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.

 

Creation VS Evolution

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Some people say that God created man with the snap of his fingers, while others turn to science and say that man was born naturally through evolution over millions of years...

I know this is a big topic that can drag on forever but im curiouse to know how to you think man was created and why? Creation by God or evolution by nature?




posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Some also think aliens (gods, angles, demons) could have played a role, a stance i am semi-leaning towards. Theres a wealth of information though, probably doesn't need a new thread.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Damn, not another Atheism vs religion/ Creationism vs Evolution.
I spent all day yesterday arguing with people and to be honest you could
have found your answers just by going to "Board Home" then Conspiracies in Religion. I do not want to state what I think here because that is just how it starts.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
Damn, not another Atheism vs religion/ Creationism vs Evolution.
I spent all day yesterday arguing with people


Aww, c'mon. We had a nice discussion, no?

You probably know a bit about chromosomes and pseudogenes now



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Lol, science is not my alley, now let's bring up a discussion about insurance
and I can probably still tell you nothing.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   
was it god or was it nature? the idea of aliens with big heads creating humans is a little far fetched for me to believe...



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Physicists and Cosmologists have found, that when the exercising logic concerning the fundamental laws of our universe to their ultimate conclusion, that there indeed seems to be evidence of intelligent design. Randomness seems to be completely eliminated, and even chaos has laws governing its apparent existence.

Evolution and creationism can and do compliment each other, when one stops taking the words of parable, written by men with little to no understanding of our universe’s natural laws, as fact.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   
My Opinion

Chaos has no laws.

Chaos has no use for laws.

Because randomness is king in Chaos



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miishgoos
My Opinion

Chaos has no laws.

Chaos has no use for laws.

Because randomness is king in Chaos




Miishgoos,
I believe chaos means "without god" in greek.
I'm glad God actually cares about us.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Chaos is like anarchy.

Anarchy is, by definition, an absence of any form of political authority; a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal.

This is a relative and somewhat deceiving, although perfectly accurate, definition of the concept. It does not, however, take into account that political vacuums cannot exist, in theory, as someone will always submits their will and agenda upon someone else, thus some form of governance is always in existence, even if such is a splinter group from the whole. People tend to pick sides in such struggles very quickly, often before such obvious conflict is even apparent.

There has never been any society in the history of mankind where some order was not imposed, whether by laws, willpower, strength or by force. This order more than suggests organization, from tribes to republics.

What few understand about chaos is that it is governed by laws of very slight variables and probability. Chaos theory is about discovering an underlying order in what at first appears to be random events, and there is much evidence to support this claim, implying that chaos is, indeed, an illusion.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinFoilDerby
Physicists and Cosmologists have found, that when the exercising logic concerning the fundamental laws of our universe to their ultimate conclusion, that there indeed seems to be evidence of intelligent design.


I think you might have to qualify that as 'some'. Moreover, when they make such statement, they move out of the realms of science.

Anyway, just to justify the 'some' caveat:


A Designer Universe?

by Steven Weinberg

Professor of Physics, University of Texas at Austin
Winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics.

I have been asked to comment on whether the universe shows signs of having been designed. I don't see how it's possible to talk about this without having at least some vague idea of what a designer would be like. 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...

But I think Douglas Adams put it best:

"It's rather like a puddle waking up one morning — I know they don't normally do this, but allow me, I'm a science fiction writer — A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: "This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly... I mean really precise isn't it?... It must have been made to have me in it."


[edit on 5-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

That's actually very funny! (but then, Douglas Adams had a knack for that sort of thing while being insightful ...
)

While, true enough, it might have been more accurate for me to state 'some', I would also like to ask you, what qualifies as beyond the realm of science when dealing with such a topic as this?



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
This is eventually going to lead to the cause and effect thoery, which the only logical explanation is, there must be cause for all things, this is scientifically and logically agreed upon. How ever small a cause is, there must be a cause for a change to happen. I think every one will agree accordind to the scientific laws of we have now, matter is not spontanious
even at the sub atomic levels. Matter at the sub atomic levels might be unpredictable according to thermo dynamics certainly not spontanious. So that brings to the question of what or who is the cause of it initial cause of cange. Sometimes i think evolution and creation dont have to be in opposition, the two thoeries are not mutually exclusive.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinFoilDerby
While, true enough, it might have been more accurate for me to state 'some', I would also like to ask you, what qualifies as beyond the realm of science when dealing with such a topic as this?


Essentially, unfalsifiable. Just another god of the gaps argument if this is related to a supernatural law giver.

A lot of theoretical cosmology is running far ahead of the empirical state of science, and this provides much space for philosophical speculation and god-stuffing. You might respond that the same can be said of the cosmology, and this is true. Much is hypothesis, but the chances are it will become testable with time.

A lot of the problem with the argument from design is starting from the incorrect point. A bit like saying the sun's light was created for us to see. It has a history of filling in places of ignorance until science pushes through. Cranes or Skyhooks? I think we should work for the cranes, and if a skyhook happens to really justify itself on its merits at some point, rather than being stuffed in a gap, then cool.

Sean Carroll makes some useful points on the design argument in cosmology:

www.infidels.org...

[edit on 5-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Evolutionism is preached by the worst traits of human, those of pride and utter belief that NOTHING is smarter than humans. Also by prudes who just lack imaginations. So I asked them, have you found the missing link skull yet?

We are so proud that we refuse to believe anything created us, yet the simplest answer is the right one usually.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join