kx000
Valued Senior Member
No, but there is strong evidence that says that aliens contributed to the evolution in modern day man.
why do some theists believe in Darwinian evolution?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
No, but there is strong evidence that says that aliens contributed to the evolution in modern day man.
No there isn't.
One more time: crank sites do not impart knowledge.
No it's not. You wouldn't know science if it bit you on the ass.
The other hypothesis shows the same results, now you're the one playing around with words.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
To my knowledge this is a proven fact.
While a standard google search turns up a large number of articles with titles like "Scientists confirm the presence of extra-terrestrial genes in human DNA" and "Proof that human beings were genetically engineered by ET", google scholar provides a calm voice of reason:
Are There Bugs in our Genome?
Note: The above article is in PDF format, so you will, of course, need a viewer.
There is quite a bit more information that is available for perusal as well.
The authors are at this stage only presenting possible explanations, and it's not about experimentation so much as it is about analyzing new data in the light of existing information. So if you're asking me if I consider the article to be completely factual, then the answer is no, I don't. It's not designed to be.
But let's look at a hypothetical scenario:
There are a bunch of researchers who perform some experiments which result in definitive findings that they believe to be factual. They submit their results for peer-review and the work is subsequently confirmed by several independent research teams. At this point I'd be likely to accept the validity of the work, even though I can't verify the results myself first-hand. I would however concede that there is a chance that everyone could be wrong and that therefore any conclusions I might have drawn could be based on a faulty premise. This is my default position with regard to anything new I learn.
But now let's further imagine that the findings in questions are found to have implications across a broad range of different disciplines, and that in order for their validity to remain intact, it must be shown that each and every one of these disciplines can uphold these findings. In our little hypothetical here, not only does this turn out to be the case, but our understanding of many of these other disciplines is enhanced as a result. As time goes by, discovery after discovery is made that further confirm the original findings, and eventually we end up not only with thousands of scientists who in the process of trying to understand the original findings even better end up piling on the evidence even further, we have tens of thousands of people working within related and at least minimally overlapping disciplines that are also constantly making new discoveries, not one of which has ever falsified the original findings but rather continue to support them.
In the above scenario, yes, I'd accept the findings.
It was not a rebuttal so much as it was simply a response. You can decide for yourself whether or not you think it was a good one.
The problem here, as we have seen on numerous occasions, is that your "knowledge" tends to be nothing but belief. And you, so far, haven't provided any "proven fact".
Actually, there is some solidity to that. Some think the "Junk DNA" might have something to do with it and further genetic research would shed light on it. Also something about mitochondrial DNA.
I don't think provolution is off the table. Especially since it doesn't cancel out the established theories of evolution, it just adds an x-factor to the very fast development we have been experiencing throughout the ages as a species.
What makes you think our development has been "fast"? Compared with what?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Crap. Now you are conflating theism with the Abrahamic religions. Secondly you are smart enough to understand what a frigging metaphor is. Don't piss me off with atheist dogma; it is even less acceptable than knee-jerk theist dogma.
Proton decay.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
Sorry, haven't been here in a while. And again, that depends on your interpretation of that scripture. Young-Earth Creationists will agree with you, but I'm not in that camp. Sure, he created them man and woman, but it doesn't describe the method. It could have been evolution.
Socratic Spelunker,
Hi SS, we had a long discussion regarding this topic a year or two ago, so I know your reasons.
If I may, I would like to advance the discussion by asking if your source of scripture is purely biblical?
jan.
Hi SS, we had a long discussion regarding this topic a year or two ago, so I know your reasons.
If I may, I would like to advance the discussion by asking if your source of scripture is purely biblical?
jan.
If creation is a fact, why can't it also be the process?
What is the point of evolution?
jan.