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.

 

On Human Origins, I Am Right, and Here's Why:

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Because you are wrong


It's not a very useful viewpoint, is it?


And yet it seems to be a popular approach within this forum. Proof by disproof of an alternative hypothesis, I have to tell you, doesn't work unless you have disproved all the alternatives.

Which would be pretty darned hard.

So, as a not-particularly-original idea, why don't you try something new: tell us your viewpoint on how humans came to, and tell us what* makes you believe that this is the correct viewpoint but do so without even mentioning anyone else's viewpoints.

Once you have posted your viewpoint, feel free to point out the holes in other poster's reasoning, but be prepared for the same to happen to you.



[size=-3]
*If possible, please link freely accessible sources to back up your claims. If posting video, please also put a brief, impartial summary of what the video says, so that we do not have to watch it. Faith, while admirable, is unlikely to be considered a particularly valid source, and so I would advise against using it.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I'd probably say how science believes it developed. The idea though that there couldn't be a creator driving forces is a mistake both religious people and secular people make. People make it too complicated thinking those sides are like acid and water.
You have to be somewhat flexible no matter what side you're on but people like their rigidity and dogma.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


But if I am you, then we are both wrong.

Lawl



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Millions of cells woring together for a common goal. Better means of food gathering, more efficient way of mobility, gathering info, easier to adapt to a certain crisis. Eventually they would all come together to work as a machine.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 
I came in here to scold you for what I thought was a pointless thread like all the others, but then I read it and it basically says what I was going to say in a shorter version.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
No one has any proof and/or fact of human origins and how we came to be. We just happened, we're born into this planet in the middle of a vast cosmic ocean, and some of us have the audacity to think we figured it all out, I find that rediculous. We have theories, and a lot of them. Take evolution and god for example, people have been arguing these two concepts for close to thousands of years. Two conflicting points will never come to a single point. In my opinion, who care what put us here, we're here and we have no power over it. The real question, is what is the source to our awareness, the space, the light, the imagination, the thought, etc? BUT! with that question asked, again, do we really have the audacity to think WE? human beings, scratches on a trillionth of a fraction of the multi-verses fingernail, could figure that out? I think not. We should think about what we can do.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
No one has any proof and/or fact of human origins and how we came to be. We just happened, we're born into this planet in the middle of a vast cosmic ocean, and some of us have the audacity to think we figured it all out, I find that rediculous. We have theories, and a lot of them. Take evolution and god for example, people have been arguing these two concepts for close to thousands of years. Two conflicting points will never come to a single point. In my opinion, who care what put us here, we're here and we have no power over it. The real question, is what is the source to our awareness, the space, the light, the imagination, the thought, etc? BUT! with that question asked, again, do we really have the audacity to think WE? human beings, scratches on a trillionth of a fraction of the multi-verses fingernail, could figure that out? I think not. We should think about what we can do.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Sorry for the double post.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


I couldn't even begin to say how we got here or where we came from but i do have one thing that is driving me crazy and that is if you go by evolution how did man get the EGO?
It seems (just my opinion) is the biggest problem for mankind is the EGO.
If we go with evolution how did this come about to progress at such a rate that man will cut off his nose to spite his face so to speak for the sake of his EGO?
If we go with God then why would God give man an EGO knowing that it is self destructive and his creation is doomed from the beginning and how could he not see the outcome of his creation if he is all knowing? so why create something to see it destroy itself?
I am just a simple person trying to understand and never asked to be here and given a choice i would prefer to have never existed but i am here not of my own free will so if God gave man free will how is it that i don't have a choice to be here or not from the very beginning? Why are we forced to enter this existence?
If we go back to evolution when and why did the same cells that created man just stop and when and why did fish stop coming out of the water turning into apes and when and why did apes stop becoming man?
Any ideas??



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by revolvingthought
 


While I take your point that we can't ever be certain, it's a tad on the defeatist side. We will never know everything, true, but is it better to bemoan this or get out there and try.


I'm just grumpy because nobody's made any really "out there" claims yet. Thanks for your input.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


Oh I agree completely with putting some thought into it, but I find it rediculous that people argue who's right and wrong without fact or proof on the matter.. I'm not atheist, and I definately believe in questioning absolutely everything. I'm agreeing with your opinion on how people always have this misplaces idea that for some reason, they're right, and everyone else is wrong. Of course, think as much as you possibly can, but do it logically and rationalize. Don't jump into the concept and say, this is it, we got it! we're right!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
Proof by disproof of an alternative hypothesis, I have to tell you, doesn't work unless you have disproved all the alternatives.

Which would be pretty darned hard.


You've hit upon an important point. The process of correctly explaining observations is not an eliminitive one. There are an infinite number of hypothetical explanations for any observation. Here the observation that we'd like to explain is the existance of human beings. It's not as though there are a finite number of possibilities and once we cross all but one off the list we will have found our answer. The list is infinite; humans could be the product of god, aliens, interdimensional beings, evolution, a matrix-like simulated reality, or we could be characters in a dream. . . this list goes on forever and includes hypothetical explanations that have not even been imagined yet. Disproving items on the list one by one is like substracting one from infinity. Guess how many you have left?

On the other hand, scrutinizing explanations is an important part of the process, it's just not the fruitful one. It's certainly okay to say, "I don't know what the right explanation is, but I know that your explanation is wrong and here's why. . ." Just because we may lack an alternative does not mean we should entertain explanations that are demonstrably incorrect.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by revolvingthought
 


I think you're correct to criticize those who claim absolutely certainty, but I don't think that they are the ones we should pay much attention to when it comes to these discussions. It's not the case that we're faced with a choice between absolutes - that we either know the answers or we don't have any clue. The reality is that humans operate on a belief system, and beliefs are what we have to work with.

I know that it is true of the best scientists and I hope that it is true of the most enlightened creationists that they recognize that all explanations are theoretical. The best theories are the best explanations that we have, but we can never be absolutely certain of their accuracy. When the debate is one over which explanation is best given the evidence and not over which explanation is absolute truth, then it is a debate worth having.

We ought not throw out the entire discussion just because some people fail to appreciate the epistemological subtleties. It's also not really true that we have nothing to go on; there is a tremendous amount of data on which to base our theories. Furthermore, the issue of evolution/creationism is one of where we came from and how we got to be the way we are. This issue is fundamental to the question of what's going on - what are we, what is reality, and what is our relationship to reality - which means that it's one that is worth addressing. Even if it appears that we're too insignificant to figure anything out, we can't not try. Being imposes a kind of obligation to find out what is going on. . .



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by laslidealist
 


Excellent post!


I couldn't even begin to say how we got here or where we came from but i do have one thing that is driving me crazy and that is if you go by evolution how did man get the EGO?


Well, I'm going to offer a single, adaptive hypothesis, newly formed, for ego:

Having a huge ego, and thinking that you are better than others, gives you emotional free reign to exploit others for your benefit. While the rise of morality necessitated some form of high-level co-operative behaviour in humans, individuals who only apply these morals to a select few who are very much like them, and indiscriminately exploit everyone else, can make an enormous profit from the system.


It seems (just my opinion) is the biggest problem for mankind is the EGO.


I don't think I'd disagree with you there.


If we go with evolution how did this come about to progress at such a rate that man will cut off his nose to spite his face so to speak for the sake of his EGO?


I really don't know, but I have heard women saying that confidence is sexy - perhaps an over-inflated ego is simply an over-expression of confidence, because women have liked confident men for too long?


If we go with God then why would God give man an EGO knowing that it is self destructive and his creation is doomed from the beginning and how could he not see the outcome of his creation if he is all knowing? so why create something to see it destroy itself?


Perhaps God is a pyromaniac.


I am just a simple person trying to understand and never asked to be here and given a choice i would prefer to have never existed but i am here not of my own free will so if God gave man free will how is it that i don't have a choice to be here or not from the very beginning? Why are we forced to enter this existence?


Maybe you did. Before you were born, which you have forgotten while partaking in this unique experience of being you - or maybe "You" only starts after the sperm meets the egg. Or maybe there is no God.

Point is, it's one of those questions that I can't answer. Anyone else?


If we go back to evolution when and why did the same cells that created man just stop and when and why did fish stop coming out of the water turning into apes and when and why did apes stop becoming man?
Any ideas??


I've got some ideas on this one, actually. For some fish, there is no selective pressure to leave the water - life is just dandy where it is. For others, such as the mudskipper(wiki), there has continued to be pressure to leave the water.

Turning into apes... well, that's a misrepresentation. Other extant species of ape have persisted without becoming human because they have instead become gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans etc. We are all the same distance down the evolutionary tree - what we see around today are the growing tips of branches, not our grandparents, as it were, but our cousins.

It's the same with everything alive today - evolution creates diversity through branching. When we refer to a group as archaic, it's because its branch leaves the main trunk a long time ago, not because the species itself is ancestral.

The Tree of life Web project (tolweb) is a very useful demonstration of this.
edit on 15/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by revolvingthought
 


I think you're correct to criticize those who claim absolutely certainty, but I don't think that they are the ones we should pay much attention to when it comes to these discussions.


I agree with what you said here, I didn't mean to come across as if I were trying to deem the arguement irrelevant in anyway. The question of what created us, what is reality, how did we get here, what is the source to our being are all very relevant questions. I'm into philosophy, so I question these myself all the time, in fact they are my favourite questions. My only point in my post earlier was me meaning to say that it does bother me that people do claim certainty on these opinions. It's interesting to think about, but it ruins the point of question to jump cluelessly, without fact into a concept and believe it, it's almost like propaganda.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


You're dangerously close to hitting my agenda there. I have my preconceptions, which can be largely but not entirely inferred by my discussions of other people's, and I want to know others. I like to change other people's understanding, and like it even more when someone changes mine.

Infinity - 1 = progress.

edit on 15/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)

edit on 15/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


So eusociality (as in honeybees, etc) as an explanation for multicellular life?

I'm sure I read somewhere about a bacteria that forms a semi-motile colony under certain conditions, which allows some members of the colony a greater chance of survival, while others voluntarily sacrifice their own reproductive capabilities.

And then there's stromatolites, another pseudo-multicellular organism from the company that brought you chloroplasts and protein shakes - that's right, it's the Cyanobacteria!*


[size=-3]
*worded like some sort of wierd commercial because cyanobacteria, not content with causing a mass extinction in the early history of life, are now taking over fishtanks, health stores and plant cells near you.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by revolvingthought
 


You, sir, are the France of intellectual pursuit.






posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


What your saying is contradicting because you have no proof of that statement, therefore, you didn't even pursue the knowledge to what you stated, you just proved my point and jumped into a concept and believed it without your facts. You surrendered to your opinion and belief systems before actually thinking about it, therefore, I don't see your point.
edit on 15-1-2011 by revolvingthought because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2011 by revolvingthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


What your saying is contradicting because you have no proof of that statement, therefore, you didn't even pursue the knowledge to what you stated, you just proved my point and jumped into a concept and believed it without your facts. You surrendered to your opinion and belief systems before actually thinking about it, therefore, I don't see your point.
edit on 15-1-2011 by revolvingthought because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2011 by revolvingthought because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join