Our Origins

[blike]

How do you think we got here?

[aman]

Since we are able to make logic and memory circuits out of just about any material then over infinite time I imagine anything has a possibility of gaining sentience. I think a vacuum universe gained sentience and injected mass and energy into our universe with a progam to create enviroments for sentience to evolve.

I don't think were alone either. Just for thought.

Just aman

[fafalone]

How can anyone believe in creation in this day? there's simply too much evidence... genetic proof, the fossil record, the fact that if new species didn't evolve, there wouldn't be such a diversity, since the number of extinct+number of existing species is way above earth's carrying capacity... the list continues

[aman]

This is pseudoscience but I propose that there is a general tendency for any enviroment to use surounding energy to build on itself and in circumstances even build towards a sentient organism. It is a natural compromise between no energy and an abundance of energy. The abundance follows some natural law to become us. I feel the instructions could be followed by many different circumstances in our universe. It's not an accident but a natural progression. Just my opinion.

Just aman

[dudels]

I believe that we were programmed, in some way or another.

 

I find it all to explain as the 'evidence' I have convinced myself with is just randow snippets flying around in my head. I'll say a couple of notes though.

 

 

Inheritance. Not the genetic type, but the Object-Orientated types. All life seems to be based in a hierachy of types. Can't really explain what I mean all that well so I'll just give a couple of examples:

 

Photosynthesis: Everything that does this has that green chlorophyll (I know that is seplt wrong) stuff. This is true for all these things; leaves on a tree; grass in the ground; etc. Surely if we evolved in the sense that science tells us there will be some sort of differences in these?

 

Respiraton: Sentient life on the planet all breathes in oxygen (I'm obviously not including plants and bacteria in this). We breathe the same gas and also do it in the same way. Evidence that we were based on some higher class. The same could be said for other things too, such as the way that blood is pumped around the body.

 

There are also a couple of minute things too, which although mean absolutely nothing on their own, they can push the point a little further. An example of this is that for the most part science is measurable, values that make science work (such as the value for the acceleration due to gravity) aren't randomly changing every few minutes.

 

 

 

The thing I like about this thoery is that it unites others that otherwise have on link. Example: the two theories of Evolution and Creation. With this thoery both of those are possible.

 

In any good program you start with the basics, then build upon this with constant improvements. You start with a rock, add a bit of basic life (bacteria etc.) then from then you can build upwards. We were initially 'created', but since then we have been constantly improving - our evolution.

 

 

I've tried to explain my theory as best as I can, but I know that incoherency reigns supreme in my posts.

 

Please be nice to me

[Ami]

ok, well i liked the way you backed up your theroy, but may i ask at what level do you suppose we were "programmed" at in the beginning. I mean there is a huge difference between starting as bacteria on a rock and a human being. does your theory lean a certain way on that point?

[fafalone]

There is no such protein as "chlorophyll." Chlorophyll is a FAMILY of proteins, they vary. Not all plants are green, so then by your logic how would they photosynthesize? Different chlorophylls absorb different wavelengths of light. By far the most common are the ones that absorb 680nm and 700nm wavelengths, which are green, but others exist.

Bacteria, such as cyanobacteria, perform photosynthesis with an entirely different family, the rhodopsins.

 

Also in the case of chloroplasts, it is important to discuss the endosymbiotic theory. The evidence for this theory suggests that chloroplasts were once free-living organisms that were incorporated into eukaryotic cells. This would account for teh similarity.

 

 

--

 

On respiration, the similarity lies in the efficiency; this is the most efficient system that has evolved for the needs of sentient organisms. This is the result of common ancestors. Same for the circulatory system. You can see a clear line of development in the circulatory system as organisms become more advanced. And of course there are variants in this.

[Aardvark]

I'm amazed that anyone is still seriously challenging the evidence for evolution.

 

Or are you just trying to provoke a reaction?

[DocBill]

Originally posted by Aardvark

I'm amazed that anyone is still seriously challenging the evidence for evolution.

 

Or are you just trying to provoke a reaction?

 

God(s) created all. She especially created angels, which became those creatures we know as: Tooth Fairy; Santa Claus; Easter Bunny, Wizards, Elves, Goblins, Pookah's, Banshees; Orks, and one or two others.

 

Well.. That's my unbiased opinion.

 

Bill

[spuriousmonkey]

the main reason not to accept evolution is probably because people are too afraid to accept that we are an integral part of nature and therefore not special or exceptional.

 

we are a strange sort of animal though, because we have reached some kind of intelligence that hovers between stupidity and insightful. Unfortunately with this level of intelligence we have managed to invent the microwave and sliced bread and therefore do not have to elvolve our intelligence any further. If we had we might have accepted our natural position in the grand scheme of things.

[NavajoEverclear]

whats up with bills reply? For one thing you can deduce those too fabrications of the imagination, for another thing, how does santa, the easter bunny, and tooth fairy fit in (my mother told me the truth about them). By what do you think about those fictional characters, did you introduce them to your children as real people? Since your scientists i'm guessing not. I'm not sure what i'll do, on one hand its certainly not psychologically beneficial to lie to a child to reveal the truth later--- on the other hand its tradition, and i'm not sure what my wife will think on that matter, because i base my values on a woman on things other than their santa clause beliefs, so if this idea conflicts with us it will not stop our marraige but will have to be decided one way or the other, and likely i'll give in to my wife.

 

How come bill isn't banned yet? Well i guess if idiocy was a justification for bannishment i'd be gone, but bill is pretty wack . . .

[Sayonara]

There's no need to ban him. He stomped off on his own.

[invisiblebrain]

well its the human psycology..............

 

people from centuries in our country INDIA tried to find out the answer to this question (it was in this time the mughals and the brits attacked us).all of them ended up by giving their own theories or at least by trying to prove that it couldnt be answered.

 

its human pscychology to try to go to the root of a particular problem and when we are sufficiently moving to the roots, we decide that (we feel that)it couldnt have been so far..........

 

only opinions are right.......

 

the ultimate questions still remain and will remain unanswered.

 

we have evolved from the nature but not according to what any one said but witha propotion of the truth being said by a person...

 

but the GOD(DOG) theorists, better check u r brains,its a feeling, (the same feeling of excess pain when a robber strikes u and less of it when u r grandson does),be not be led by a feeling,question everything.......

 

its human psycology....BUDDHA said there was no god,but people said he was the god....

[Dudde]

I'm trying to kill santa clause (we have an ongoing rivalry)

the tooth fairy is the devil

the easter bunny is in prison for child molestation

 

 

and everybody knows there's no such thing as a "pookah"

[-Demosthenes-]

Creation. Thoery: Evidents of evolution only exists because this planet was created using parts of other planets, which contained the animal remains that are similar to these ones. Which would create the illusion that animals had changed over time. Why are the animals on the other planets similar? Because they were all created too! Changing of a moths color through evolution has happened, but the change non-living goo to a one celled organism is completely implausible, much less the change to inteligent human beings.

[Sayonara]

"No."

 

First off, you present no new evidence to support any of those claims.

 

Secondly, as far as your theory goes, dismissing evolution is the least of its problems. It needs to falsify a hell of a lot more theories in order to work, and they're all very well evidenced.

[-Demosthenes-]

yea, but i'm 15!

[Sayonara]

Get reading dude!

 

[mcoy]

As the debate continues....i would like to say all can be used....

Religiously, God did Created us.

Logically, we evolved

Skeptically, the bible's 7 days could be a metaphor of a longer era. Just like the counting of days before the messiah came.

[5614]

i say: "creation"

 

why? because maybe we did evolve from monekys, maybe we didnt, but in the end the monkeys were created.

 

i think that something [fluke or God] created something [humans or ancestors] and we either stayed as we were made [as humans] or we evolved [into humans] which may or may not have been due to God.

 

as you can see, im not really sure.

whilsts my religion says God created human, its hard to say, and creation from nowhere [as God made us] is, to a human, an impossible concept to imagine, which is where my doubt comes in.

[Sorcerer]

Either #2 or #3, theres no way to tell the difference between them, so I won't vote.

[LucidDreamer]

I agree with sorcerer. Evolution is obvious, but it’s anyone’s guess how or why this universe appeared.

[Sorcerer]

Well I always thought the, "always existed argument" applied, since it removes the first cause paradox. This is the exact same argument theists use when trying to rationalise the existence of God without a creator of God. Its anyones guess...... however if the universe and God are one and the same then both would have always existed.

 

Theres no doubt in my mind that we evolved though, I also doubt the existence of a soul, and because my only reason for holding the possibility of God is because I cannot disprove it, I also doubt the existence of a Heaven and Hell....... however the agnostic argument gets silly when I start saying its possible that their are invisible pink fairies dancing round my keyboard.....

 

Its ironic being a Humanist who is also for the abolishment of anthropocentricity..... my reasons are that if we realise that Humans aren't the most important thing in this world, then we can begin to save the planet and thus save Humanity.....

 

Well I certainly side-tracked on that one.

[NavajoEverclear]

Creation. Thoery: Evidents of evolution only exists because this planet was created using parts of other planets, which contained the animal remains that are similar to these ones. Which would create the illusion that animals had changed over time. Why are the animals on the other planets similar? Because they were all created too! Changing of a moths color through evolution has happened, but the change non-living goo to a one celled organism is completely implausible, much less the change to inteligent human beings.

 

buddy, that idea is really lame. I don't know who started it, but i'm probably the only one here who knows its one of the popular mormon ideas. But did you know it's OK to be mormon and believe in evolution? I can hook you up with some quotes if you need. Hey i don't care if you don't, but don't try to say you have evidence against it, thats just stupid. Hey i used to do it to though so i'm not persecuting. That idea about dinosaurs being extra terrestrial is completely crap. The fossil record would not look like it does simply if earth is made of pieces of other planets.

[Gilded]

It would be very interesting if scientists could repeat... umm, know what's it called in English *checks dictionary* abiogenesis? Well, what I mean is the event where lifeless matter became living matter (or an early stage of actually living matter). If the evolution theory was a wooden tower, creating life from lifeless matter / repeating the abiogenesis would indeed be like steel girders to fortify that tower... Ok, lousy metaphor but you get the idea.