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.

 

difficult question?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Evolution v creationism

I accept that evolution has a credible framework but it prompts one to have faith in near miracles of chance. Evolution remains a theory and is not fact.

On the other hand, life on earth is so complex and sophisticated that I emphasize with those that believe in creative intelligence behind life's origins. Obviously, some of the proponents await the creator to be revealed.

I ask this question: can anyone put forward an alternative origins theory beyond the two much discussed?

I do not require any elaboration of evolution theory or orthodox creationism. This is a simple request but I have the feeling some will find it hard to observe.


Thanks




posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Evolution requires a beginning source... you cannot make something ot of nothin; with evolution, one must have evolved from a prior source.

Creationism requires faith in an Intelligent Design... in the beginning there was nothing. With but a single world, existance began.

So why not combine the two? God clapped His hands together, causing the Big Bang, or what-have-you. God had a plan, an idea... He began the work, He knows where it will end, so why muddle with the in-between?

God, so says the religious types, is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end... so why not fill the middle ground with evolution?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_weishaupt
 


If I could answer that question then I could tell you how every single organism on this planet came to exist. Since I can't do either one then I'm stuck


I'm more on the side of something created us whether it was a god, evolution or the universe itself. But I'm open to all possibilites. Sorry I couldn't give you another alternative.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   
There's always the belief that all we are is existing within another's dream... when that being eventually wakes up we will just fade away, not knowing.

Okay... an alternative origin theory...

Umm...

I don't have one. That's like asking to provide a third side of the same coin; either the universe was created, or it grew. There really can't be a third choice.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
How about this! We are inside a body of some living thing. Like our bodies, that have cells, nucleus, atoms, protons, electrons, molecules etc..
Our universe is the body. The planets and other celestial bodies are part of this body. All the power you see in the universe like supernova's, Quasars, stars and even the lightning in our atmosphere are part of the brain function and signals being sent back and forth. When I see the Hubble Ultra Deep Field picture of all those galaxies out there, they remind me of cells floating around in a body or organ.

Cells reproduce and so do we. All cells have "skin" called the plasma membrane. Just like us. This skin protects us from the outside invironment. A cell nucleus contains dna and so do we. The cell membrane regulates the movement of water, nutrients and wastes into and out of the cell. Just like we do. Does the universe act in the same way but on a bigger scale? Stars are being born and dying. Are black holes the waste being removed? I don't know. The universe is exspanding or growing like a body does. But there ya go. Just a different look at it.

Still something created us. And maybe evolution came next.

[edit on 12/21/2007 by Solarskye]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Yeah, but... that still leaves us with the original question...

What made the universe?

It very well could be like a great domino effect... each universal being gives birth to a new universal being in an endless cycle. But where des it start? Surely not where it ends... the last cannot give birth to the first. That's akin to saying that Adam and Eve were actually time-travelers from a dying future society...

hmm...

Parden me, lost in a thought.

I do agree in the body, though. It happens with females of every species, how a simple egg can grow and evolve into a complete being, who in turn contains the eggs to produce other future beings... one woman houses multitudes of generations.

But then how did that original woman come into being? I don't think quantum physics can explain that one.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   
How about accepting the idea that there are some things we simply don't have the answer to. Not yet anyway.

Sometimes I play video games where I fly an airplane around and shoot the hell out of the enemy. Life itself might be the ultimate video game where you not only get to play the character you have chosen, you get to actually live the life of that character. Good, bad and all that is in between. Even the boring.

That is just as an acceptable theory as creation or intelligent design.

Perhaps mankind has evolved just as God planned for man to involve.

Such questions have always driven mankind to madness, to strap bombs to their bodies and die for God or glory.

The truth is we simply do not know. Not yet anyway.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Ehh... the essence of being is to gather knowledge. It is what drives us all, to seek out the truth no matter how difficult or where it may lie. A fine example would be this very site... by matters of discussion and debate, we gather a greater understanding of something, a new perspective which may lead us to new insights.

It is true that we may never know while remaining within these mortal frames... but just like with video games, it sure is fun playing along!



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Soothsayer
I am not sure that evolution/creation are 2 explanations that are 2 sides of a coin - evolution as you imagine it grew the universe. Stated like that there could be a variety of reasons to explain growth.

E.g, apparently particles can just appear and disappear in space - imagine a scenario where a set of particles spontaneously appeared but in such an order that they formed the first replicating cell.

Solarskye - your idea could be true, however, it's shifting the focus up a macrocosm and then the question would concern that macrocosm's origin.

makes you think doesn't it.

The most critical point I have regarding the evolution/creation debate is that it can stop some of us thinking. I can accept people preferring one or the other but to defend the belief/idealogy as absolute - is that not a mistake?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwupy
 


Oh great! Now I'm a Sim inside a computer game hoping I can gain enough skills to stay alive and not do something stupid and get myself killed. If that happens though, maybe my creator will like me enough to reincarnate me and try it all over again.


Ya never know. That's the mystery of life.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_weishaupt
The most critical point I have regarding the evolution/creation debate is that it can stop some of us thinking. I can accept people preferring one or the other but to defend the belief/idealogy as absolute - is that not a mistake?


The only other explanation I can come up with is that we just appeared out of no where like magic. We're energy that goes from here to there taking on different shapes and forms. But it stills leads to ( where did the energy come from?)

Where oh where did we come from or the universe, light, dark ?

We're still thinking, it's just that we work with theories until a final solution or answer is proven.


[edit on 12/21/2007 by Solarskye]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by The SoothsayerSo why not combine the two? God clapped His hands together, causing the Big Bang, or what-have-you. God had a plan, an idea... He began the work, He knows where it will end, so why muddle with the in-between?


That's actually something I've pondered in the past - so it's interesting in a funny way to see someone else mention it. I wish more scientists left God in the equation and simply had an interest in discovering how HE did/does things...rather than leaving God out of the equation all together.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
As far as I'm aware there hasn't been a new theory introduced or even thought up.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. Darwinian Evolution Through Natural Selection is a theory. A theory is a way to explain the interaction of different facts. But please do not confuse the two, evolution is absolutely a fact. It just so happens that natural selection happens to be the best way of explaining it that we currently have.
Intelligent Design is devoid of anything scientific as it lacks testable qualities. It is a concept and not a scientific theory.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutrients
 


I'm not confused about fact and theory, of course evolution as a general term can be a fact, ideas can evolve, etc.

However, I am posting with regards to origins - thus it should be clear that I mean evolution in this context.

Theory: a system of rules and assumptions used to produce a result; abstract knowledge or reasoning; a speculative idea; an ideal or hypothetical situation; a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguements to explain a wide variety of connected phenonema

ID may not be a scientific theory but it is still a theory of origins



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_weishaupt
reply to post by Nutrients
 
ideas can evolve, etc.


I'm sure you weren't confused on the definition of evolution. Ideas can evolve and so can animals. It can be shown in labratories using species that reproduce at extremely active rates. It is also evidenced in the many variations of dometicated animals and cultivated crops, both of which have evolved by means of Artificial Selection. While Artificial and Natural are two different types of selection, they both use the same mechanisms to effect evolution.

Also, evolution does not explain origins. The term you are looking for is abiogenesis and it references the phenomenon of living organisms arising from non-living matter.

At some point in the Earth's history (and perhaps many times) some combination of proteins came together that were able to create copies of themselves. This progressed to form the molecule RNA which then again progressed to form DNA and it's been a very slow and very gradual process over billions of years. In fact, the first few billion years life did not progress beyong the microscopic level!

No one knows (yet) exactly how abiogenesis occurs in nature, but certain aspects can be replicated in experiments. If you want to posit God as the catalyst to those first molecules starting to replicate you certainly can; however, it isn't necessary and seems to be tacked on. That is a matter of opinion, though.

And again, I am unaware of any other theory, be it abiogenesis to account for the formation of living organism, or the theory of evolution by natural selection to account for us. I would consider Intelligent Design to be an anti-theory, as it discourages further investigation.

[EDITED FOR PARAGRAPH BREAKS]

[edit on 12/22/07 by Nutrients]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I personally think the Creation vs Evolution conflict is argued from the perspective of them being 2 completely different concepts when in fact they probably are connected.

When a Cell divides it produces a copy of itself, or an image of itself as a reflection. This replica is created from not nothing but from proteins being organised in a very complex manner by machines that bend, fold and add different combinations together to form the building blocks of cells.

These machines "know" what to do on a fundamental level as if controlled by a program or unknown code. This program is what ??? were does it reside and who coded it ??? Change the program and change the protein sequences...change the organism or "Create" a whole new species.

To link what Im trying to portray into laymans words, you can create from proteins living organism's by a program to organise them in a design set up by a code or matrix and as you get better coding so does the organism you improve...create..evolve..improve.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutrients
 


"Also, evolution does not explain origins."

Does not natural selection attempt to account for the origin of species?

"Ideas can evolve and so can animals. It can be shown in labratories using species that reproduce at extremely active rates. It is also evidenced in the many variations of dometicated animals and cultivated crops, both of which have evolved by means of Artificial Selection."

Surely what is being observed is adaption not evolution.

Anyway - the post was not to elaborate on the evolution/creation debate but a request for alternative origin theories, whether serious or not



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_weishaupt
Surely what is being observed is adaption not evolution.


I encourage you to do a little research on evolution. You may find it makes a whole lot of sense. After you study it and still think it doesn't fit into your world, you can find another theory. Currently it is the one that best explains the facts and it has been the best for 150 years. I would personally love to see a newer and better theory come and take its place.

Also, like I stated in my previous post, evolution accounts for the variety of life, abiogenesis accounts for the origin of it.

Since I seem to be off topic I won't post any more. I just wanted to clear the air. Thanks for reading.

[Edit for spelling. I should do a better job of proofreading before I press the Post button I guess!]

[edit on 12/22/07 by Nutrients]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutrients
 


Good informed points Nutrients.

I don't think more research would change my mind about evolution - I've done enough at both undergrad and postgrad.

Thanks for keeping on topic



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_weishaupt
Evolution v creationism

I accept that evolution has a credible framework but it prompts one to have faith in near miracles of chance. Evolution remains a theory and is not fact.

I see this written alot. That Evolution is just a theory. This comment appears when people are not familiar with the word "Theory" within a scientific context. This is what the word "theory" really means within this context:

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Let's review one of the really important parts
"A THEORY IS AS CLOSE TO PROVEN AS ANYTHING IN SCIENCE CAN BE".
So now when a creationist says, "Evolution is just a theory", you know they simply don't understand what a scientific theory is.


I ask this question: can anyone put forward an alternative origins theory beyond the two much discussed?

There is no need to put forward an alternative theory as there are no competing theories with Evolution. Just to be clear, Creationism is NOT a competing theory as it has NO evidence that can raise it to a theory. Only creationists call it a competing theory to propagate their faith.


I do not require any elaboration of evolution theory or orthodox creationism. This is a simple request but I have the feeling some will find it hard to observe.

I can't answer the question unless I make up something fictional. Evolution is real and is backed up by tremendous amounts of evidence from many fields and creationism is backed up by faith. Faith is the belief in something without the need for evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join