It is not enitrely impossible that evolution was guided; by what means is contro
If humans were to find life on Mars, would it not suggest life in other planets as well. And if life on other planets as well, wouldn't that suggest that there are life forms more intelligent than us? And if there are life forms more intelligent than us, wouldn't that explain some current day archeological mysteries? And if it explained those things, could it not be considered a theory that is just as valid as the evolution theory?
Agree
Side Score: 17
|
 |
Disagree
Side Score: 29
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand... If you are saying that the original microbes that evolved eventually, or that some of the microbes which evolved eventually into the various forms of life now, this is very possible and in fact it is one of many theories. The moon was created when a giant asteroid hit the earth, this would have destroyed any evidence of prior life and hit the reset button on any evolution, and some believe it is possible that some 1 celled life forms may have been present on the Asteroid itself - or another somehow. That is quite possible, though no more or less likely than the current accepted theory. However, if you are citing archaeological mysteries, you have to ask, why would an intelligent alien race spend so much time and effort? And why would they keep their support in these endeavors such a mystery? I don't doubt there is a lot of intelligent life in the vast vast Universe. It is nearly impossible that there wouldn't be given the numbers involved. I do doubt the likelihood of any two happening to find each other, or even coming up with the means to travel such distances. Anything is possible though I suppose. Side: Disagree
The implication made by the debate title is that their may have been intent behind the chaotic introduction to life as we are aware of it. The debate details were added by Joe. I hadn't planned this to be limited to aliens. To me, how life began is irrelevant. Being as we know that something in fact occured and we are here now, we should just make the best of it. - The intention of this debate was to bind all theorist groups, including the religious, under a single agreed statement. From that point, the exploration of evolution would no linger be hindered by any such group. - I suppose it may be just wishful thinking on my part, or it could be my natural compulsion to level out social structures, being as I am a no good commie. Side: Disagree
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
While I do not believe in Alien Guidance, it is possible that life on Earth originated from somewhere other than Earth. There is evidence that suggests life can survive on interplanetary bodies such as asteroids. If this is so, then it is theoretically possible that Earth may have been contaminated by a minor impact event. Side: agree
1
point
1
point
That is a radical notion, as fossil records show no additions, merely subtractions. That said, fossil records are far from comprehensive. In fact, far less than .1% of animals became fossilised, meaning it is entirely possible that the majority of species alive at the time were completely omitted. Consequently, we have relatively little knowledge of the range of fauna before and after the impact. The impact was at sea, however, increasing the odds that any life brought by the asteroid would not be detected (It has probably been killed by the oil spill anyway). Further, there are almost no circumstances that microbes cannot survive in. Micrococcus radiophilus, for example, is found in the waste tanks of nuclear reactors, and eats plutonium. Streptococcus was recovered from the lens of a camera that had stood on the moon for two years. Most extraordinarily, a man named Russell Vreeland and his colleagues at West Chester University in Pennsylvania in 2000 resuscitated bacteria called Bacillus permians, which had been trapped in salt deposits 600 metres underground for 250 million years - that's older than the continents! There is, it seems, no reason why bacteria could not survive existence on - and the impact of - an asteroid. Side: agree
well um like do you know what i even mean its nice that someone understands me i guess im happy. those Russian spies are my apprentices. they have been asking the government to tell the world about us mostly me the ones they follow though the ones who taught them what they know about nucleonics what got them in trouble. the hardest part is convincing the human mind what we are. they always seem to attack minds more powerful than theirs that arent their own they take so much offense to it. why is this? why does it matter if a mind has more computational power than yours. we dont think that way we cherish those smarter than us why dont you? why is an increased intelligence so offensive? it doesnt make sense to us can you enlighten us at that subject? we dont even care we are smarter we would listen to us unconditionally if we were you we would cherrish the time we could spent with a smarter species. Side: agree
why dont you get offended by kobe bryant being able to beet you at a one on one but when it comes to the brain power a more intelligent species might as well be blasphemy. why are you so arrogant how can the human species ultimately believe it has anything figured out compared to the rest of the life in the universe? do you have any idea how far you still even have to go? 15 trillion more years of evolution before you can even say you are the biggest thing on the block. you see this is why jesus cant come back because you would just instantly just re execute him because someone would get butt hurt that he wasnt 'their' jesus im sorry but jesus is no ones property. Side: agree
|
1
point
Why is the most reasonable explanation excluded Magic is unreasonable. God is by any definition magical. Are fairies and pixies "reasonable"? Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? But if the Bible is true this is exactly what I should expect to find The church regularly refutes the notion that life can exist on planets other than Earth. The Bible asserts that the Earth is about four thousand years old. It is actually closer to four billion. The Bible also asserts that humanity has been present in Homo sapiens form for almost the entirety of the Earth's existence. That is also incorrect. Historical accuracy on matters such as the exodus does not verify the claim that God created the universe, but for some reason the veracity of the former is often used to prove the veracity of the latter. Side: agree
"If humans were to find life on Mars, would it not suggest life in other planets as well." Well, all that would show is that 2/x instead of 1/x planets had life on them. But I guess any data point would make a trend slightly more likely... "And if life on other planets as well, wouldn't that suggest that there are life forms more intelligent than us?" Um, possibly, but the odds are pretty much the same regardless of whether we find life on Mars. "And if there are life forms more intelligent than us, wouldn't that explain some current day archeological mysteries?" What? No. If something is a mystery, there are pretty much an infinite number of possible explanations. Why in the world would you jump to "created by space aliens"? "And if it explained those things, could it not be considered a theory that is just as valid as the evolution theory?" Whaaat? It seems like you don't understand what the word "theory" means when it is used in a scientific sense. A theory is something that connects and explains a large range of observations. One possible explanation for one possible event does not constitute a scientific theory. Side: Disagree
This I'm afraid is an exercise in futility. You cant build a house by starting with the roof, you have to lay the foundation first. But what if something is off with the foundation. Who cares if the contractors agree that its fine and they aren't arguing. If you build that house something is going to go terribly wrong and someone could lose their life. This is what you are doing with this sort of compromise. If the foundational principle on which you build your theory is faulty, everything that comes after it will be faulty. How does this advance science and advance our knowledge of the universe? We need to start by laying a correct foundation and build from there. Truth is what matters, not if we all get along and people like us. And truth matters because correct understanding leads to correct living. Just consider the kinds of world leaders evolutionary thinking has produced; the bloodiest in all of human history, combined. Side: Disagree
Guiding evolution would imply artificial selection. We are noteworthy for having achieved this with such magnitude but insects have been breeding flowers for almost 100 million years (if memory serves, angiosperms appeared less than 100 million years ago). However this isn't what you're talking about, I suspect. There is no compelling evidence that intelligence has artificially selected evolution in the distant past, besides ourselves. Side: Disagree
1
point
So.... If humans were to find life on Mars, would it not suggest life in other planets as well. And if life on other planets as well, wouldn't that suggest that there are life forms more intelligent than us? And if there are life forms more intelligent than us, wouldn't that explain some current day archeological mysteries? And if it explained those things, could it not be considered a theory that is just as valid as the evolution theory? I'm just asking ;) Side: Disagree
I do see your point, but as you have already inferred, that is not the implication of the debate title. The broader sence is our target. Had this ultimate progression from pokaryotes to humans been envoked, or possibly even structured? The claim Joe and I make is that it could be impossible to validate either the claim or it's repective negation. Side: Disagree
I'm basically saying that there is no reason to assume such a contrived explanation for our existence. Our genetic sequencing doesn't show watermarks or anomalies that would only make sense under such an assumption, so what is the utility of such an assumption? Side: Disagree
1
point
If I understand you correctly what you are suggesting is an alternate theory to the origin of life. And you do that by moving the starting point. But I don't see how that gets us any where. There is a bigger question that needs to be answered first; were did all this stuff come from in the first place? Why is there something instead of nothing? There are only four possible answers to that question and only one that is within reason. And that answer excludes macro evolution and alien seeding theories. So while it may be possible to conceive of a thousand different scenarios only one will be the most reasonable and that will be the one the evidence supports. And the evidence just does not support evolution or allen seed theories. Side: Disagree
Just for clarification those four possibilities are, and I'm painting with a very broad brush but all theories are a variation of these four; The universe is an illusion, The universe is self created, The universe is eternal or something outside the universe is eternal. In my estimation that last one is the only one with enough explanatory power to account for the universe as we know it. And if there is a mind behind the universe we would expect to find cosmos not chaos, design not randomness, law and order not disorder. And that is exactly what we find, a fine tuned universe. Macro evolution and randomness is a foreign concept to the universe we live in, it does not fit with the world as we know it. Side: Disagree
"If humans were to find life on Mars, would it not suggest life in other planets as well. And if life on other planets as well, wouldn't that suggest that there are life forms more intelligent than us? The odds would be in favor of it... of course they're in favor of it anyway without bringing life on Mars into the equation in the first place. And if there are life forms more intelligent than us, wouldn't that explain some current day archeological mysteries? Not that I'm aware of. And if it explained those things, could it not be considered a theory that is just as valid as the evolution theory? No. A theory in the scientific sense, which is what evolution is, is an explanatory framework that has survived massive levels of testing and verification, makes testable and falsifiable predictions, is consistent with all observed evidence, etc... "Hey, maybe there were aliens in ancient history!" is not a "theory". It's a daydream. Find actual evidence of it and submit the idea to a LOT of testing and verification and have it hold up and then you can call it a theory in the same sense of the word that evolution is a theory. Right now, evolution is pretty much the most evidentially supported scientific theory in human history, and "aliens in ancient times" is a fantasy in your head. Attempting to place them on equal footing would be absurd. Side: Disagree
anyway even if something else created us....well God created the universe. so ..? but it says he created us. so u can either go by what people from our history have written about or u can go with ur fantasy that maybe we just we created from the big bang nonsense??? i think this world works far to well to just be evolution. as in how theres air, water, food, all that sort of things...not that we humans have made the world work. we've destroyed the world. everything fits together too well to be just "evolutionised" Side: Disagree
Ah here we go, where to start... The beginning is as good a place as any I suppose, so; intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos almost certainly has existed, does exist or will some time in the future. The Drake equation is a mathematical formula used to predict the number of possible worlds that exist at this point in time with intelligent life on them and then the number of those that have developed technologically to the point of space exploration. The equation relies on number of different variables, such as the rate of suns forming per year in a galaxy, number of suns in a galaxy, number of suns with planets orbiting them, number of planets orbiting suns that had the right conditions for life to arise, number of those that life would actually arise on etc. of only one of which is based on hard fact, the others are all estimates that have been made as realistically as thought possible with our current limitations. The upshot of which is this; if every intelligent civilization that arises and develops to the point of nuclear power doesn't destroy itself soon afterwards then there could be millions of other civilizations as advanced or more so then us. If on the other hand all intelligent life is doomed to bring about it's own destruction soon after it has the power to do so then the number of other intelligent civilizations in our galaxy at this time could be 0 - 1. Now it's a very interesting thought chew over but it is pure speculation, we could also be the very first intelligent life to arise, unlikely, but it had to happen somewhere, perhaps we are the only introspective, questioning, self-aware in the galaxy, in the cosmos, perhaps we are the last, both are unlikely, but both are possible. My point those is this, all of it is speculation, but we speculate because we have a reason to believe, because all the evidence we have obtained so far suggest that this is probably the case. The evidence we have so far doesn't suggest that an alien race spawned us or guided our evolution, it suggest that the theory of evolution was right. Hearing someone denounce evolution is like someone arguing against the laws of thermodynamics, that is; you can't, not if you know what your talking about. If something follows all the laws of a theory then it is generally thought to be true until proven otherwise. We know almost certainly now that evolution and natural selection work and that it is the most likely explanation for our conception. There is absolutely no evidence of aliens ever having visited this planet at any point in it's history, which isn't to say that it never happened but that there's no reason to believe otherwise. Also we have evidence that says we did evolve through a process of natural selection, so not only do have no reason to beleive aliens involved, we have strong reason to beleive otherwise. Side: Disagree
|
