New ATS Survey: Origins & Evolution

Not wrongly meant in any way because I respect those very interesting surveys.

But in this survey regarding the origins of life on planet earth is only the option "God" referred to as a "supernatural entity" added.
For what reason is the very strong possibility of existing “extremely advanced/supernatural-like Alien entities” left out, because I personally believe that they have all to do especially with these questions.

OLD EARTH: The origins of life on planet earth are the result of a long process, lasting millions of years, initiated and guided by the intelligence of “extremely advanced/supernatural-like Alien entities”

Man was created in our current form, without any evolutionary process, by “extremely advanced/supernatural-like Alien entities."

I can't get over the fact how accurate the symbols in the thread image is, It shows a monkey evolving to a computer monkey.

How can I obtain rights to get this as a tattoo?

Print screen, Paste into Adobe CS6, Cut out. Print to paper, trace with tracing paper, then the tattoo.

ATS can sue me. I am getting the image header for this thread as a tattoo.

reply to post by wavemaker


I agree, especially if reality is nothing but a simulation and quite a lot of physicists actually believe this to be a strong possibility.

www.simulation-argument.com...

Horizon - What Is Reality?

reply to post by kindred


I tend to catch myself thinking 'what-the-hell-is-this?' too and joke to many
that somewhere, an audience sits laughing and 'aaawww' -ing at the different
episodes

As far as Origins are concerned, it's the present and the future I'm more intersted in.
Though age as told me that 'know your past-know your future'

Thanks Skeptic-O for the survey.

reply to post by nenothtu


Ha yea you know what they say "religion is like the lottery, you can't get saved if you don't play" lol

I'm not a professional but I've had several friends who suffered from schizophrenia (some worse than others) and they all had the same personality traits of a religious zealot. Constantly quoting the bible to refute Sciencfitic understanding.

I don't have a problem with beliefs, just if your beliefs go against known facts then there is something wrong with you. I'm tired of doing the tippiy toe thing when it comes to my opinions. Religious zealots shove their ideals down everyone's throats so why is it wrong for a skeptic to do so?

If your religious and can handle the idea of reality (physics, evolution and a universe that we are not the centre of) you may think "it's not harming anyone, religion never hurt anyone" well from honor killing, honor rape, ethnic cleansing, suicide bombers, witch burnings, dark ages (astronomy and sciences banned) religious intolerance, holy wars, cursadses, bigotry and pedophilia. I could name so much more, but I do not have the time to do so.

That being said if religion and science can coexist for you, then that's wonderful that's all I care about. What I don't respect is refuting facts, yes you have the right to believe in whatever you wish, but if your teaching your kids those same lessons then no one in your family will ever learn a damn thing. There are individuals who believe the earth is flat and google earth is the devils agent to them.

It seems ats has become very religious lately. If there is a god I don't think the point of existence is to gloat "hey I'm going to heaven and your going to rot and burn in hell" that's a pretty poor excuse to want an afterlife, sounds like an exclusive tree club that a bunch of kids made.

Say anything you wish to me, bash me even send me threatening messages (only the crazy ones do) and try to turn my opinion, which won't ever change. So you spread your ideals? Guess what I'll spread mine.

reply to post by Anthony1138


If religions practiced what they preached [be a good person, dont steal ect, dont RAPE your neighbors or anybody for that matter] But so often we hear about high ranking members of the major religions doing just that, being greedy, stealing, molesting the innocent children that actually have put trust in them.

If I wanted to go to any kind of heaven[theoretically speaking], I would never associate myself with any group with such a terrible history. I would rather learn facts that smart people have already figured out to try to get an understanding of the world around me, instead of being spoon fed the same beliefs people have been molded to believe in for thousands of years.

Anyways, the only poll I actually joined in, good going for once ATS staff.

The only thing wrong about the survey is presenting evolution as science.
Evolution is NOT science. There is no direct scientific proof or evidence to it.
And all the stories you hear about new fossils being found and about how they lived is just wishful thinking and fairy tales.

reply to post by nenothtu


It certainly gets blurry between ape and man.

I just feel as though those ancient ones simply weren't thinking like we do today. That they biologically were programmed for thinking another way. Because I just refuse to believe that humanity sat around for 600,000 years doing absolutely nothing but hunting and having sex.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by SG-17

 

By "anatomically modern" I reckon you must be referring to cranial structure, since everything else was in place pretty much as it is now by the time of Erectus. I wasn't referring to "archaic humans", but "archaic homo sapiens" specifically. I'm probably behind the times on that, as I believe the term has largely been superceeded by H. Antecessor in modern circles.

Specific affinities are still under debate, but I think it's a pretty safe to say that Neanderthal didn't evolve from Erectus, but rather from Antecessor. Hedielbergensis is still up for grabs, whether it came from Erectus, Antecessor, or was the same AS Antecessor. Throw in Dmanisi, and Denesova, and you have the makings of a pretty wide mix, adding in recent findings that Erectus may have survived longer than previously thought, in Asia. That last is different than Flores, which is fairly obviously a modified Erectus, dwarfed by an island habitat, surviving up to maybe 11k years ago, or perhaps even more recently.

It's an odd tree, and the branches don't just branch outward, sometimes they grow back together again.

Current evidence puts the Denisova humanoid in close relation with Neanderthal. They both may have evolved from Hedielbergensis or one may have been a subspecies of the other. But Hedielbergensis was the progenitor of both Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans.

Erectus certainly lived long enough to encounter both homo sapiens and Neanderthal in Asia.

dont get me wrong i luv the site and the surveys but could someone please learn how to ask a survey question.

eg do you believe the earth was created by accident or intelligent design? end of question. too many questions run on and make for an invalid survey

1.The universe, and all it entails, was created by a "supernatural entity" of infinite age, wisdom, and power. how the f should i know if there is infinate power and wisdom involved


2.The planet earth and its solar system was created by a "supernatural entity" specifically to harbor life and human beings. again i dont know why this universe was created

why not shorter questions with one point? the universe was created by intelligent design... strongly agree! my point is why a "supernatural entity" of infinite age, wisdom, and power? it could be a group of " supernatural entities or it could be middle management or it/they may not have infinate power and wisdom. or space aliens only 10k year old. stop putting your beliefs in a question and we wil get far more scientific/accurate results

Originally posted by Setoman
The only thing wrong about the survey is presenting evolution as science.
Evolution is NOT science. There is no direct scientific proof or evidence to it.
And all the stories you hear about new fossils being found and about how they lived is just wishful thinking and fairy tales.

You're right, evolution is not science, because evolution has always existed. Science is the means by which to discover evolution exists. Thank you for summing that up for us.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by nenothtu

 

It certainly gets blurry between ape and man.

I just feel as though those ancient ones simply weren't thinking like we do today. That they biologically were programmed for thinking another way. Because I just refuse to believe that humanity sat around for 600,000 years doing absolutely nothing but hunting and having sex.

edit on 27-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

We are apes. The hominid line is a great ape line. We split from the chimpanzees about 2 million years ago.

The more ancient species didn't have the capacity for language. Only homo sapiens and Neanderthals did. We were hunters and gatherers for the majority of our existence. But we continued to innovate while we did so. Better tools, better weapons (specifically the bow and arrow), and as we did we continued to learn. We developed culture and passed down information from one generation to another. Eventually we discovered that we could grow our own food and we did not need to travel with the prey. There started civilization.
We certainly did much more than hunt and have sex during those millennium.

I feel this poll was missing some basic questions for people involved with this topic. There was no real middle ground. Here are 2 questions I think should of been on the poll:

1.The planet earth and its solar system was Manipulated by a "supernatural entity" specifically to harbor life and human beings

2.The origins of life on planet earth are the result of a combination of terrestrial chemical and energy circumstances,or of organic molecules, or other primitive life forms, being brought to the primordial earth through comets or other extraterrestrial matter, this lasted millions of years but was suddenly manipulated or guided at some point in earths not to distant past by a supernatural entity.

3.Homo sapiens (man) first appeared in the distant past, through a evolutionary push from a "supernatural entity" which helped man evolve from a primate ancestor.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by nenothtu

 

It certainly gets blurry between ape and man.

I just feel as though those ancient ones simply weren't thinking like we do today. That they biologically were programmed for thinking another way. Because I just refuse to believe that humanity sat around for 600,000 years doing absolutely nothing but hunting and having sex.

edit on 27-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

We weren't smart enough to do anything but hunt and have sex. Evolution takes time, and no space aliens did not hump our ancestors into intelligence. We evolved from the simplest form of life that started on Earth. We are direct descendants of the earliest life on Earth. It took a very long time for early man to pick up a rock and throw it. From there it took a long time to learn to purposefully shape a rock to specifically fit a purpose.

It is taken for granted that this poll was created by an intelligent being who thoughtfully designed each poll question.

Could the poll questions have evolved over time?

Oh sure, some may want to take the easy way out, and say "SkepticOverlord did it ", or that he magiked the poll into existence.


Do we even know if SkepticOverlord is a real individual?

Maybe he is a composite of many writers over time.

I am very skeptical of the whole thing......................

I think that people still believe in creationism because it doesn't take any intelligence to understand it.This video proves we are closer to chimps than we are to creationists.

Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how living things, including Darwin himself, came into existence, will encounter two distinct explanations. The first is "creation," the idea that all living things came into existence as a consequence of an intelligent design. The second explanation is the theory of "evolution," which asserts that living things are not the products of an intelligent design, but of coincidental causes and natural processes.

For a century and a half now, the theory of evolution has received extensive support from the scientific community. The science of biology is defined in terms of evolutionist concepts. That is why, between the two explanations of creation and evolution, the majority of people assume the evolutionist explanation to be scientific. Accordingly, they believe evolution to be a theory supported by the observational findings of science, while creation is thought to be a belief based on faith. As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes.

moved to post bellow

reply to post by SG-17


Apes live in trees and jungles and are naked and relax every day. We build cities. Apes can live in their environment. We build our own environment. At some point in this evolution, we became a new thing. Apes in title only, perhaps. But in as much as Birds are dinosaurs in title, but no longer, we are the same way in terms of apes.

Everything you mentioned happened in the last 70,000 years. Before that, all we did was hunt and have sex. Everything we made was in regards to those two things. Without art, there was no culture nor civilization. The first cave to have paintings was worth more than every cave that had come before it for the whole of 600,000 years.

reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac


Not really. I mean everything you said about evolution is true, but in terms of humanity's advancement, no.

It took our ancestors 5 million years to go from blade, to blade on stick. It took our species just 10,000 years to go from Villages with spears to missions on Mars.

Something is seriously flawed in the concept that our ancestors of hundreds of thousands of years ago to millions of years ago are the same humans as we are today.

I'm not saying space aliens, nor anything at all. I already explained this previously. I believe it's the difference between exponential thinking and linear thinking. At some point in the last 50,000-70,000 years, we made the crossover from linear to exponential. Brain capacity and intelligence are irrelevant in these regards. Anatomically modern humans are 200,000 years old. But even though our body stopped evolving, our brains did not. That's the key right there. And that's what made us something more.

We can only speculate on what caused this. Perhaps a rouge protein chain, or perhaps a single virus that changed a single line of DNA code. Whatever caused it, it was sudden, it was species-wide, and it was a very very desirable trait.