
skep



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by skep
Nygdan is correct and anybody who reads knows this is so. Firstly, Creationism is NOT a theory and there are reasons for this and it is so for the same resason that Creationism is not a recipe or a musical score. Each of these things have requirements and Creationism does not meet any on the requirements for any of the three.
On the missing link Nygdan is right again. The whole concept of the "missing link" was based upon misassumption and erroneous conclusions. No one, therefore, in either anthropology or paleontology, is looking "the missing link" just as we are not looking for Atlantis.
Your homework for the week is to lookup the term theory and understand what is required for a postulation to be elevated to theory. If you do this you will avoid sounding uninformed by calling either ID or Creationism..... a theory.
skep


So skep says Nygdan is right. *note to self...check

I seriously doubt you have any clue what you're talking about. Did you have an argument? Seriously guy...any? It's fun do jump on the bandwagon and pretend to be smart i know...but around here we expect you to back it up. If you'd care to respond or answer any of the questions/statements i posted, re: common ancestry, ..then do so.

I assure you i know the definition for theory/hypothesis, did you have a point otherwise? I highly doubt you have any clue what ID is, outside of that little ideological, "yes man" box you live in...trust me kid, i ain't the one. Challenge me...i've got some ID threads around here, you're more than welcome to post your refutations of ID and/or your proof for a naturalistic origins model...we'll see just how much of your knowledge is just coming out your #... usually when you ignore every comment/question and just go to your 'talking points' you make it obvious tho.

[edit on 4-12-2005 by Rren]



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
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.


Actually, "aliens" and "deity of choice" are not equally likely, and the whole "where it came from" scenario offers some very real problems, and all of them deal with irregularities in the design and variations in the design as well as the purpose of the design.

The Deity Concept also ascribes a supernatural reason for things going wrong: humans did something to displease the deity and therefore creature design is not transmitted perfectly (and then you get into the issue of why did the cockroaches so please the deity that the basic design has changed little in millions of years and why the deity would punish everything for the transgressions of humans only.) The Deity Concept doesn't explain all the many species of humans.

Or why the deity quit creating species.

The Alien Concept would have to include either the aliens designing variations and waste into the design (flawed design) or being terribly inexpert (accounting for multiple designs) and at what stage they intervened and when they stopped intervening.

...among other problems.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
**Disclaimer**
Honestly, i forgot about this thread and haven't commented on it.
**Disclaimer**

I was about to get mad and go off on a rant because my thread got hijacked. Then i saw what Rren poseted so it's all good. I'm glad now because I see that Creationism and Intelligent design aren't one in the same. However don't some people who defend creationism use ID as a defense? Also does ID talk about the creation of the universe of just humans. I get very confused by all of theses theories.

Anyway I said all of that to say this..... Ok I forgot lol. In all seriousness what is the point in arguing about something that either side has/can get any proof of ? Why don't we try to figure out the things we can prove? Really all of this is conjecture is pointless. They want to teach alternative theories in school when kids today really don't give two s**ts. I just feel there are more important things to teach our kids about like math and safe sex.

OK I’m done
Thank you for putting up with my rant I will now retire to my apt in Babylon A.K.A Washington, D.C



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth
**Disclaimer**
Honestly, i forgot about this thread and haven't commented on it.
**Disclaimer**

I was about to get mad and go off on a rant because my thread got hijacked. Then i saw what Rren poseted so it's all good.


Yeah a little "knee-jerk" on my part, but you opened up the thread with missing link, natural selection, mutations aliens/gods, GOD and said ....."any thoughts?"....Well i had some



I'm glad now because I see that Creationism and Intelligent design aren't one in the same.


They're similiar in the generic sense. Creator - designer...for many people, like me, they mean the same thing. The point is that the actual hypothesis of Intelligent Design has nothing to do with any religous texts and/or suppositions. It's a simple question: Is design detectable? I don't need to know anything about the nature or identity of the designer to answer that question....and that's why its not really creationism. You're not alone it's a bit of a "grey area" for alot of people.



However don't some people who defend creationism use ID as a defense?


Yeah, but we use many theories and scientific principals...that's what creationism is - science meets scripture. If a creationist includes the Big Bang in his creation model does Big Bang cosmology become a pseudoscientific creationist theory? No, of course not. ID is a tool of creationists but not vice-versa.

ID can't answer any of Byrd's questions for example...those would fall to the creationists and philosophers et.,al (perfect/imperfect creation, why..etc. ). Definately subjects worthy of discussion, but ultimately unfair imo to expect an ID theory on the origins of biological complexity to answer it. Know what i mean?




Also does ID talk about the creation of the universe of just humans. I get very confused by all of theses theories.


Most of the time it's talking about biological origins of life, but ID is not exclusive to biology. Here's a good example, and a great site to surf for ID information imo. (ideacenter.org)

Universe: Evidence of Design Through Anthropic Pincipals



They want to teach alternative theories in school when kids today really don't give two s**ts. I just feel there are more important things to teach our kids about like math and safe sex.


These things are important too imo. Although i support ID i don't advocate it being taught in public schools without first having been accepted by the scientific community as valid ... and it hasn't been yet...and that's why we debate it .*shrug* Besides I don't know who shot JFK, what happened at Roswell, or who the majestic12 are, so what else am i gonna talk about around here anyway



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTruth So Aliens [...] could of created us. Maybe we are getting prepared for the real truth of things? I really don't know that length of creationsist arguments but this is how i see it. Any thoughts?


This is the premise of the movie "mission to mars". And I personally think this is a lie out of hell to get you to kowtow to the Antichrist and take his mark when he comes around with a one world religion and contrived "solutions" to all the worlds problems.
...the aliens are going to come around and say that all the world religions are flawed or some nonsense like that.
...just like all those sci-fi novels.
u2u me, if you want to hear more. or google this stuff



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, "aliens" and "deity of choice" are not equally likely,

What difference does the likelihood of either make when really the ID of the IDer is irrelevant to the theory?


and the whole "where it came from" scenario offers some very real problems, and all of them deal with irregularities in the design and variations in the design as well as the purpose of the design.

Untrue. These ‘problems’ that ‘deal with irregularities in the design’ are not problems at all. They are based purely on YOUR presuppositions about the designer. IDT doesn’t assume a designer that can’t make mistakes, and in fact assumes nothing about the designer. Irregularities in design, etc. are arguments from presuppositions about the nature of the designer and are not addressing IDT issues. IDT is an origins theory and doesn’t speak to the purpose of something anymore than NDT does.


The Deity Concept also ascribes a supernatural reason for things going wrong: humans did something to displease the deity and therefore creature design is not transmitted perfectly (and then you get into the issue of why did the cockroaches so please the deity that the basic design has changed little in millions of years and why the deity would punish everything for the transgressions of humans only.) The Deity Concept doesn't explain all the many species of humans.

Or why the deity quit creating species.

The Alien Concept would have to include either the aliens designing variations and waste into the design (flawed design) or being terribly inexpert (accounting for multiple designs) and at what stage they intervened and when they stopped intervening.

...among other problems.


Please see above rebuttals. Why do you insist on injecting these questions that are clearly outside of the realm of the theory? IDT doesn’t address the why anymore than NDT does. Why is it insisted that it must?



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
i believe aliens created life on this planet and we probably are the same race. who says that earth is our home planet! A planet called heaven might be where the human race first started and we were created to expand the human race. i also think the dinosaurs were wiped out because there earlier experimenints didnt work so they cleansed the planet and started again ( very stratigic spot that asteriod hit the planet just so happened to wipe out all life but not destroy the planet )
also i think ive seen a program where they found the pyramids were lined up with the stars ( sum kind of navigation aid so they could find earth )
i think that why people claim to abducted by aliens is because they are checking how far we have evolved
they human race has always been facinated with the stars always wondered if there is life out there maybe its because deep down we know were part of a bigger race
God was probably the name of alien in charge of terra forming this planet and creating life
thats why he's depicted as been up there (in heaven the home world)
look at the evidence thats all around us connect the dots maybe you might not think my views are crazy



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


i wouldnt sign up to any creationists sites and express that belief it will be taken rather unsympathetically

even ID ultimatley leads to god via aliens ...... its a legal dodge to avoid bieng called creationists they make it sound a bit more sciencey in name(alone) and switch god to designer

this attempts to gets around legal judgments and also gains them some support from people like your selves that beleive in a form of directed transpermia

the problem is it doesnt answer any questions

for somthing to be designed thier must be a more complex form of designer

who made us? aliens, who made the aliens? super aliens, who made the super alliens, the super dooper aliens, who made the super dooper alliens?, the super doppery dooper aliens

when everyone gets bored of adding dooper to the end and repeat to infinty there becomes only one conclusive answer as it cant be a natural one (the premise of ireducable comlexity)

and like a transformer pretending to be a car but really a robot

a book of ID *cue transformer noise* becomes a bible

so the question is who do you believe made the aliens that made us?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join