New ATS Survey: Origins & Evolution

What is it's purpose.

The majority believing one thing or another does not prove it is true... or is the majority truth?

reply to post by dusty1


I suppose if you look at the fact the chimp is trying to get your attention. Where is I'm trying to get your attention with facts an logic. Here is our lineage in simple terms, but somehow it will still probably go over your brain washed head.
Sad really.

Good survey but its stuffed full of "trick questions".
However, I was happy to see this (spoiler warning) as the last question:

The science of biological evolution does not contradict belief in a "supernatural entity," and merely helps to identify the means by which such an entity would ensure the creation of a diverse and vibrant planet.

Anyway because of this it was the first survey on here for me that I had to pick "neutral" for a lot of my answers, after very carefully reading each question.

You know what? As I'm sitting here writing this reply, I just realized something - we users should NOT be able to post about the polls at all until after the result are in and displayed... it sort of defeats the purpose of having a poll in the first place, doesn't it? Sort of easy to influence others before they sit down and go through the poll for themselves...

reply to post by flyingfish

I suppose if you look at the fact the chimp is trying to get your attention. Where is I'm trying to get your attention with facts an logic. Here is our lineage in simple terms, but somehow it will still probably go over your brain washed head. Sad really.

Facts and logic?


Can you please produce the fossil evidence for a chimpanzee/human, common ancestor?

The linage goes back millions of years with many variations.
Here is one of the more exciting finds.

Ida is a 47 million year old, perfectly preserved primate recovered from the Messel Pit in Germany. Ida is the most complete early primate fossil ever found, and scientists believe that she could be one of our earliest ancestors. She is a remarkable link between the first primates and modern humans and despite having lived 47 million years ago, her features show striking similarities to our own.

link

Fossils play only a small part in the proof of human evolution even if there were no fossils DNA is enough to prove lineage.
Only cause you said please.
Now I ask you, if you wish to further educate yourself on this subject do your own research.

Originally posted by SaturnFXAnd now you know why creationism isn't taught in schools

a million different "hypothesis's" and only one trail showing proof (evolution)

wrong, it isn't taught in schools because the evolutionists control the school curriculum. "Proof"?

reply to post by dusty1
en.wikipedia.org...

For further reading check the bottom of the page.

The entire medical industry has foundations totally reliant on the exact same concepts that we use to define evolutionary relationships between species.

reply to post by flyingfish

The linage goes back millions of years with many variations. Here is one of the more exciting finds.

Ida is a 47 million year old, perfectly preserved primate recovered from the Messel Pit in Germany. Ida is the most complete early primate fossil ever found, and scientists believe that she could be one of our earliest ancestors. She is a remarkable link between the first primates and modern humans and despite having lived 47 million years ago, her features show striking similarities to our own.

Fossils play only a small part in the proof of human evolution even if there were no fossils DNA is enough to prove lineage.

I thought Dawkins said chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor over 6 million years ago.

Why is your proof dated 41 million years older than that?

Also, can DNA evidence be shown that Ida is Pan Prior, as you are apparently leading me to believe?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


That Poll forces a person into one side or the other. I think most or many Christians believe in Creation using means created by God; Evolution being also created by God. I see no real gap between science and my beliefs and I think I'm fairly common among Christians. I can't seem to answer those questions and give my real point of view.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
That Poll forces a person into one side or the other.

I don't believe it does. Several questions provide an opportunity for a religious person of a science background such as you describe, to provide answers that do not conflict with science or faith.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


No, it didn't really force me into one side or the other. Many of my answers were a "closest fit" as is the case of most multiple choice (as opposed to essay) questions, which is why my answers were all over the board and may not seem to make sense if taken alone, but it didn't herd me one way or the other.

I presume some sort of sense will come out of it in the aggregate, and it wouldn't be weighted in favor of my personal answers. If it were, everyone would just walk away from it, confused and scratching their head wondering if I couldn't make up my mind, or if I just didn't know what I thought. I got as close as I could on each question individually, and figured that was close enough.

Originally posted by TrailGator

Originally posted by SaturnFXAnd now you know why creationism isn't taught in schools

a million different "hypothesis's" and only one trail showing proof (evolution)

wrong, it isn't taught in schools because the evolutionists control the school curriculum. "Proof"?

Yes...proof. meaning peer reviewed evidence that confirms a hypothesis...proof. Care to take a gander at the thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed papers, fossils, etc that makes up this proof...or are you happy just remaining ignorant of it all and making laughy faces on the internet?

Meh, society needs more roofers than kings anyhow.
keep smiling

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I recognize that it would be difficult to account for all possible variations.

However, I felt the need to vote lower on the pro-intelligent design statements because of the choice of terminology.

One of the more interesting and entertaining explanations of creation on this planet I found in Rael's book Intelligent Design from 2005. Rael's information is so improbable and sort of oddly cocky that I think there's a small possibility it might be accurate. It portrays the original creators in all their hedonistic splendor, and paints the picture of an origin planet where people live for sensory stimulus with little if any moral constraints. Sounds like us!
(I would never join his group, by the way.)

In "Yahweh's" version of Genesis, life on earth is created by a large and diverse scientific team. They start with simple cells and work their way up. Here is an excerpt about the plants from page 13:

In this magnificent and gigantic laboratory, they created vegetable cells from nothing other than chemicals, which then produced various types of plants. All their efforts were aimed at reproduction. The few blades of grass they created had to reproduce on their own.

The scientists spread out across the immense continent in small research teams. Every individual created different varieties of plants according to their inspiration and the climate. They met up at regular intervals to compare their research and their creations. The people back on their own planet followed their progress from afar with passion and amazement. The most brilliant artists came and joined the scientists in order to give some plants purely decorative and pleasing roles, either through their appearance or their perfume.

And that's how I see the creation of life on earth. As sort of a reckless free-for-all amongst a large group of technologists who were probably half drunk most of the time. Doesn't this place seem like that to you some times? Does to me.

reply to post by l_e_cox


I've often thought along those lines.

Sometimes, when I was watching my delightful little gerbil, I thought that whoever designed them must have been in a good mood that day

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Great Survey and i found this question to be really funny when you read it as it is:

YOUNG EARTH: The origins of life on planet earth are the result of a short period of "creation," thousands of years ago, by a "supernatural entity," who designed and defined the biodiversity of our planet all at once.


Sounds just comical.... a made up joke!! I mean seriously if you were to be visited by an Alien race or went to another Planet and told them the above as fact... they would probably laugh....

I'm not too sure on being created by anything as it just sounds ridiculous... however i do believe we have just materialised from Bacteria which landed here many years ago.... the stuff about Enki could be true.... mixing ET/Human Hybrid after everything i've read on these forums but still the question is 'where did we come from?

I took this survey, and I think the questions are too few, and yet too many.

You could have summarized the entire survey to one question ... "do you think that Earth is unique, and that life is unique to earth, and uniquely defined as found on earth".

The last question, is a sort of a trick one too ... you can't be scientifically minded, and believe in a supernatural entity. Nor can you be scientifically minded, and believe the Universe was all created in one instance, with a big bang. Creationsim and Big Bang, are pretty much the same thing ... the only difference is wether you want to define your "god" as energy, or as a human being.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Creationists are actually a minority among Christians globally. The majority accepts things like theistic evolution and the big bang.

reply to post by uva3021

The entire medical industry has foundations totally reliant on the exact same concepts that we use to define evolutionary relationships between species.

How many errors are made on this premise?

The appendix- good for something after all

and

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

We have always been noble, swayed by Out hearts. Only when the energy flow was inefficient was money created to account for it, and the evil slipped in as some fell in love with it and abandoned the Laws in favor of profit.

No actually. For there are many areas and many times in this Earth when man had plenty, and yet still had money and evil and no nobility. I can think of the time of the Minoans. When they crashed, the Mycenaean and Dorians, both got their lovely hands on the cities, but had no capacity to rule them. Minoans had plenty. Their new masters had plenty. Yet still, the uncivilized rulers chose to be brutal.

It turns out that never have We had the chence to remove the need for Human energy. There is a difference between plenty - for those who can afford it - and plenty for everyOne. Because money is an accounting of meaningful energy expended, Human energy has been (until about a century ago) the major part of the energy We account for. Even adding petrofuels, wind, water, solar, and so on through the last century, We still needed Human energy. And slavery developed, and then was hidden under the guise of working for a meager wage, to fill the need for Human energy.

Now, however, We have robots. We no longer need to enslave Our Human brethren.

The whole money system is no longer necessary between plenum energy and robotics.

No, humanity has only ever been noble when he tries. As to being swayed by our hearts? This is not noble. This is weakness of self. You should never be swayed by your heart unless your mind gives you an ok on the logic backing it.

Humanity DOES try. The percentage of Humans that have run the show here on this planet has been but a very small fraction of all Humans for millenia. The average Human is good-hearted, honest, eager to help when One sees a need, loving, compassionate, and willing to follow civil code.

And please explain to Me the logic of compassion - which is from the heart. Logically, if I give some of Mine to others, that's less for Me. Logically, compassion falls quite short. But Humanly, it is a defining trait. This is what I mean by moving from the heart. If We never moved from the heart, no One would ever risk Themselves to save another. No One would shorten Their rations so another could eat. No One would care to teach. It is BECAUSE We act so often from the heart that We are indeed noble.

Logic has its place, but it is not what makes Us Human. It is the heart.

reply to post by The GUT


I see what You're saying. But I think that Humans are unique only in that other races in the universe have agreed NOT to create Beings (cap the "B"). Yet the Anunnaki did just that with Us, and so I suspect that Our predicament here on this planet is rather a pickle for Them.

As for the Anunnaki being "messenger/servants/tools of God... I say yes and no. Yes, in that Consciousness is One, and what It creates in the Now is "God"'s creation. And so Consciousness created the Anunnaki and through them created Us - but no single "mind" was doing the creating. It was handled as a synthesis of all Consciousness as each spark individually created its own life.

I do not see a separate entity as "God," but all of Consciousness, as We create the Now. I AM.