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.

 

Cosmology & The Three Theories of Human Origins

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
There are three circulating theories that address how the Universe came to be and how humankind emerged on this planet:

Evolutionism/Darwinism: The theory that lower forms of life can and do evolve into more advanced and sophisticated forms of life, and that hominids (close to apes genetically) evolved into Homo sapiens on this planet independent of any deity or extraterrestrial influence. Proponents of Evolutionism state that there is evidence on a small scale, as in microbial life, that progressive mutations occur, and that life-supportive chemicals and processes on this planet came about initially through pure chance - and then evolved. Opponents to Evolutionism state that no direct and conclusive evidence has ever been uncovered to prove that hominids have evolved into humans. The skeletal remains referred to as “Lucy” that was on exhibit for many years in the British museum in London, was initially promoted to be one of the “missing links” between apes and man. However, this hypothesis is no longer furthered and the exhibit was taken down simply because “Lucy” can also be interpreted as only being an extinct ape – not a missing link between hominids and humankind




posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
They are not even close in their status.

ID and interventionism are merely hypotheses, they have no true evidence. I could hypothesise that gravity is caused by nac mac feegles who purposefully move objects, maybe it should be taught in physics.

Science rarely provides conclusive proofs, just evidence beyond a reasonable degree of doubt, ToE is a theory because it was a hypothesis that has positive evidence - ID provides nothing evidential, just focuses on the lack of certain knowledge (gaps) and specious improbability arguments, when it does have positive evidence it may make theory status (it's not even strong logic - this is very complex, we do not know how it came to be, therefore intelligence).

Interventionism - well if it depends on hypothetical evidence that may or may not exist, it is another hypothesis without positive evidence. (edit: and why is human DNA so very close to ape DNA? Shouldn't we have a good chunk of alien DNA in our DNA?)

So, ToE is a theory, ID et al. are just pure conjecture and hypotheses found wanting in the real world, they are philosophy.

Anyway, when are you going to fit these new classes in the timetable? Is it not more productive to spend valuable time teaching proper subjects like english, maths, science, history etc.. What classes should give way to teach this new subject?

[edit on 18-2-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Why is it that the ignorant and prejudiced ones are the most vocal?

melatonin,

Are we to assume by your ATS nic that you are semi-conscious in furthering your sophomoric perspective?


Originally posted by melatonin
They are not even close in their status.

ID and interventionism are merely hypotheses, they have no true evidence.


You really need to do A LOT more INDEPENDENT RESEARCH and READING on this and related topics


You also need to THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX and away from the rigid, parochial, early 20th Century, scientific mindset.

Additionally, the United States Air Force, Zecharia Sitchin, and Linda Moulton Howe, all represent much more respectable and credible sources for testimonial evidence, research and analysis than you do.



Originally posted by melatonin
I could hypothesise that gravity is caused by nac mac feegles who purposefully move objects, maybe it should be taught in physics.


Are we to believe that this one of your more credible theories?



Originally posted by melatonin
Science rarely provides conclusive proofs, just evidence beyond a reasonable degree of doubt...


Precisely. In which case, ALL THREE HYPOTHESES have their place as VALID THEORIES.


Originally posted by melatonin
Interventionism - well if it depends on hypothetical evidence that may or may not exist, it is another hypothesis without positive evidence. (edit: and why is human DNA so very close to ape DNA? Shouldn't we have a good chunk of alien DNA in our DNA?)


There you go...showing your IGNORANCE again.

Homo Sapiens Contain 223 Alien Genes



Also refer to the link I have on Interventionism in my original post



Originally posted by melatonin
So, ToE is a theory, ID et al. are just pure conjecture and hypotheses found wanting in the real world, they are philosophy.


All philosophy, as with science, starts out with a set of assumptions. Oftentimes, these assumptions are based solely on REASON and OBSERVATION.


Originally posted by melatonin
Anyway, when are you going to fit these new classes in the timetable? Is it not more productive to spend valuable time teaching proper subjects like english, maths, science, history etc.. What classes should give way to teach this new subject?


I work at an institution of higher learning; the second largest junior college in the United States. In fact, one of our adjunct biology professors, who passed on around the turn of this century, taught Colonialism as one of the three valid theories (along with Evolutionism and Creationism) for the emergence of humans on this planet.


It would not destroy our educational system if we offered an additional course in high school and college called Cosmology & The Theories of Human Origins.

Quite the contrary: students would flock to sign up and thereby increase the annual revenue for schools and universities





posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
oh cheers, ignorant and prejudiced....right, that's a good way to start a discussion.

They are not theories at all. Just hypotheses. You can hand-wave and ad-hominem all you like, doesn't change the facts - you have none, just a few observations that you use for pure speculation. Whereas, ToE has converging evidence from numerous sources. You seem to accept it when you want anyway and just focus on certain issues.

The nac mac feegle controlled gravity hypothesis is as valid as ID and interventionism.

So this nexus link, haha Darwinism is crumbling, even better - "Intelligent Designers hurl the boulders doing the most damage"- This is a joke, right? Darwins theory has changed quite a bit - hence the new synthesis, it is wishful thinking that it is crumbling and that ID contains anything of substance, it is totally vacuous...


The trenchant Fred Hoyle analogy still stands: it was as likely to be true as that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and correctly assemble a jetliner.


Yes, of course that's what ToE predicts - or is it, well unless the junk can reporduce, of course not. Strangely enough, an experimental simulation using the mechanisms of ToE has produced a working radio from basic components...

www.cogs.susx.ac.uk...

so the nexus site goes into speculating terraforming and seeding on the earth, cool, makes great SF. So how do we test this then, did they leave their terra-machine? Maybe the nac mac feegles created the earth...

There seems to be some difficulty separating ToE and abiogenesis - ToE does not speak to how the first life formed, just how it evolved from those first life-forms.

Most science starts with an observation, then formation of falsifiable hypotheses, then we test them. What is your testable hypothesis?


Unless further scientific research can establish, beyond any doubt, that the only possible source of the extra genes are indeed bacteria, and unless it is then also determined that the infection (“horizontal transfer”) went from bacteria to Man and not from Man to bacteria, the only other available solution will be that offered by the Sumerian texts millennia ago.


Oh yes, science must establish beyond doubt but this person can pull ideas out of his ass without the need for any evidence


Well, of course, I should just accept the 223 genes as alien intervention, what else could explain this? How do you determine that these 223 genes are alien derived? Unless you can show evidence, it is pure speculation. This passage is just pure guesswork and wishful thinking..


As detailed in my books, beginning with The 12th Planet (1976) and even more so in Genesis Revisited and The Cosmic Code, the Anunnaki came to Earth some 450,000 years ago from the planet Nibiru – a member of our own solar system whose great orbit brings it to our part of the heavens once every 3,600 years. They came here in need of gold, with which to protect their dwindling atmosphere. Exhausted and in need of help in mining the gold, their chief scientist Enki suggested that they use their genetic knowledge to create the needed Primitive Workers.


You really wanna teach this to kids? This person even talks about the face on mars, it's just a trick of light and perspective, here's a better picture if the mountian...

news.bbc.co.uk...

of course I'm sure you would say it's a conspiracy.

I have no problem with the speculation of panspermia, it is a possibility. But then the question remains - how did those alien species evolve? It just moves the problem from earth to elsewhere. I also accept the possibility that the universe itself was created by intelligence - I am agnostic - I see this possibility, but I also accept it as pure speculation based on no evidence but merely lack of another explanation.

I didn't say it would destroy education, just take time away from more important subjects. Should we really teach kids science fiction as theory in education?

So, would you like to have a discussion of the issues, or just throw mud at each other? Maybe this is how you discuss in your college...

Anyway, so you accept ToE for most evolution but for some reason humans are 'special' and need interventionism. Why? Is the 223 gene business the best you have?

And you criticise the scientific evidence for hominid evolution



[edit on 18-2-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 18-2-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
ID and interventionism are merely hypotheses, they have no true evidence.


You mean proof? There is plenty of evidence for ID. In fact many physicists, especially those in QM, have found evidence to support ID.

You would have been correct if you had said proof, but that could be extended to any ToE.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by melatonin
ID and interventionism are merely hypotheses, they have no true evidence.


You mean proof? There is plenty of evidence for ID. In fact many physicists, especially those in QM, have found evidence to support ID.

You would have been correct if you had said proof, but that could be extended to any ToE.


OK hit me with it...



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   


TextYou mean proof? There is plenty of evidence for ID. In fact many physicists, especially those in QM, have found evidence to support ID.


Let's see it ... should be good lol.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by produkt
Let's see it ... should be good lol.


HAHAHAHAHA.

I have noticed you ridicule alot on ATS. Congratulations.

Anyways...

First and foremost evidence is not synonymous with proof.

Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion.

Key word here is forming. You collect the evidence and then you come to a conclusion. This conclusion is whats known as proof.

I said there was plenty of evidence to support ID, but I said there was no proof. Therefore I said it was still inconclusive. Furthermore, there is no proof for any of the ToE, only evidence.

I was alluding there was much evidence to support ID based on the research of many physicists I have read about. Many in which were quantum and theoretical physicists. They typically use the term "God" but in the context of theoretical physics I see "God" and "ID" to be interchangeable terms.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
And yet you still decided not to post this 'evidence' supporting? Interesting.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Well on your terms I think ToE does have proof, in fact it has quite a bit of proof. It has converging evidence from fossil, DNA, morphology, lab experimentation, computer modelling - it is by far the best explanation for the diversity of species - it is much more than speculation. As many say it is fact and theory - we observe real-time evolution on the microscale - we extrapolate this, and the other evidence stated, to evolution on larger scales over long periods of time. But in a scientific sense, we never prove theories - they are working models that can only be falsified - evidence is consistent with a theory.

The physicists you talk of, generally believe in the fine-tuning hypothesis, or anthropic principle - but I'm sure most of them agree that it is pure speculation, it has no positive evidence. Is the existence of Plancks constant evidence for god? Here's a good essay on the anthropic coincidences, it shows it is a flawed argument...

www.stephenjaygould.org...

here's weinberg on design and the universe...


Any possible universe could be explained as the work of some sort of designer. Even a universe that is completely chaotic, without any laws or regularities at all, could be supposed to have been designed by an idiot.

www.physlink.com...

Now, I'm quite open to the possibility that the universe was designed but, as a scientist, I know this is pure speculation and is in no way close to the status of the ToE.

[edit on 18-2-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 18-2-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Lucid Lunacy...thanks for your progressive input and analysis.


melatonin,

I call a fool a fool when I see one.

Maybe you think that if you spam your ideas long enough, you will simply wear down the progressive thinkers in this forum.

Hitler used to believe if you tell people falsehoods repeatedly they will eventually begin to believe them.

Don't expect that to happen in here.



Originally posted by melatonin
Originally quoted by melatonin, presumably from the Net:
As detailed in my books, beginning with The 12th Planet (1976) and even more so in Genesis Revisited and The Cosmic Code, the Anunnaki came to Earth some 450,000 years ago from the planet Nibiru – a member of our own solar system whose great orbit brings it to our part of the heavens once every 3,600 years. They came here in need of gold, with which to protect their dwindling atmosphere. Exhausted and in need of help in mining the gold, their chief scientist Enki suggested that they use their genetic knowledge to create the needed Primitive Workers.


Whenever you put in a quote in ATS/BTS/PTS, you also need to give us a reference link




This not only prevents you from looking like an IDIOT but it also adds CREDIBILITY to the material you are trying to present.

Stupid is what stupid does, I guess.


Is your quote supposed to be from a Zecharia Sitchin website?

You expect us to somehow intuitively discern where your source is?


Originally posted by melatonin
You really wanna teach this to kids?


I advocate to have students in college and even high school to have the opportunity to be exposed to all three theories for cosmology and human origins: Interventionism, Evolutionism, and Intelligent Design.

Now, in regard to your quote, presumably from a Zecharia Sitchin website, Marduk/Nibiru/Planet X should be mentioned as a side issue and not part of the main theory of Interventionism. It doesn't need to be a part of it. The same applies to Enki.

Zecharia Sitchin's archaeological conclusions are only one source for evidence pointing to the theory of Interventionism.

For example, there is also this site on Interventionism/Colonialism.

Secondly, among the more recent observations and conclusions of Zecharia Sitchin, is that he does not predict exactly when Marduk/Nibiru/Planet X is supposed to return to the Sol System.

Were you around for and aware of the fiasco with ZetaTalk.com in predicting that Nibiru would return in May of 2003?

Guess not.


Originally posted by melatonin
I have no problem with the speculation of panspermia, it is a possibility.


If you can handle contemplating the THEORY of Panspermia, then you should be able to handle contemplating the THEORY of Intelligent Design. Unless of course, you come from a perspective of prejudice.


Originally posted by melatonin
I didn\'t say it would destroy education, just take time away from more important subjects. Should we really teach kids science fiction as theory in education?


Many consider Panspermia to be nothing more than science fiction.



Having a class that addresses the theories of human origins and cosmology would not take away time from the core curriculum, but considerably improve upon the progressive format of higher education. One must remember that one of the integral facets of learning is not just memorizing "facts" (many of which prove inaccurate over time) but in learning how to research and analyze.

In other words...to learn HOW TO THINK.


Originally posted by melatonin

So, would you like to have a discussion of the issues, or just throw mud at each other? Maybe this is how you discuss in your college...


melatonin...ever go to college?

It is a place where students explore new ideas, not just rehash antiquated ones. Where people expand their horizons and discuss controversial theories at length.


Originally posted by melatonin
Anyway, so you accept ToE for most evolution but for some reason humans are special and need interventionism. Why? Is the 223 gene business the best you have?


If you can't handle the evidence that there is 223 alien genes in human DNA, how are we to expect you to be able to handle anything deeper?

But I will strive to stimulate the fragile intellect of those caught in a parochial, close-minded, early 20th Century, mechanistic perspective.

Observation and reason point to Homo sapiens having distinct abnormalities to the primates from this planet.

For example, after the hominids here "became human," their fingernails, toenails, and hair would continue to grow and their immune systems weakened.

This doesn't point to evolution: it points to a somewhat BOTCHED JOB AT GENETIC MANIPULATION.


Try not to think too hard about this as I am sure you are in danger of your brain exploding.



Ever see guerrillas or monkeys try to cut their hair or trim their nails?

No...and the reason why is because their hair and nails ONLY GROW TO A CERTAIN LENGTH AND THEN STOP.

Not so for Homo sapiens


There is a plethora of evidence to support the theories of Intelligent Design, Interventionism, and Evolutionism, and all three should be taught in a course in high school and college, thereby broadening the foundation of education and the cosmological paradigm for everyone.





posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Paul_Richard,

Wow ... Your full out personal attack against melatonin was just so uneeded. Do you feel bigger and better then him while you sat there and insulted him at every chance you got in that post? Did that all really make you sound very intelligent? You don't even sound the slightest bit educated at all in that post. And he is correct btw. ID and interventionalism are not very good theories. For one, there is no evidence that junk DNA is alien. IDT, isn't even a theory, it's an attack tactic used by creationist's to attack gaps of current knowledge in an attempt to sound like it's a sound theory. They have no proper theory nor prediction's of how life CAN'T evolve naturally per chance. ToE is a cery sound theory on the other hand. There's a plethora of evidence in it's support. Your ignorance or lack of knowledge won't change that. You spamming on how you think another is an idiot won't change that. Panspermia and ID are two wholly different thoeries. Actually, there's more in support for panspermia then there is ID. Why should ID be taught in school when the originator of ID himself said it isn't science, when he said it was just a ploy to get creationism taught in school's? He admit's it's not a sound theory. There's plenty of evidence that IDT was designed by those of faith just to get religion in where it doesn't belong.

Seriously though... There's no need for the personal attack's. Just make's you look very undeducated my friend.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
whatever...

when you have this evidence, present it. Otherwise it just fairy stories with a liberal spinkle of ad-hominem...

And yes, you wanted me to read your links, I did and presented some of their stories. Sorry if it didn't meet the magnificance of your level of argument. You should know where this rubbish comes from, apparently it's the basis of you argument. Great SF. Probably as good as the Serpo story.

Yes, been to college and know how it works and done a bit more than that. Generally we keep the ad-hominems out of a discussion. But I understand it is a phenomenom of childish specious arguments.

Good luck on getting this in school/colleges. I think you may need a bit more than a fairy story, maybe you should write it up as fiction, if its good it may get in a literature class


"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brain drop out" R. Dawkins.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
And here we go again - "I'm right" "No you're wrong and I am right"

Evolution has the missing link as well as other discrepencies. The other two also have their faults.

Since no one here was around in the beginning, everyone is ONLY GUESSING based on what they have observed.

The TRUTH might not even be ANY of these theories, but that does not mean that the above thoeries are not true. For all we know, it may be a comination of all 3!!!!

Save your energy to argue something worth while, something that could help mankind today.

You can debate without degrading.

My 'opinion' on what may have happened is a combination of Interventionism, Evolutionism, and Intelligent Design. Yes, all 3. I think they ALL had a hand in where we are today.

There may even be more.

Just because man is the most intelligent animal on our planet doesn't make us smart.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
However, this hypothesis is no longer furthered and the exhibit was taken down simply because “Lucy” can also be interpreted as only being an extinct ape – not a missing link between hominids and humankind

This is untrue. Lucy is an australpithecine, and its generally agreed that australipithecines are intermediate between man and the other apes. True enough, a fossil is a set of 'dead remains', and we can't technically say it did anything, like lived and moved and reproduced, etc. Thus we have hypotheses of the course of human evolution. I'm not sure about the particular instance you are talking about, but australpithecines are considered intermediates. They might've tried to clarify that they can't say that lucy herself reproduced, or that cladistic studies don't show ancestor-descendant relationships.


The theory that a “higher power” or “God” initiated The Big Bang which started the Universe. This hypothesis is based on observation and reason

Observation and reason can not apply to supernatural happenings. Diety and the supernatual is unobservable and unlimited by human reason. Also, Intelligent Design is a specific idea, and doesn't have much to say about the origns of the universe nor the big bang. It is a, strictly, biological idea, specifically that design can be detectedin the biological world.


theory that an advanced group of extraterrestrials landed on this planet hundreds of thousands of years ago, and mixed their DNA with the “already evolving primates” in order to come up with Homo sapiens.

These kinds of ideas are similar, in my humble opinion, to creationism, in so far as that they are effectively supernatural, that there can be any number of ad hoc reasons to explain away any lack of evidence or problems, iow, they are not limited by rational thought applied to natural observation.

Zecharia Sitchin, in having deciphered ancient Akkadian and even older Sumerian clay tablets.

Now, and I have tried to get clarification on this before and perhaps you know, Does Sitchin actually read akkadian and sumerian? Because my understanding is that sitchin, at best, reads transliterations of one or the other (but not both), and at worst takes translations of either and 're-works and re-interprets' the stories.

About 300,000 years ago, the Anunnaki decided to mix their DNA with the hominids here in order to produce a slave race to work the mines.

Unfortunately no genetic evidence supports this idea. I'd agree that one could say that there is something we are missing, and that that 'black box' permits these ideas to work, however, thats not the same as saying 'this genetic evidence supports this theory'


So I propose that Interventionism/Colonialism, Intelligent Design, and Darwinism/Evolutionism all be taught[...]in a separate class by itself, called Cosmology & The Theories of Human Origins.

I can't see the sense in wasting tax-payer money to teach intelligent a course like that. There's no way a single course can contain the background information needed to asses all those claims, naturalism, evolution, linguistics, sumerian history, the hypothetico-deductive method, natural philosophy, biochemistry and genetics, cuneiform, semitic studies, comparative religion, comparative linguistics, comparative anatomy, philosophy, etc etc. And clearly all of those would have to be given as part of the course information, because the general educational system has not prepared the public in any way to deal with those kinds of informations.


I advocate to have students in college and even high school to have the opportunity to be exposed to all three theories for cosmology and human origins: Interventionism, Evolutionism, and Intelligent Design.

Let me ask then, if you are a teacher for that course, at either level, and you are working up the lesson plan for alien intervention, what are the evidences that you have the class study?


melatonin
ID and interventionism are merely hypotheses [...]So, ToE is a theory, ID et al. are just pure conjecture and hypotheses

I would say that ID and interventionism are not hypotheses, and that evolution by natural selection is a hypothesis. A theory is literally nothing more than an hypothesis that has gained general acceptance, iow, a theory is just an hypothesis. Its debatable as to whether or not ID makes testable claims. Personally, I feel like, if ID isn't an hypothesis, its at best a serious and honest attempt at one. This 'interventionism' doesn't come close to being a hypothesis, and sitchin's research is practically universally rejected by linguists and historians who specialize in the subject matter sitchin lays claim to. Some would, no doubt, argue that sitchin in the 'radical genius' and everyone else is the close minded dolt too scared to break with dogma though.


In fact many physicists, especially those in QM, have found evidence to support ID.

This is incorrect. It seems like more and more Quantum Mechanics has become a sort of 'dumping ground' for difficult to support ideas. "Can't explain the evidence, well, according to quantum mechanics, nothing is as it seems and even the very act of observing something certainly alters it, so who knows". Increasingly String Theory is taking up that function.
Intelligent Design is a biological idea, primarily. I am not aware of any 'intelligent design research' that involves physicists in the field of quantum mechanics, let alone any 'quantum mechanicists' who promote intelligent design. Who in particular are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Hey Nygdan,

How does ToE not make theory status?

It is a working, systematic model that explains the origin of diversity with actual evidence (corroborated hypotheses), predictions, and a collection of logically consistent testable hypotheses.

Whereas a hypothesis is a proposed explanation which, in science, must have testable predictions. With enough corroborated evidence it makes theory status.


[edit on 20-2-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
How does ToE not make theory status?

I don't beleive I said that. If that was the impression I gave, then I apologize for not being clear. All theories are well accepted hypotheses. Really then, there is no real difference between a theory and an hypothesis. We may as well call it the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection.


Whereas a hypothesis is a proposed explanation which, in science, must have testable predictions. With enough evidence it makes theory status.

I don't want to quibble over the semantics of it, especially when they are unimportant. The problem with a theory being an hypothesis with 'enough evidence' is, what is enough evidence, or for that matter, what is 'general acceptance'? Its a subjective matter in a sense. An hypothesis is, in the strictest sense, as 'well proven' as any theory, both are potential of refutation at practically the drop of a hat, both aren't really made 'stronger' by 'ever more corroboration'. True enough, when a theory survives repeated attempts at refutation, we can say that its 'better', but even then only in the sense that its prefered to other similar theories that haven't had as many attempts at refutation.
Anyway, that was a lot of blather for something that I said I didn't want to address no?



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
true, it is semantics and it's pretty subjective as to when a hypothesis makes theory status but at the minimum a theory needs some corroborated scientific hypotheses.

I understand what you mean now, it is a hypothesis and is a theory. Fair enough, I also agree that in many ways ID and interventionism do not even make hypothesis status, as they make no testable, falsifiable predictions.

But I'm usually kind and allow ID supporters to claim hypothesis status with the hope they may make a testable, falsifiable prediction in the future.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
My 'opinion' on what may have happened is a combination of Interventionism, Evolutionism, and Intelligent Design. Yes, all 3. I think they ALL had a hand in where we are today.


Good hypothesis


As such, all three theories should be taught in schools, in a class all by itself.




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
However, this hypothesis is no longer furthered and the exhibit was taken down simply because “Lucy” can also be interpreted as only being an extinct ape – not a missing link between hominids and humankind


Originally posted by Nygdan
This is untrue. Lucy is an australpithecine, and its generally agreed that australipithecines are intermediate between man and the other apes.

What part of it is untrue?

I agree that Lucy is an Australopithecine.

But she is not a missing link or THE missing link which would provide proof positive that apes - or more specifically, hominds - evolved into Homo sapiens (independently of an extraterrestrial influence). Many view Lucy as just an extinct ape.


The theory that a “higher power” or “God” initiated The Big Bang which started the Universe. This hypothesis is based on observation and reason


Originally posted by Nygdan
Observation and reason can not apply to supernatural happenings.

The Universe is not a supernatural happening. It can be traced back physically to The Big Bang. The probability of life supporting chemicals and processes emerging simply through chance is astronomically small compared to the logical argument that a higher power or consciousness of some kind started the program.

God does not play dice with the Universe. -- Albert Einstein.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
...theory that an advanced group of extraterrestrials landed on this planet hundreds of thousands of years ago, and mixed their DNA with the “already evolving primates” in order to come up with Homo sapiens.


Originally posted by Nygdan
These kinds of ideas are similar, in my humble opinion, to creationism, in so far as that they are effectively supernatural, that there can be any number of ad hoc reasons to explain away any lack of evidence or problems, iow, they are not limited by rational thought applied to natural observation.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Zecharia Sitchin, in having deciphered ancient Akkadian and even older Sumerian clay tablets.

I like to separate ID from Creationism because I am not a Christian and I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god or any other "god" in traditional religions. In my estimation, they are all Group Entities. So I prefer to use the term "higher power" in regard to the theory of Intelligent Design.

Zecharia Sitchin has some good archeological evidence and conclusions but I disagree with many "Sitchians" that the aliens in question originated from Marduk/Nibiru. In my estimation and logical extrapolation: the Anunnaki came from Zeta IV; Nibiru, at best, was only a stopping point to this world.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Now, and I have tried to get clarification on this before and perhaps you know, Does Sitchin actually read akkadian and sumerian? Because my understanding is that sitchin, at best, reads transliterations of one or the other (but not both), and at worst takes translations of either and 're-works and re-interprets' the stories.

That is a sound question.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
About 300,000 years ago, the Anunnaki decided to mix their DNA with the hominids here in order to produce a slave race to work the mines.



Originally posted by Nygdan
Unfortunately no genetic evidence supports this idea. I'd agree that one could say that there is something we are missing, and that that 'black box' permits these ideas to work, however, thats not the same as saying 'this genetic evidence supports this theory'

You sure about that?

Read this.


Originally posted by Paul_Richard
So I propose that Interventionism/Colonialism, Intelligent Design, and Darwinism/Evolutionism all be taught[...]in a separate class by itself, called Cosmology & The Theories of Human Origins.


Originally posted by Nygdan
I can't see the sense in wasting tax-payer money to teach intelligent a course like that.

No need to fear this. No taxpayer money would be wasted. I work with students constantly. They would flock to such a course and revenue would only increase for those institutions of higher learning that offered them.


I advocate to have students in college and even high school to have the opportunity to be exposed to all three theories for cosmology and human origins: Interventionism, Evolutionism, and Intelligent Design.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Let me ask then, if you are a teacher for that course, at either level, and you are working up the lesson plan for alien intervention, what are the evidences that you have the class study?

Some of those evidences I have presented in this thread. There is nothing wrong and many things right with discussing theories about the origins of humankind and the Universe. It expands the mind and improves one's ability to analyze and interpret various ideas and forms of research.




new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join