New ATS Survey: Origins & Evolution

page: 5
78
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
This poll will be very telling.

I, of course, voted along the lines of real science. Abiogenesis and panspermia are both equally valid scientific theories. The big bang is accurate and the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. The Earth is roughly 4 billion years old. Evolution is the only true explanation for biodiversity. Modern Humans are apes and are a very recently evolved species coming from an earlier man called Homo Habilis and cross-bred with Homo Neanderthalis.

Despite me being a staunch atheist, I will admit that none of the things mentioned above are incompatible with the belief in a supreme being. The Catholic Church certainly thinks this and has openly stated it as their policy.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Let's prove ATS is about the real science!



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
'Overlord, thanks for the great survey.

I'm glad that the last question was in there because I'm one that believes that many of what some feel as opposed opinions, like evolution caused man to be the way he is as opposed to God making him that way can be considered the same thing. God makes evolution happen.

Anyway, thanks, this was fun and I'm happily waiting for the results.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Thanks Skepticoverlord, I really enjoy seeing these poll results as they represent not the average persons opinion, but the average group of 'outside' thinkers in my opinion. I can't get enough of these surveys and the recent ones have been bang on the money in terms of subject matter. I think they should be done every year and the results should be charted to see how peoples opinions change on this site, we could examine trends in the ats community etc.

Great work, keep it up and thank you



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
While we're on the subject. Here's a survey from the 2011 Miss USA contestants on if Evolution should be taught in schools. Not sure why some of the audio is missing.

edit on 8/26/2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I know it's way out in left field but I didn't see any questions geared towards
the Gnostic beliefs that God did not create this universe and instead it was
created by an imperfect pseudo god hence the reason why it sucks so much and has death and entropy in it.
I guess this focus more on the mainstream fundamentalist creationist beliefs vs scientific origins of the universe.

Though it's a shame that some of the more abstract concepts and philosophies where not represented.

I mean where is the theory that this universe is nothing more then a sophisticated computer program?
That is in no way a supernatural origin theory but it defiantly stands outside of the boring and very traditional argument of "GOD DID IT!" vs "No you are quite wrong chap you see the universe originated in a big bang and slowly over billions of years stars and planets arose then life....blah blah blah."
edit on 26-8-2011 by ELahrairah because: universal computer glich



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


i didnt like the questions

complicated a bit, and not rly jumping to a point

make a new 1 sometimes.. with something more "direct"

just my 5 cent..



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by highpriestess
So i take it that your theory on the universe is that it revolves around YOU.


The only thing I know is that before I was born, I don't remember there being any universe. And as far as I can tell, it will disintegrate when I die. Not only that, if I travel in any direction from where I am right now, I will reach the leading edge of the universe in the same amount of time. That pretty much puts me right in the center of the universe, no?

edit on 26-8-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Even though this is a great idea for a poll, the data provided within the questions do not match my perspective.

Great poll idea.


It just doesn't match up to my understanding of science and religion.

Regardless about my observations, I do want to thank you SkepticOverlord.

Keep up the good work man.


edit on 8/26/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
This poll really needs an "I do not know" option. As I am comfortable with my lack of knowledge regarding the origins of the universe, creation/evolution, etc etc.

Is there a god? No one can truly know - over 38,000 denominations (read, interpretations) of the world's most prevalent religion proves that.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I strongly agree with you.
I didn't use strongly agree or disagree on anything either.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Well, my answers to THAT definitely reflected my deep-seated ambivalence about the issue of positivism or "real science" as I've seen it called a few times. While I don't hold with creationism--I see no particular reason to believe that everything was created all at once a few thousand years ago--I can't really hold with total naturalism anymore.

That's not to say that it does not seem completely plausible. There are just a few issues. First of all, all perception is a synthesis of mind and matter--we cannot know the "thing in itself," only the phenomenal representation in our minds. Based on that, this "real science" and positivism and whatnot does not completely hold up to logically rigorous analysis. Additionally, recent findings in quantum physics suggest an underlying oneness to things that again makes it impossible to completely separate the observer from the observed, again invalidating the scientific method.

Additionally, a purely naturalistic worldview must be based on the belief that the universe acts according to logical and immutable laws. The key word there, as indicated, is *belief.* Just like mathematics is based on axioms that seem self-apparent but cannot actually be demonstrated by proof.

None of this really provides evidence against a purely naturalistic worldview. It just...well, it just means that the foundations of naturalism are based in belief, just like any religious system. Wholeheartedly embracing it requires a leap of faith that I'm not entirely prepared to make.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SG-17
Evolution is the only true explanation for biodiversity.


Yeah, but it's not very good for explaining something like how those little aquatic Hydra come to be, where a bunch of individual cells get together and say, "Okay, let's form ourselves into this shape, and you cells form yourselves to capture things, and you cells arrange yourselves to digest material, and we'll create a body, and distribute any food and nutrients we come up with." And they all agree amongst themselves to do that. How's that happen, particularly if the DNA in all the cells is essentially identical? Weird, that's what existence is.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by theshepherd2
 

I to had the same problem that there were no questions about evolution with a few tweaks here and there by intelligent life-forms.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
it was pretty presumptuous survey. i think i did neutral on just about all the questions.
not nearly enough questions.

Silly humans...... Giving people only 2 options is one of the oldest sales strategies we employ.

Your kids are hard to feed? try this tactic next time.

"ok kids you can either have hamburgers or fish and chips?" see what they say.

9 out of 10 they will choose one or the other but if the choice is left to them chaos will reign.

Your all being sold the evolution or creation dinner. there are far more options as other people have stated.

such as a mixture of creation and evolution.

panspermia

anyway enjoy the burgers or fish and chips lol
edit on 26-8-2011 by TiM3LoRd because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


i to voted down the same lines as you but i do believe that space matter was thrown into the mix lol



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I too took the survey...

It's quite facinating to wonder about the origins of life and consciousness...

I'm sure the truth of the matter will someday make itself known, and for some intuitive reason, I suspect...soon.

It just so happens I finished a poem I have been grappling with for some time now...

Perhaps this thread helped...

At any rate, here it is for you to ponder...

Caduceus

Spiraling twice round the central mean...
Harbingers of Heaven and Hell between...
Sun and moon go, through waves too and fro,
while pandering potent entropy's glean...

In caduceus pairs,
spin acideous hairs,
morphing with time,
an homogenous being...

Vainglorious and dark in the earliest dreams;
the mind of men led in loops of the skein...
Never to know the spiraling show,
is but a pale glow of the truth through a seam...

Conscious we share,
both foul and fair,
whilst unknown lies
the scepter of kings...

Time is of mind and mind is between...
The all and the one, pure and unclean...
Endless spiralings show, an helixical glow,
but finite will seem the infinite dream...

Time to take care;
care, not aware;
for there we would see
the better unseen...
edit on 26-8-2011 by Khurzon because: spelling
edit on 26-8-2011 by Khurzon because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-8-2011 by Khurzon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
sorry, wrong site.
edit on 26/8/2011 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
This question I dont think is logically accurate.

The universe, and all it entails, was created by a "supernatural entity" of infinite age, wisdom, and power.

If God created the Universe he would have to be outside of it and last I checked only things within the universe can be be observed as being "in time" thereby ascribing God as having an "age" would be misleading.

Or maybe Im taking it a bit to seriously.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
A terrible survey, in all honesty.

I put 'neutral' all the way down. The questions were specifically moulded towards two possibilities - natural evolution, or divine creation. There was no thought whatsoever put into alternative theories that we discuss on these conspiracy sites every day - that we, ourselves, are the divine creators of our own universes, and that we are part of like a real life Matrix - a game played out in a higher dimension beyond our realm of understanding, all points of light and consciousnness connected by one Prime Creator. Now, that's not a God or a 'supernatural entity' like the survey suggests, it's much deeper than that. It means that there's still room for beings to physically 'evolve' and thus you have both creation AND evolution, but it's a far more complicated chessboard than the survey suggests, it's much much more than that.

There's NO question addressing the strong possibility that us humans are the result of genetic tampering by the Annunaki whom came from Mars, and that Earth is like a laboratory, a zoo, a school of karmic learning for light beings to ascend - these are the things we discuss on conspiracy sites and NONE of it came up in the survey.

edit on 26-8-2011 by RiotComing because: added: " a game played out in a higher dimension beyond our realm of understanding"





top topics
 
78
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join