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.

 

There are scientifically only 2 ways humans came upon existence

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
.... Well, if you wanna call creationism science then that would be the first one.

Apparently, according to the top scientists, Humans could have not evolved from a primate to their current state as fast as they did.

So, basically the theory is that is no "missing link" at all. It is that an outside force intervened and genetically modified us into what we are now.

Could whoever done this (aliens) possibly be God?!?

Could the Bible be referring to God as the Aliens who made us?

There really is no way to be 100% sure, and i think that believing that "God", whoever that is, is just as mind boggling as believing that aliens genetically made us who we are.

Any opinions??!?




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Good point. If God turns out not to be a old guy in a long robe or a ball of light most will be in for a huge suprise. I dont think that the book is written on this one as far as evolution goes. One thing is clear....We come from the stars, everything around us all the matter is made up of a bunch of stuff cashing into a big rock over millions of years. Our luck is so much water hit our rock. In a way...hell God could be water....



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Could be possible as a theory.
But like you said there is no way for sure to find out.
Just because they are finding treasures for every old race
and thus we can't put two and two together.

Aliens could be God but they can also be very misleading.
All you should think is that there is a higher power out there
and believe in it.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by hikix
.... Well, if you wanna call creationism science then that would be the first one.


Lets see Creationists Believe that Mankind came from 2 people that GOD created, again they BELIEVE THIS and this is faith not Science.

Evolutionists BELIEVE we all came from nothing that turned into a rock and rain made bananas and then humans, again they BELIEVE THIS and this is faith not Science.

So to be accurate and fair in your statement it shouls state if etiher one is to be called Science.

Science is best described as something that is Observable and ReCreatable.

Why don't you let me observe your recreation of a fish giving birth to a acorn tree or better yet, let me observe any "Helpful" mutation EVER...

I do not think I have to answer the actual question of where I stand do I? OK I will, I believe that God created everything and it is my right to believe such things. Just as others believe everything came from a rock that got wet billions of years ago, which is their right to believe. I do not think either of us can call our Faith and Belief a Science.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hikix
.... Well, if you wanna call creationism science then that would be the first one.


I think that the belief that an organism/god/higher power etc created/significantly 'improved' humanity as opposed to evolution is creationism, at least in this argument.


Originally posted by hikix
Apparently, according to the top scientists, Humans could have not evolved from a primate to their current state as fast as they did.


Could you please post a link to this? It's just the old 'the burden of proof is on the purveyor' argument comes into action here.


Originally posted by hikix
So, basically the theory is that is no "missing link" at all. It is that an outside force intervened and genetically modified us into what we are now.


Just because it is possible some 'top' scientists believe this does not make it the only other option.
Do other 'top' scientists believe in the Deity version of Creationism? What about the 'top' scientists who do believe evolution occurred?


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Lets see Creationists Believe that Mankind came from 2 people that GOD created, again they BELIEVE THIS and this is faith not Science.


...that's just one of the Creationist views, though you are correct that this is 'faith'.


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Evolutionists BELIEVE we all came from nothing that turned into a rock and rain made bananas and then humans, again they BELIEVE THIS and this is faith not Science.


No, we don't.
We (evolutionists) 'believe' that the Earth POSSIBLY (though it is most probable than Goddidit) came from the collection of particles etc and that life evolved from single celled organisms up to our current existance as humans based on logic and the application of science.
We don't just swallow that because we were told:We do so because it's logical and is currently the most 'accurate'
Could you please stop posting that 'rocks/rain/humans came from NOTHING!!!1!!' garbage, or at least read a page about it on Wikipedia?
I know it's not quite 'cutting edge' but should be adequate for a person with such scientific illteracy.
Also, with the application of Chaoticar's Law of Religious Science your argument is now moot and pointless


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
So to be accurate and fair in your statement it shouls state if etiher one is to be called Science.


Note:The original poster never mentioned evolution, he only mentioned 'theistic' and 'extraterrestrial' creationism.


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Science is best described as something that is Observable and ReCreatable.


In most cases yes.
However currently scientists have neither the resources nor the equipment to replicate the creation of a world, or significant evolution.


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Why don't you let me observe your recreation of a fish giving birth to a acorn tree or better yet, let me observe any "Helpful" mutation EVER...


Once again you post illogical conjecture:
Evolution generally defined as the process at which organisms evolve to adapt better to their current environment.
Yes, we've only been able to view evolution on a small scale, as scientists do not have the time available to watch a significant level of evolution.
And what about the moths that, in a highly polluted environment, adapted their colour to 'blend' into the new colour?

Also Mods could you please move this to the 'Creationism' area? It is both a discussion on creationist views and is not a 'general conspiracy'.

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Chaoticar]

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Chaoticar]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
If Humans couldnt have possibly evolved into what they are now, from what they were in such a short amount of time. Then some sort of outside force must have intervened.

This might be a tad off topic, but considering that we have made more progress in the past 100 years technologically then we have in the past 100,000 years.... there just has to be an outside influence helping us out.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
there was a request for a link as proof
any update on that link?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Michael Cremo did some interesting interviews on C2C regarding this topic. He is also an author, one of his books being Forbidden History of the Human Race. You can find some of his interviews on YouTube, or on the Coast website.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join