James Zediana

This conversation is closed.

Where did we come from?

I started several debates in TED and results are evolution can't be proven. SHORT OF CREATION and EVOLUTION is there another option?

I believe this is a fundamental question to be answered.

  • thumb
    Oct 9 2012: What parts of evolution can not be proven?

    How do you define evolution?

    Are you saying there is no evidence for evolution?

    A few hundred years of science and testing and predictions verified, the discovery of DNA, the mapping of DNA, the fossil record, our obvious similarities with other species etc disagrees with your starting premise, unless you define evolution different science.

    We don't have a reliable theory the origins of life. But that is not evolution. Evolution happened after life with self replicating molecules developed.

    Creation, doesn't answer anything. It is saying we don't understand how it happened so a creator must have done it. No proof or evidence. Nothing testable. Simply an fallacy, an argument from ignorance, with some special pleading thrown in if you assume the creator didn't need to be created, another fallacy.

    Saying the universe or life was created doesn't answer anything. It just raises more questions. You have no evidence of a creator, why one creator, could have been a committee of thousands.You know nothing about the creator, how it did the creation, it is just speculation.

    Its the same as saying it was magic.

    If you have proof there is no evidence for evolution or have found some flaw in the theory, you might be up for a nobel prize because this is the greatest breakthrough in biology since DNA was discovered or Darwin put forward the origin of species due to natural selection in the first place.

    Can you sum up why evolution is false or has not been reasonably proven?

    Unless you have some breakthrough I suggest you starting premise is false.

    Science never claims to have the absolute truth. Maybe one day someone will turn the theory of evolution on its head, but I doubt you have.
  • Oct 12 2012: Coming up soon. Two debates about whether gravitation is real. We will call it instead Newtonism. I will write some nonsense denying this reality. After being mostly ignored for two weeks, and as soon as someone who knows about gravitation comes and challenges my nonsense and tries to guide me to discover the problems with my nonsense, I will ignore the debates and open a question asking what moves our planet? Since I started several debates in TED and results are that gravitation can't be proven SHORT OF GODS and GRAVITATION is there another option? I believe this is a fundamental question to be answered.

    Of course, if the knowledgeable person comes and asks, I will ignore such person. Others who just insist how come gravitation can't be proven, I will say that this is not the question here. Nobody gave me any evidence or proof that looked like common sense (see my standards?). Easy! Let's get rid of all science in exchange for nonsense while ignoring answers.
    • thumb
      Oct 14 2012: let me know when he shows up.
      • Oct 14 2012: Who? The person knowing about gravitation? I did not start those debates yet. My time is limited. What about you do that? Seems like you know how to start a debate trying to dismiss well established scientific facts, post there some fallacious arguments, then ignore the comments if they were clear enough to show how your fallacious arguments were misleading.
        • thumb
          Oct 25 2012: Entropy Driven,

          I am being serious. And I know this is not about the original question. But why isn't dark energy/dark matter considered as an explanation of gravity? So I am saying that dark energy/dark matter and gravity are one and the same.
      • Oct 25 2012: Hi Casey,
        Dark Matter and dark energy might be pretty much related. I am no physicist though. But matter and energy and exchangeable. Maybe in large quantities, like those required for the phenomena that made physicists think of their existence, it does not matter which "form" it has, and they are thus one and the same. Anyway, dark matter was originally proposed to explain gravitational effects, dark energy to explain what drives the acceleration of the universe's expansion. Since I am no physicist, I do not know if there's further confirmation or if we are talking about something akin to phlogiston or ether. So, maybe it is better to ask some physicist about it.
  • Oct 10 2012: It seems all life shares the characteristics of gathering energy and self-propagation. The question I asked myself when I was in high school is "Why do the atoms bother?" Atoms of non-organic things seem as permanent as atoms of organic things. But, the atoms in organic molecules seem imbued with this tendency to form organisms that gather energy and self-propagate. Why? Why not just be a rock? It would be easier.

    It seems to me this is the pivotal issue. From somewhere came a force that imbues organic things with these tendencies. Since I was a child scientists have been trying to create life in a test tube and they have never succeeded. They can make seemingly-organic sludge, but not life. The pivotal force is not there.

    So where did this force come from? I'm now long past high school and I've never seen an answer (and almost never seen the question). Whatever it is exists at the atomic level. Did it just happen, or was some sentience responsible? There are preferred beliefs but no answer. When we can identify the force (differentiating once and for all what is alive versus what isn't) then we can struggle with where the force might have come from.

    What is interesting (if the foregoing isn't) is that at death the force seems to leave. All those atoms no longer seem to have the ability to self-organize and go about the business of gathering energy and self-propagating. Hmmm.
    • Oct 10 2012: Nice comment John !

      Seems like you are really searching for the answers.

      As science also tells us, that in between the atoms there is just an incredible amount of empty space .... or is it really so empty ? Perhaps it is filled with a "life force" or what some call the "etheric force"

      These are not at all strange ideas but rather pieces to a greater puzzle that can begin to explain some of the questions you are posing. Although they are not considered "scientific" ...yet ... the sciences may soon be getting on to this. Our tools are still quite clumsy to penetrate these forces but it seems to be heading in that direction with MRI's and such. We can get a magnetic signal from the living substance. An electrical impulse. Heat residue. .... But just what is this "energy" that leaves the physical body at death that you speak of..? Could it be one aspect of the spiritual part of our higher being..? ... I just ask...
    • thumb
      Oct 10 2012: Never heard it put like that John. You have hit the nail on the head, there are forces at work that science, so far, has no idea about. Why is that so difficult to admit ?

    • thumb
      Oct 10 2012: If you see a box of blocks they are like atoms without life but if a child plays with them they take all kinds of shapes as on earth this was done by sun and wind, the tide, rain and lightning and all forces that worked on them.
      Those forces added a short lived kind of energy that made organic connections possible of inorganic atoms. And so even today we need be powered from the sun via carbon hydrates to continue that special configuration we call life.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2012: The child is adding information to the blocks to make a wall. Where can we see sun, rain, etc producing anything from random atoms ?

    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: I have pondered along similar but not quiet the same lines.

      What is the difference between being alive and dead versus non living objects

      Life is amazing.

      If you live long enough though your body and associated organs and processes don't function so well.

      The body is complex relying on respiration, circulation, digestion etc at the macro level. So many processes. When a human dies, some critical process or more than one stops and this leads to the shut down of tbe brain and all the processes controlled by the brain. System failure. HowEver some of the processes such as hair and nail growth continue for some time after brain death.

      I don't personally see any evidence of some Life force or spirit. The systems work or thy don't more or less.

      Watching someone suffer increasing dementia losing their memories, then recognition, their personality, eventually comatose, you see the results of the biological system break down. Finally they die and yet some assume their personality and memories just float off fully intact to be judged by some invisible entity, with no evidence at all.

      That sort of thinking is amazing In itself.
      • thumb
        Oct 12 2012: My dog is dying and going through difficulties like these. I have a strong attachment to her but after each seizier takes her she has a more and more distant look to her and it takes longer for her to recognize me.

        You are right we have lots to learn about us. If we get this underastanding will we be able to live forever? Would we want to?
        • thumb
          Oct 12 2012: So sorry about the dog. May you both make the most of the remaining time.
        • thumb
          Oct 16 2012: Dogs can be great companions.

          I'd like to be age 28 physically for say 100 to 200 years. Don't think our minds are set up for 1,000s or millions of years.
    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: Have to admit never consider this point of view and I am pleased you presented it. Thank you for your input.
  • Oct 10 2012: Using the concept of "proven" is just bad thinking. It certainly has no place in science.

    Check out this essay.

    • Oct 10 2012: Barry,

      I read the essay but wasn't too impressed. It seems to promote a form of relativism that in my mind is a hinder to the true understanding of the nature of thinking.

      You might also consider this.

      1 is the largest number. All other numbers are divisible. While 1 can only be divided by itself.

      In mathematics as well as geometry things can in fact be proven. In as much as we consider our own thoughts as "real"...... then we have to come to the conclusion that mathematical and geometrical truths as real and are also proven correct or incorrect. If one chooses to deny this, then you at the same time deny the entire foundation of science.

      If then real truth can be achieved through mathematics and geometry, then the "ideas" must also be fully real in themselves... or ? Is not mathematics existing only purely in the ideal realm ...?

      As we now stand in the danger of wandering further and further away from James's initial question, "Where do we come from?" The fact that we are here presented with an "immaterial" truth that is quite real.

      If we can consider this immaterial truth as being founded "in reality" then why should we not consider other immaterial truths to also be just as much founded in the same reality.
      • thumb
        Oct 12 2012: 1/.5 = 2


        a = 1
        b = 1

        a = b
        a2 = b2
        a2 - b2 = 0
        (a-b)(a+b) = 0
        (a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
        1(a+b) = 0
        (a+b) = 0
        1 + 1 = 0
        2 = 0
        1 = 0
        1 + 1 = 1
        • thumb
          Oct 12 2012: You divided by zero in the fifth step.
        • thumb
          Oct 16 2012: You made a error going from (a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
          to 1(a+b) = 0

          Anyway (a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)

          = (0)(2)/(0) = 0/(0)

          even if you multiply both sides by (a-b) you get

          (a-b)(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = (a-b) 0/(a-b)
          => (0)(0)(2)/(0) = (0)0/0
      • thumb
        Oct 15 2012: 5th step is 0 divided by a number which is ok comes out to 1
  • Oct 9 2012: If your conclusion is that evolution can't be proven they you were not paying attention. Evolution has been conclusively proven. I think it is not proper to start another thread while the other two are still open and, by all appearances, you have not given any proper thought to the answers provided.

    Also, you can't conclude from such a low number of answers that evolution can't be proven. If you were interested you would know that there's many resources where you could figure this out. TED is not the place for learning everything there is to know about anything (in two weeks, right?). You were visited mostly by people with not enough expertise to first notice where your problems are, then guide you through figuring that out. Curiously, you left the other threads as soon as some expertise in the field and in the way you have been mislead started showing up. The first one you left as soon as I showed that one part of your conclusions were drawn from the misuse of data. The other as soon as I started asking specifics about your look at evolution. How conclusively can you say that evolution can't be proven if you did not even try? If all you've got is answers in a TED forum where most of the knowledgeable people might already be tired of endless discussions with creationists who just won't listen? Why do creationist start these discussions if they will not pay any attention? Why should we bother answering if you appear not to care?

    (My time is limited, so if you answer, I might not be able to answer back but until a couple days later. But I do not know if I am still sufficiently interested after the two other interactions we had.)
    • Oct 9 2012: Entropy,

      The typical mistake the evolutionists make is that because they can observe an evolutionary process in nature means that there is no God, no spirit, no soul, nothing .. nothing more than this one time lonesome existence out in the middle of the Milky Way ... meaningless and empty. Without reason or purpose.
      Because we can cleverly observe patterns of form and color in nature that change through the course of time, how does this make one jump to the conclusion that there is no more than this physical reality that we can see and feel. ..?

      Attention needs to be paid to things of spiritual nature. Mankind is not merely evolving as a physical being but also as a spiritual being. Just observe the changes that have evolved in your own spiritual being. Look into your own soul and compare the way you were as a child to the way you are now. What changes do you see. The spiritual reality is quite real and it's secrets lie within you. As an individual, you have evolved spiritually. Just as the human race has evolved spiritually. This is the real essence of humankinds evolution. Not the purely physical aspect of our being. If evolution is ever going to be taken seriously it must also encompass exactly this idea. Our own spiritual evolution.
      • thumb
        Oct 9 2012: Daniel,

        Your accusations against evolutionists simply thinking there is no God because they observe an evolutionary process in nature, then dismiss the God, are not valid.

        The problem is neither theory...creation or evolution...is COMPATABLE with each other, depending on how each side DEFINES their own beliefs.

        If there is a God and that God has a Master Plan (Determinism?), then nothing that we as Human Beings "do" makes a difference. We are all characters is a "God Novel" written by the God, with no ability to change who we are. If I am a "good person" or a seriel killer, it is not my choice...God decided it when he wrote the plan. If we have no free will, then even praying to a God to help us face our daily trials and tribulations won't help. The God has already determined what each of us will do, how we will act, and whether we will be moral or immoral. And part of the God's Master Plan would also include the evolutionary process that led to Human Beings. If it didn't, the God placed all the "evidence" for evolution...the things we discovered...there just to confuse us. It would be like saying the Earth is only 6,000 years old (and so are we), but God placed all those dinosaur bones out there just so He could amuse himself as he watched us get confused about them.

        Evolution allows for "free will". Most religious teachings do not, in the sense that the teachings place demands on the Human Being to act in a strict way the God demands, or face punishment for it if we don't.

        The incompatabilities between the two theories are what raises the questions and objections about them from the "other side".

        But the most obvious problem is that if someone can say, "There had to be a Creator", then someone else can also say, "Well then, there had to be something that created the Creator, too. Who created the Creator?"
        • Oct 10 2012: Rick,

          I don't know where you get this idea of a "master plan" from. I have surely never mentioned it.

          I don't know where you get this idea of a "6000 year old earth". I haven't mentioned that either.

          I find neither idea compatible with my perspective at all.

          Although you might be reading them into my words somehow, I'll assure you that they are not at all included in my way of seeing things.

          Should an "evolutionist" be open minded enough to include a creator god, then good for him! ... But I don't think you could collect enough of them to start a football team....
        • thumb
          Oct 15 2012: Rick very asstute line of thought. The problem with it is we do not think like God. A being who lives outside time and is infinite can not be understood by the finite. Try perspective and look at your reply again.
      • Oct 9 2012: I didn't say anything about gods.
      • thumb
        Oct 15 2012: @ James

        Try perspective and look again? OK.

        If I am incapable, as a finite Human Being, of thinking like and understanding the god, then so are all of my fellow Human Beings, including an appointed leader of a church. So if he/she can't think like and understand the god, why should I believe anything the other Human Being tells me to believe about the god?

        From a rational and logical perspective, you just shot down your own arguement. The "Human Being" church shouldn't be telling anybody what or what not to believe. They can't be any more right or wrong about it than I can.
    • thumb
      Oct 15 2012: Not my conclusion, consensus by the majority of those discussing.
      • Oct 24 2012: A conclusion based on not paying attention again. That was not the consensus. Even if it were, consensus does not matter. Science is not a democracy. Evidence wins. But you avoided having the conversation. Not very conducive to figuring anything out. I hope that will not be your approach to education. Otherwise poor students.
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2012: "The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world. When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time. Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified. Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of the biological sciences."
  • Oct 9 2012: No James, we provided plenty of evidence and corrected your claims and assumptions, but you had your mind made up and nailed shut before you came here. You say you are an engineer, how on Earth that's possible is something I will never understand, you do not even seem to comprehend Occam's razor. I'd be scared as sh*t if I ever was on one of those subs you serviced, because you probably try to fix leaking nuclear reactors through prayer...
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2012: Obey raises a vital point, which I am sure has surfaced many times in discussions of science here. Evolution cannot be proven not because of a weakness in the theory or supporting evidence but because nothing in science can be proven in the sense of, say, theorems in mathematics. This means there always remains the possibility in science of finding some new piece of data that challenges existing understandings.

    There will never be a competing hypothesis that can be proven.

    What one can say is that the evidence for evolution, as I understand it, meets very stringent tests of validity that no competing theory can match at this time. It is not as if the lack of provability in science means that all proposed explanations in any area of science are equally valid or likely of accuracy. This is a popular misunderstanding of what it means not to be able to prove something.
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2012: Answer the question.
    • Oct 9 2012: Of course evolution can and has been proven. Only there is a distinction between the popular meaning of "proof" and the mathematical/scientific concepts of proof. We should not invest too much in such confusion because it mistakenly convinces people like James that they might be on to something, that they are justified in denying any evidence. We should rather try and teach the many lines of evidence that conclusively show that evolution is real. We can't dismiss evolution any more than we can dismiss gravitation.
  • thumb
    Oct 11 2012: Is this really a loaded question?
    Is the agenda here a religious one, Christian?

    James wrote at another discussion: "There were 40 different authors of the bible, who wrote over hundreds of years. Each was inspired by God to write the words. This is proven by several ways."
    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: Its a straight question.
      • thumb
        Oct 12 2012: Just to be clear, you do subscribe to the creation explanation? Right?
        • thumb
          Oct 14 2012: Never made any claims was only asking for information on evolution in debates and chose a con statement to stir the pot. Thanks for helping.
    • Oct 12 2012: It's a religious agenda. As soon as he had challenging questions and explanations in his two "debates" he ignored the whole thing and opened this one.
      • thumb
        Oct 14 2012: not really just gave up after two weeks of non-answers
        • Oct 14 2012: Curious, because you managed to give comments to a few of those who were not challenging your misinformation. To do that you jumped over the comments that were then right at the top, which established clearly that your argumentations had problems. Then you opened this.
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2012: Once upon a time a long time ago people lived in the clouds up in the air. They were called the sky people. There was this young couple who were very much in love and the woman was going to have a baby. She went out to her garden where she began to pull weeds and when she pulled a handful of weeds, a hole appeared in the ground. She was curious about this hole in the ground and leaned over to look down. She could see this form way down below her. It was dark.

    As she leaned to look in she slipped and fell. She fell through the opening and continued to fall and fall. At this time the earth was only water and the sea animals were concerned for the beautiful sky woman. They all got together to figure out how to help her.

    The turtle said I will catch her on my back and she can be safe and dry. So the sky woman landed on the turtle and was saved. But she missed her garden and asked the animals if they could help. So the animals thought and told her there was ground way under the sea. So the bear tried to swim down down to help the sky woman. But he came up empty handed.

    The rabbit said I am fast I can get you some ground. And he swam down and down but also came up empty handed. The humble otter said, I know water and maybe I can help. So he swam down and down for a very long time. When he appeared both his paws had some mud. So the sky woman thanked him and created the land and the mountains and all the plants that are.

    Eventually she gave birth to twins who were the beginning of man. But that is another story.....

    Pick a story any story. One is just as provable as the next.
    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: well its an answer...an odd one but ok if this is what you believe.
      • thumb
        Oct 17 2012: See that's your problem. You assign belief to it.

        Guess what? No one was there in the beginning. Nobody knows. That's why they call it belief. They are all stories.

        You have to take the stories and look at them. Think, if I believed this, this would be my value system. If I believed that, that would be my value system.

        Then when someone approaches you and says I believe this or that, you will understand their values.

        But I do not assign belief to any of it..

        It's like 42. The answer to life the universe and everything (Douglas Adams). It's just as good an answer as anything else.

        Because it's not about the answer,

        It's about the question.
  • Dan F

    • +2
    Oct 10 2012: James, I've been a naturalist almost from day one.

    I remember being told the world was round. I was fascinated and I've never recovered. My sense of curiosity went on high alert. I wanted to know more facts. My poor mom, I did not make things easy for her.

    Now, I look back at things and with that comes perspective. My sense of curiosity didn't allow me to believe everything I was told and that's where my stubborn side surfaced. I wanted to understand the real world. Not everyone is plagued with wanting to learn things. They are, or were more receptive to being told how things are and as adults often want to carry on the tradition. That appears to be going on here, but it's not for all of us. Certainly not for me.

    Your claim that biological evolution is not fact is ludicrous. As you have indicated earlier, evolutionary biology is negated by "creative design" and "proven" so by the evidence of "irreducible complexity." Wasn't there a high court ruling on this? Doesn't that mean anything to you?

    Trust me, I see plenty of mystery, but it is significantly different than the mystery you advocate.
  • Oct 9 2012: James,

    Hot topic James!

    We are spiritual beings.

    We come from the eternal spiritual world. We are temporarily incarnated in these physical bodies for a short period of time ...walking around on this particular physical plane of existence among many other planes of existence. We were born here .... "out" ....of the spiritual world and we will die, ...back again... "into".... the spiritual world.
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2012: I would add that Jame implies there was a beginning, the spiritual universe does not have time, that is a physical universe thing. In the spiritual universe there is only now.
      • Oct 10 2012: Hi Pat,

        The whole concept of time as we experience it, sort of as a little fragment of the eternal must also be "inclusive" within the eternal. ...or....?
        Time, as much of an illusion as it is, as you say, has to exist within a physical world in order to measure it at all. Whether it be an atomic clock or the earths orbit around the Sun of about 365 days, or the cosmic clock of the Sun's orbit of 225 million years around the Milky Way Galaxy. ...Apropo the 26,000 year alignment coming up on Dec. 21 2012, where the Sun and Earth will form an straight line to the center of the galaxy, something that the ancient Mayan's mysteriously knew about... (explain that one!)

        As human beings, ..."being born into time" we naturally struggle with the ideas of "Where it all began?" or "What the word eternity can possibly mean...?" But as spiritual beings, after we die, (as I have come to understand it of course) what we experience as a "flow of time" relationship to the outer world, we will experience this later, after death, as a "spatial experience" This is what many people tell of when trying to explain a NDE. They see their lives as in a tableau. Every experience they have ever had.... is, so to say, spread out before them, so they can observe each and every action and reaction that has ever occured to them in their lives as physical human beings. ..... Now I don't know if were drifting off topic here Pat, but it certainly is an interesting topic!
        • thumb
          Oct 10 2012: To put it simply time is simply the consideration that things will persist, and of course time is the measurement of movement of stuff.

          My take on this we are spirits we can move out of bodies at least when we die. Since we are spirits we are immortal and we have been doing this for a while...

          But what is true? only what is true to your perspective. Anyone Else's opinion about you should not be considered it is irrelevant. You should be your own adviser to do otherwise is the epitome of unethical as you are the only one who can decide what is true for you.
    • Oct 9 2012: I think the reason it seems that an individual's "spiritual being is evolving" is that person is growing up. Every animal has a brain that controls many functions of the body. The fact that we experience reality doesn't necessitate a soul or spiritual realm. It just means that we are organisms, and let's face it the main focus even for our brainy species is procreation, just like any other organism.
      • Oct 10 2012: Nicholas,

        What an impoverished perspective. .... "just like any other organism"....?

        Is this really the best you have to offer? ...I mean .....How inimical can you get...?

        No majestical ideas here. No reason for love. No need for development. No reason to reason or think at all ... No sympathy for fellow human beings. No feeling for justice or injustice. We are just a collection of cells....

        And if one cannot procreate, then life must be absolutely meaningless to go on with...

        Sounds like a good recipe for suicide to me ....
        • Oct 10 2012: Majestical ideas are great and all, but I live in reality. What I see around me is people working every day building things, trading them, trying to make a life for themselves and their families. This question is not that complicated. Evolution is a theory the same way gravity is a theory. The amount of evidence for evolution is massive, and it just makes sense, you see it all around you. The evidence for a mystical spirit world or a god is anecdotal at best. For me, given the choice between the spirit world and the real world, I'll take the real one.
    • Oct 10 2012: Daniel and Pat, this is all just subjective hocus pocus it doesn't mean anything. Let me try one on for size, we were all born inside the belly of a tiny and tumultuous ant, through a bizarre unknowable interaction we were shifted through a window into another universe where we will dwell until we die and go back into the belly of the ant only to repeat the process.

      If there is a soul where is it? Does a rabbit have a soul, a lion, an earthworm? Please look at the science of the brain more and more it demonstrates that the brain is at the helm of experience, perception, sensory information, emotion, thought etc...
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2012: A while back we were talking about out of body experiences. When you have experienced this you KNOW the facts on this subject and that no amount of psychobabble explains this other than you is a spirit. Spare me your Pavlovian yik yak it just ain't so...
        • Oct 10 2012: You may or may not be right. I think science produces some interesting results. Michael Persinger is a neuroscientist who created the god helmet. What it does is it stimulates the temporal lobes with a slight magnetic pulse, test subjects report having an out of body experience or disassociation.
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2012: Yes that is very interesting...

        I was not wearing a "god helmet". The only person that can say if I was right or not is ME, me thinks that your opining about what someone else experienced is a professional inability, in other words you psychs cannot pull your head out of your ass long enough to actually LISTEN.

        Now here is the thing I was looking for some friends of mine that I could not find, by use of this out of body experience I was able to locate them and walk directly to them about 3 miles away. Another poster told a story of friend who was missing in the Himalayas. They had been searching for him for days finally they talked to a Buddhist monk who told them exactly where to look and they found him at that location.
        • Oct 10 2012: Pat, notice i never once claimed to know what you experienced, we cant swap consciousness, at least not yet. I simply offered a scientific explanation of disassociation or an out of body experience. There are all sorts of experiences like you report, notice I said you may or may not be correct, you will never ever see or hear me claim science has a complete understanding of the brain, not sure if its possible. I think its a bit of a scary and intriguing proposition, but either way thats another topic. I think your experience could probably be explained without a "spirit" and i will continue to look for an answer that is less convoluted. Maybe language is the problem here I wouldn't say i have had an out of body experience, but I have had a similar experience that Is almost impossible for me to convey.
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2012: No they can't. I know this contrary to everything psych but ...

        I think these experiences not only demonstrate that there is a spiritual element to this aggregate aka human beings, but that we are spirits.
      • Oct 10 2012: Brian,

        You can't think of it spatially. Drop that illusion. That's a common illusion so don't feel bad.

        The rabbit, the lion, the earthworm all do have a soul. Their soul however is not individualized as is yours and mine. They have a group soul. A shared soul being. The "soul being" of the lion is one soul being sharing all lion beings. Our soul being is ours and ours alone.
        • Oct 10 2012: Daniel, don't think of what spatially? The soul? Let me guess its immaterial? Believe me I don't feel bad for not getting your unprovable or disprovable take on this subject. Science can prove that quantum fields exist, black holes exist, and a whole host of other mysterious and bizarre actions of the universe exist, yet science has been trying to find the soul for years now and well, you know the results so far....Im not saying it isn't possible because it certainly is, but all of science is pointing to the soul existing as a metaphor. I don't come on here and say this stuff out of some sadistic attempt to cause existential death of believers, I say it because of the unyielding theme in history of people claiming to know divinity in an attempt to gain power.

          "They have a group soul. A shared soul being. The "soul being" of the lion is one soul being sharing all lion beings. Our soul being is ours and ours alone." How can you know this? Why doesn't the lion have an individualized soul?
      • Oct 10 2012: Brian,

        We have discussed this topic together before. Here's a fresh link to what Newsweek printed about Dr. Eben Alexander's NDE. He happens to be a neurosurgeon. Take a look at it and tell me what you think.

        • Oct 10 2012: I think he describes some very interesting and beautiful possibilities. I have no doubt he experienced what he experienced, what I do doubt is that the brain was uninvolved. People who report NDE's sounds almost identical to people who hallucinate on DMT. Stunningly enough it occurs in the brain naturally.

  • thumb
    Oct 9 2012: Evidence of evolution is not limited to discussion, and few here are evolutionary scientist.

    What is your back ground knowledge of evolution? This seems relevant since you have taken a task master approach to responding to this conversation.

    Evolution is still occuring:

    "Think evolution is something that happened long ago when T. rex walked the Earth? Well, think again. Dr. David O. Conover's work demonstrates that fish can evolve remarkably rapidly and that humans may be causing major evolutionary changes in the fish species that are most important to us economically."

    Evidence of common descent of living things has been discovered by scientists working in a variety of fields over many years. This evidence has demonstrated and verified the occurrence of evolution and provided a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety and diversity of life on Earth developed. This evidence supports the modern evolutionary synthesis, the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document the fact of common descent: making testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and developing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

    "The question of whether or not modern humans are still evolving is being asked more than ever with the vast amount of technology, culture and medicine which have the ability to buffer environmental stressors that would otherwise drive evolutionary adaptations in humans. The purpose of this paper was to determine, in spite of these "advances," if modern humans are still evolving by searching for proof within the human genome.
    The three prime examples of current evolution discussed are: certain populations' resistance to malaria, lactase persistence and resistance to HIV, each of which are adaptations regulated by mutant alleles. Each adaptation was broken down by the different mutations responsible for that adaptation. In order to determine if these mutations ...."
  • Oct 10 2012: We didn't come from anywhere , we have always been here and
    will always be. Form is always changing, never substance.
  • Oct 10 2012: I don't know about you, but I am keeping my own origins secret.
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2012: Once upon a time a long time ago, the Earth begun there was just water. All the animals lived above it and the sky was beginning to become crowded. They were all curious about what was beneath the water and one day the water beetle, volunteered to explore it.

    He went everywhere across the surface but he couldn't find any solid ground. He then dived below the surface to the bottom and all he found was mud.

    This began to enlarge in size and spread outwards until it became the Earth as we know it.

    After all this had happened, one of the animals attached this new land to the sky with four strings.

    Just after the Earth was formed, it was flat and soft so the animals decided to send a bird down to see if it had dried. They eventually returned to the animals with a result.

    The land was still to wet so they sent the great Buzzard to prepare it for them.

    The buzzard flew down and by the time that he reached the ground he was so tired that his wings began to hit the ground. Wherever they hit the ground a mountain or valley formed. The land still remains the same today.

    The animals then decided that it was too dark, so they made the sun and put it on the path in which it still runs today.

    The animals could then admire the newly created Earth around them. After the animals came down, the humans came down.
    • thumb
      Oct 10 2012: I was waiting for someone to conjure up some creation myths... and then I remembered you are a storyteller. And here you are!
    • thumb
      Oct 10 2012: it is interesting you made me laugh .
      how about this one
      one day a butterfly flying around the wild and careless she knock on a tree and fall down on the ground .then there is a shock the land break and coming out a monkey .and after a thousand years ' developing she become an ape and gradually she become a person,
    • Oct 11 2012: Thank you, Linda, for putting this question into its proper perspective.
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2012: Once upon a time, long ago people lived in a dark world. There was not light in this world. This was the first world. The land of mist where the mist people dwell.

    In this land of mist and darkness there appeared four clouds in the corners of this world. Those clouds came together and formed the first woman and the first man....
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2012: That is correct. God has no sexual gender nor can be equated to any person, place, or thing, a fact that the bible itself will support.
  • Oct 9 2012: James,
    Your question is a two sided coin.

    Where the creationist go wrong is their idea that the human being has simply been created by God out of the blue.
    ...Poof ! ... Adam and Eve...Poof ! ... the Garden of Eden. ..magically materialized... This is the traditional creationists materialistic illusion and downfall.

    Where the evolutionists go wrong is that they can not or will not heed to the overwhelming evidence of the spiritual world and it's existence. They scream "prove it!" Prove it to me on "MY" materialistic premises.

    In the end, both perspectives are quite materialistic.

    The human being is a created being, not a "physically" created being but rather a "spiritually" created being. So the creationists are in a sense half right, in so far they assume that there is a higher power in the universe that is the creative force flowing in, streaming through, and forming all physical matter. .but wrong in the conventional conception of a little man in a white robe with a beard and a cane up in heaven somewhere

    As we see that human beings obviously evolve, as the animals do, we can thus say that the evolutionists too, in a sense, have half right. However, in their eyes, the creative process cannot be of any "spiritual nature" To them it is driven by purely physical laws. Seeming to suggest that even an "IDEA" in itself is of a "purely physical nature" ... absurd you say? .. yes !! Though not many evolutionists can see or are willing to see this self contradiction. Surely, even they cannot deny that all evolutionary theory is based and developed on observations either in theoretical experimentation or observations in the realm of nature. Evolutionary science, as in all sciences, has first a theory (an IDEA) and then it proceeds to the field of experiments / observations to prove the theory correct or incorrect....

    Are not mankind's "IDEAS" in themselves taking part in the creative process's of the world. Are we not also ....becoming as gods...?
    • thumb
      Oct 15 2012: Interesting point of view thank you.
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2012: OK James. Since every reply from you has been, "No proof has been presented...answer the question", and your REAL question is, "...is there another option (to either creation or evolution)", then here is your answer.

    Yes...there MAY be another option. But nobody has discovered it yet.

    Famous quote (GOOGLE it if you want):

    "There are Known Knowns. There are Known Unknowns. And there are also Unknown Unknowns."

    Which simply means if another option exists, we may just not KNOW about it yet.

    That's the best answer anybody can give you to your question.

    But I kinda think I already know what your reply to it is goping to be.
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2012: Good point! There is no "Proof" of any other alternative to evolution.
    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: thank you for answering the question
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2012: Many things in science can't be proven, but they remain fixtures of science because they are the best explanation available. Clearly, there is evidence that support the theory of evolution even if it does not provide proof.
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2012: evidence was not provided in the debates over a two week period. That discussion is dead. Please answer the question.
      • Oct 9 2012: James,

        I tried to guide you through it. The evidence you have to check it yourself. There is limited space in these conversations. You can't expect me to show you DNA sequences, inserted viruses in common between chimps and humans, fossils showing that hominids have existed with intermediary features between more other-ape-like-anatomies and human-like-anatomies, evidence for other animal transitions in fossils and genetic evidence, full courses in embryology, development, and biogeography and why they show that evolution happens, has happened and continues to happen, et cetera. To help you out, you have to first be able to notice your many misunderstandings. I tried to show you, to help you figure out how you are arguing from mistaken concepts, cartoons, misquoting, misused data, and fallacies, but you didn't read my answers carefully. At least it does not look like you did.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • +1
    Oct 9 2012: I think so.

    If you start with quantum mechanics, and accept that the energy field(s) is/are self-aware morphic fields, then we create ourselves, evolve at our will, and return to the quantum field from which we are never separated.

    If you believe that you are an autonomous unit, then evolution and creationism can appear to be supported by one kind of reasoning or another. But if you believe that we are one being, each of us being aspects of that being, never separated from that being (where I speak of "being" as opposed to "a" being), then neither evolution or creationism is valid, but creationism as it is described by creationists, is simply insane and not physically possible. Evolution gets to where I am but it can get no further until quantum physicists come into agreement about the nature of the quantum/morphic/unified field that is all that is.
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2012: Thank you for trying to answer the question but the debate for evolution failed over two weeks with no evidence cited. The question is trying to get you to think. If evolution and creation are out what is the answer?
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2012: I think TED Lover gave a valid answer to your question.
        Evolution can't be proven but can be seen right in nature.
        It can't be proven for one all factors aren't yet known that drive evolution and two, it takes time to follow many generations of any species.

        The great lakes in Africa, Victoria, Malawi, Tanganyika, contain many species of fish that obviously have a common ancestor as even now we see that process of division happening.

        Those lakes are geological young and at first populated by a few species only. Members of the species of cichlides changed over time to occupy all niches of that ecosystem. Some became small, others large, some learned to protect eggs and fry into their mouth as others used snake shells for protection. There's a lot to tell about this but it's easy to see they all share the same ancestor and one that doesn't see it will never be convinced.

        Of course there are many more examples that show evolution in an obvious way even more now we can study the genome which makes the development of life visible.
        • thumb
          Oct 12 2012: Not sure but evolution states fish turn into birds. Has that happened yet?

          In any case answer the question.
  • Oct 9 2012: "SHORT OF CREATION and EVOLUTION is there another option?"

    No, and creation (whether by aliens or supernatural beings) only shifts the problem back by one or more iterations, it's not a final answer.

    Even if evolution had more holes than a Durch cheese wheel (which it isn't) it would still, by virtue of Occam's Razor alone, be infinitely more likely than any supernatural cause that is conveniently invisible, silent, odorless, chargeless, massless, color-chargeless, etc... and in the end it only shifts the problem (where did this supernatural intelligence come from?)

    "and results are evolution can't be proven"

    Nothing, except mathematical relations, can be proven, if that scares you then step away from your computer because its workings are based on a ton of unproven physical theories (so how can you be sure it won't explode in your face?)
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2012: evidence was not provided in the debates over a two week period. That discussion is dead. Please answer the question.
  • thumb
    Oct 23 2012: Hi James,

    It is interesting that the same question keeps popping up, isn't it? Whether the results are as explained, or the question remains unanswered is debatable too.

    But I have asked several times and I have not yet heard from you, what is your personal opinion on the matter? Would you care to elaborate?

    all the best
    • Oct 24 2012: I designed a
      simple web video url( click2homepage.com/theoryofpresent/).....kindly
      spend a thoughtfull time to watch this video ,hope it could throw an angle that is worth to contemplate how we evolve
  • Oct 23 2012: i admit that there is not any clear explanation to
    tell us the starting point of our generation ,but taking this simple
    consideration and with simple yet unsolvable calculation you might forced
    to contemplate my argument supporting my belive of how we actually get
    started or may be we never ever find that point.......any way I designed a
    simple web video url( click2homepage.com/theoryofpresent/).....kindly
    spend a thoughtfull time to watch this video ,
  • thumb

    . .

    • 0
    Oct 16 2012: The same place.
  • Oct 15 2012: Great! Hi James,

    Farrukh kind of lost me in that last corner. I fell off the wagon. Burried in the hail.....
    Blown out on the trail....

    What did you find of interest with "permutation"
  • Oct 12 2012: Why do we suppose that other forms of life would build structures very similar to ours?
    Meaning, right angles that are not seen as results in geological activities?

    There are structures, it appears are true and real, on Mars that WE recognize, because that is how humans build and have for a long time.

    Perhaps, these structures look similar to ours because that is where we came from in our planet-hopping journey for survival.

    After all,we are looking for other places/planets today, since we are destroying this planet and those who will or might be able to travel, will leave, in order to survive and as a side-note, keep the human species alive.

    There may have been other planet stops along the way to earth, preceding Mars and since going into space is going back in time, why not?
  • Oct 10 2012: Hi Brian,
    Thanks for the vid link. I don't have time just now to watch it completely but will try to get back to it.

    What is referred to about DMT creating hallucinatory phenomena is of no surprise to me. Psychedelic drugs do one thing that everyone experimenting with such drugs should be fully aware of. This thing hallucinagenic drugs do is push the soul / spirit element of our being out of the physical and life body. This is sort of a "simulated" death condition. Hallucinogenic drugs are just like climbing in through the window to get into a house. The "house" being the spiritual world. We get into it alright, but our experiences are so disoriented because we are not prepared for it. Our consciousness needs to be prepared through mental training and meditation.
    In ancient times, such people, in all cultures, had these experiences available to them. These people were called initiates. Initiates were "led" over the threshold by other initiates and into the spiritual world "fully conscious". They saw visions ... great visions ... They could sometimes see even everything that developed in the entire evolution of the planet earth.
    Chemicals are not the "experience" in themselves, chemicals are just a "catalyst" that pushes the soul and spirit out of the physical body and into the spiritual dimension.

    Such is it also with oxygen deprivation. Such is it with Jill Bolte Taylors stroke. Russian astronauts put on the G-force wheel have the same experience .. This is what the "god helmet" is also doing.

    Remember Brian, the brain is only like an antenna for your true being. Your true being is of a purely spiritual nature that is ... again .... totally "immaterial" You can damage the brain and point to it and say .. See, the brain is not working, that's why I can no long raise my arm ... but the truth is this, the brain is damaged and therefor my spirit cannot penetrate my nervous system to raise my arm
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2012: High level ideas encompass and abstract many underlying concepts, therefore I believe it is best to answer this question from lowest comprehencible level. If you look from perpective of building blocks of the entire existing world, where world encompases everything that exists in our universe and beyond if possible, all you would see is an ocean of fundemental blocks, current permutation of which represent the world as we know it. Logic will hold no matter what you pick the building block to be, let it be microscopic particles, or srtings of vibrating energy, or even curves on fabric of space. Then one might ask that how this permutation took place in the first place. The answer is that, not only this permutation but also all other possible permutations are taking place, one after the other, thus making changes to the world. Moreover, it is impossible for any set of things to exists as arranged in any way in space without representing a certain permutation of that set.
    • thumb
      Oct 10 2012: Very nice, very linear response. You are moving towards first cause and I just don't think that is how the universe works. So tell me, what was the first permutation? As opposed to all the mutations that followed?
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2012: Does not matter what the first permutation was, because at some point in time current permutation will be achieved. For simplicity imagine very small set of numbers, for example 1,2 and 3. Pick any permutation of this set to be a target and start with any, and if you keep permuting you will eventually reach your target permutation.
    • Oct 10 2012: Farrukh,

      Was that an argument for evolution .... or for creationism ??

      Or was it a creative evolution ... or was it an evolutionary creationism ..??

      If Jim Zediana was still around here, I don't think he would find your comment very enlightening
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2012: Hi Daniel, My answer is neither for evolution nor creationism. Instead, given that the world exists, it explains why the existing world is the way it is. Note that in this case the term world encompasses everything that exists, including but not limited to human beings and all other creatures.

        Also, please note that this is only one of the many possible ways to explain the existing world. I believe that it provides another option besides evolution and creationism, as asked in original question.
      • thumb
        Oct 15 2012: Actually I like it a lot!
  • Oct 10 2012: Where do we come from ...?

    Where do we go ...?

    Sorry, that's somethin' you don't need to know.

    Where are you now James? Haven't heard a peep out of you lately ...
  • Oct 10 2012: Has anybody heard the name of the co-discoverer of natural selection ?
    Alfred Russel Wallace ; initially the theory of evolution was called Darwin-Wallace theory .
    Historians of science have noted that, while Darwin considered the ideas in Wallace's paper to be essentially the same as his own, there were differences.
    " Wallace had "probably said the most powerful thing that’d been said in the 19th Century :
    A Necessary Unity...."
    Wallace :
    "The action of this principle is exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident .."

    "Wallace was strongly attracted to unconventional ideas. His advocacy of Spiritualism and his belief in a non-material origin for the higher mental faculties of humans strained his relationship with the scientific establishment, especially with other early proponents of evolution."

    If anybody is interested , let Google help you and share your findings , please :)
    • thumb
      Oct 10 2012: Hi Natasha!

      Wallace is believed by some to have brought the idea of evolution to the mind of Darwin.
      For certain it wasn't his idea only but Darwin sure was the one that brought it to the attention of the public at large.

      Jean Baptiste Lamarck had similar ideas that are becoming more prominent now with the discovery of epigenetics, the way environmental changes influence genetic expression.
      • Oct 10 2012: Hi, Frans !!!
        Wallace didn't bring the idea to the mind of Darwin, he sent him the paper by post :)
        Darwin received the manuscript from Wallace. Assay "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type", and Darwin commented : "he could not have made a better short abstract! Even his terms now stand as heads of my chapters ..."

        But it is not the point.

        "But the twin impulses in Wallace’s work make him compelling and oddly contemporary. He combines both halves of the debate over the meaning of evolution, coolly articulating the materialist mechanisms by which the simplest organisms morphed into human beings while arguing that our existence offers evidence of divine agency. "

        Check out here:


        It's interesting , really !

        Thank you very much for responding !
        • thumb
          Oct 16 2012: Nice article Natasha, I just read it.
          Thank you!

          Walace placed the first hints at plate tectonics as well.
      • Oct 17 2012: Welcome ! :)
        Maybe you'll be interested in this article

        There is a sense in which Wallace idea of " the centrifugal governor of the steam
        engine " belongs here.
    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: Did some research on him and found that he believed that simple forms of life were created continuously by spontaneous generation.
      • Oct 16 2012: Maybe the Aristotle's idea of ' spontaneous generation' was not alien to Wallace, i don't know.
        But what he emphasized in his 'version' of natural selection was 'ecological interactions'. Some scientists go so far as to interpret Wallace's thinking as the first example of cybernetic modeling.
        And maybe it echoes somehow with Sheldrake's 'Morphic field' ?
  • Oct 10 2012: Here is something for the more "scientific" minded reader. One has to ask oneself if there is any possibility that this is all due to a lack of oxygen in the brain, or is it perhaps a real experience that is telling us that we are in fact spiritual beings. If the second be true, then James is one step closer to the answer to his question...

    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: Read about this a few days ago. Is it because of who it happened to that makes it more plausible to people?
    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: Let's keep in mind that Alexander is a doctor and should understand the requirements of the scientific method. Alexander seems to want it both ways; he wants to use his status as a neurosurgeon to his advantage,, explains limits of brain activity in a coma, but overlooks explaining exactly how memory is form in the brain when his spirit was in"heaven."
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2012: Hi James, the concept of where we came from may never have an exact and well proven answer, but I think the fact is we exist and we should build upon the current sum of the universe.

    If we found the answer to "where did we come from", how would that benefit us or what good may that do?

    Possibly the answer will appear when you do not seek the answer, but it might appear where you least expect it.

    Just my perspective. Thanks for reading. =)
    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: well put! Just wanted to get different perspectives.
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2012: we are from variation of cell
    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: thank you for your answer please expound some more
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2012: Dogpatch, USA

    Lil Abner
  • Oct 9 2012: Can you answer your question ?
    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: I have my opinion but I was looking for others so I could better form my opinion.
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2012: Wait why can't evolution as a core concept be "proven"?
    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: tried to debate it and got no answers supporting it that made the common sense approach. Look in the debate section I think they are still open.
      • thumb
        Oct 12 2012: oh well I would say that both "the physical world" and "god" have evolved over the years. Basically we use the term god or spirit for anything that we can not figure out at that point in history. Look at the evolution of god just from the old testament to the new testament
        • thumb
          Oct 15 2012: Good point most look at the old testement and see this mean God who killed for his pleasure, then others look and see God as a father who cares for his children and sets rules in place to protect them and when they fail he punishes them so they will not do it again but they do over and over.

          Then the new testement shows a God who loves us so much he dies for us and takes the blame for all our sins.

          I'm glad we have this change.
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2012: Hi James.
    There are really two creation possibilities. 1) By an eternal God. Or 2) By a mortal Alien or similar.
    There are also two main evolution possibilities. 1) Classic gradualism. Or 2) Punctuated equilibrium .
    I have never heard of any other possibilities.
    Personally I think an eternal God is the most plausible. Never heard of something creating itself; if true, then we'd all be out of work.

    • Oct 9 2012: You've only shifted the question: where did god come from?
      • thumb
        Oct 9 2012: Exactly. If I can say God created the Universe, then I can also rationally ask the next logical question. Who created God?
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2012: An ETERNAL god is without beginning or end. Time is a creation as well, it only exists in a material universe. If God was created, then when was he created ? No time; no need for creation. Eternity; that's where we all end up; no time, no end.

        • Oct 11 2012: I knew you were gonna say that and my response is, if god can be eternal then why can't a cyclical universe be eternal on its own?
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2012: Why ask the question then ?
        You must also know that the universe is material, & thus exposed to the ravages of time. If it has to be eternal then it would be eternally "heat dead". The fact that there is usable energy available would indicate creation within a set timescale in the past. If you want it to be cyclical, then energy would have to come from an external source.
        It's interesting to discuss these things, but in reality we don't have a scoobie.

        • thumb
          Oct 15 2012: God being outside of time and eternal is a hard concept to swallow
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2012: And why "a god" and not many gods as the creators?
      Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) is a grammatically singular or plural noun for "god" or "gods" in both modern and ancient Hebrew language.
      This is the original term used in Genesis but there is questions as to what Moses's source was for these writing.
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2012: Many gods is of course a possibility. I was narrowing it down to the popular views. If you include all possibilities there would be many more I'm sure. What's your choice ?

        • thumb
          Oct 11 2012: Popular view, of god(s)? Does this imply that the understanding of a god is subject to the whims of popular opinion and not some ridged dictate?
      • thumb
        Oct 14 2012: Hi Theodore.
        It is unlikely that the creator of the universe would communicate with his creation through some minority sect that few of us has heard of. Not impossible of course. I would go for one of the Abrahamic religions, which we all know about & can make informed decisions. But you are correct, might doesn't always mean right.

    • Oct 9 2012: Peter Law,

      I do not think that you have evolution well studied. Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are not versions of evolution. They are questions about whether evolution happens in continuous steps (gradualism), or if there is periods of at least anatomical stasis (no changes visible for several generations), "punctuated" by periods of "rapid" change, where "rapid" is defined by its relative speed compared to the periods of stasis, yet still take from thousands to millions of years to happen. So, these are details about tempo, not "versions" of evolution. The mechanism for evolutionary change are still the same. Only one (puntuated eq.) takes into account that environments might not push populations constantly and evenly towards visible changes.
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2012: Hi Entropy.
        That's ok, I agree, just a different slant on the Same thing.

    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: Thank you for answering the question
  • thumb
    Oct 9 2012: I don't believe that there is another option.

    I believe that the answer isn't either/or but both. Evolution is a creative process. What drives it can be reduced to a cosmic singularity known as the unified field theory.

    Creation claims that there is a God, but says nothing about how God creates. Evolution says there are processes that are involved in creating the known universe, but says nothing about God except to deny that there is a God. Such denial of God stems from the religious conception of God as a male deity, coupled with the notion of a young earth (taking Genesis literally). Both are incorrect.

    I don't believe that you can exclude either creation or evolution and come up with the right answer. Nor do I believe that there is yet an alternative answer. Yet there are problems on both sides of the fence that can't be ignored if you want to know the truth.
    • thumb
      Oct 9 2012: But according to your thinking the idea of god becomes a what and not a who. Correct?
    • thumb
      Oct 12 2012: I have no idea where you people keep coming up with this God idea. The question is searching for answers to the ultimate question. I debated evolution and there were no answers. I phrased the question to leave God out and everyone jumps on that as an answer. So far the only answers are there is no answer or we came from aliens.
      • thumb
        Oct 13 2012: James,
        You used the word creation in your question. In the religious sector, creation is synonymous with creationism. Creationism is the belief that God created the universe. That is why the word God keeps coming up in your topic. You also used the term "intelligent design" in your listed topics which is directly associated with the notion of a God.

        Evolution is an alternative to creationism, but is incomplete. I don't know how you could come to any conclusions in a short TED topic when the ideas have been debated since Darwin with no resolution.

        The fact that something can't be proved doesn't mean it isn't so. Evolution is still in its infancy. And intelligent design is based on the ineffable mystery which has no means of expression other than in the end result.

        Are you aware of atomic structure. No one knows why there is such a structure, they only know what rules it follows. By the same token, spiritual experience isn't something that you can prove to anyone else. The experiences that we perceive are often in a format that is impossible to explain to anyone who has never shared such an experience.
        We know that dogs can distinguish the scent of a single human from all others. But short of watching the dog doing it, no one can explain how the dog is able to do it because we cannot share in the experience. We can only propose the explanation that human scent must all be different and that the dog's senses are keener than ours. But that explanation is only given because we can see the dog doing it. We cannot see another person's spiritual experience, so we are incapable of explaining how or if such a thing is possible. You have to experience it before you can accept that it could be so.

        Where did we come from requires answers that are just starting to come into focus. And I believe that evolution and intelligent design are not isolated from one another. But the current definition of God is wrong.

        I don't believe we came from aliens.
        • thumb
          Oct 15 2012: Good points! I guess the next question I pose will explain alot of this.