Creationism V.S. Evolution V.S. ???????

Factual Questions
1

Are there any other theories about how humans came to be on Earth? These are the only 2 we’re all arguing about, but are there any others? A close friend of mine came up with a theory that we could all be decendants of aliens. He has an entire explanation about how, when and why they came here, and why there is very little evidence of the original aliens. There are 2 flaws in his theory though: 1)It doesn’t explain who created the aliens on their home planet, and 2) He doesn’t believe it himsef :rolleyes:

So, are there any other theories of how we got here besides C v.s. E ?

2

Well, prove to me that we exist in the first place and that all of this isn’t just some random quirk of a deranged mind finding accidental self-awareness. Or maybe not even that.

After all, Hagel(i think?) said “i think there for i am” but made the mistake of assuming he thought.

If you can give me reason to believe i’m even here at the moment (time being totally useless anyway, so you can try to prove that i was ever here at all, or will e here, or whatever) then we can argue about whether we’re descended from Monkeys or Gods or funky green men (and of course, where’d THEY come from??)

Regardless, i am believe that i am experiencing the impression that i am tired

Later later,
Upham

3

Descartes said something like “I think, therefore I am, but I doubt it.” That’s what you were thinking of, no doubt.

There are a few theories that are not evolution or creationism, but the ones I have heard of involve aliens taking the place of a deity in some quasi-religious scenario of aliens ‘seeding’ sentience around the Universe but leaving no trace of their existence afterwards. Right :rolleyes:. I still think Sir Arthur C. Clarke did that scenario best in 2001: A Space Odyssee, and even then his monoliths only sped up evolution. Suffice it to say, evolution has won this debate hands-down. Only fundamentalits with an anti-science jag really dispute it.

4

I could sit here all day and invent theories. Or research every creation myth ever to pop up in the world. The point is, there are probably an infinite number of theories available. If you’re asking if there are any other theories with a large number of adherents, well, that depends on your definition of “large number.”

Non-question non-answered.

5

The trouble with the aliens replacing evolution is that the aliens would have had to evolve naturally.

Or we could go with “Last Thursdayism”, meaning that the whole universe, complete with our memories of having lived before, was just created last thursday. You only THINK you’re 26 years old, in reality you are a week old with memory implants.

And the trouble with Theistic explantions: If god created humans/the earth/the universe, then who created god? Ask this at your next sunday school class if you want to be expelled. Decent people don’t think about such things…

6

That’s a terribly broad statement for what appears to be terribly narrow mind. I’m a professional scientist, definitely not a fundamentalist (not even fundamentally Christian), and I dispute it. Many other university/college qualified and trained scientists also dispute it. Don’t take my word for it, go to your local library or do a web search. Add to that several billion non-Christians, and those who have no concern for science one way or the other, including many that don’t even understand what science is, and the statement becomes clear for what it is. Blatant ignorance and nonsense.

7

It’s all either evolution or creation. If life did not rise randomly, something had to create it at one point or another, whether aliens, gods, or programmers.

8

Aha! And you guys wondered why I left this in GQ.

Gaspode, the General Question on the table is “What are the beliefs people have about how humans came to be on earth, excepting evolution from lower species and creation by a Higher Power?”

If you are not a creationist, and dispute evolution, do you have another answer to the OP? (If the answer is “no, I just don’t buy evolution but don’t have an alternative to put forth,” that’s OK too.)

9

Personally, I believe I am the only intelligence and you are all creations of my (extremely warped) imagination.

10

From a scientific standpoint, you can’t just invent theories all day. You can come up with hypothesis. Without evidence, you don’t have a scientific theory.

There is only one scientific theory to explain life on this planet. There are some unscientific ideas (Creationism, aliens planted us here) but no other theories. As Manhattan said, saying that we don’t know is another option.

Actually, if you are talking about first life on the planet, abiogenisis is the only theory going, and it’s not as well supported by evidence as evolution.

11

I meant evolution in the broadest possible sense: Species drift over time genetically, and in that way new species are created. That is all Darwin meant in his book “The Origin of Species” (kinda implied in the title). The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ isn’t even his. Darwin, to my knowledge, did not postulate abiogenesis as the root cause of life on Earth. If you question evolution as I have described it (genetic drift) you are beginning to sound like a complete fool.

As for abiogenesis, the evidence supports it. After all, we can make amino acids with little more than ammonia, water, and electricity (it was written up as a big-deal chemistry experiment awhile back). From amino acids, you have proteins (not a big jump, given how the acids arrange themselves) and from proteins, real life (nothing said you needed DNA to live). ‘Seeding’ from a meteorite laden with chemicals might have happened, but it could only have sped along a process that was already going on.

I would love to hear genuine, supported theories beyond those, but I have not so far.

12

The idea that life could have come to Earth from elsewhere is called panspermia. There are several varieties. One of the more plausible ones is that simple life is extremely hardy and could theoretically travel through interstellar space from one solar system to another as spores. There’s also the seeding hypothesis discussed previously–intelligent aliens deliberately brought life to Earth. And once you admit the possibility of star-traveling aliens, another scenario is that they landed on Earth and left behind germs–not deliberate, just sloppy.

It is also speculated that life could have originated on Mars and was carried to Earth by meteorites–and that Earth and Mars have been trading rocks (this much is certain) and germs (this is more speculative) throughout their histories.

Neither of these explains the origin of life, of course, but they are alternatives to terrestrial abiogenesis that have been seriously considered by the scientific community. But, as Telemark says, a hypotheses, however provocative, isn’t very interesting unless there’s evidence to back it up.

13

It’s a good question.

We can safely dispense with Creationism. It doesn’t really work, for all the reasons that seasoned Dopers can recite in their pyjamas; plus if God is perfect, then His Creation would be as well. Instead, it includes things like wet Monday mornings, most first dates, those infernal ‘your call will be answered shortly’ automated voices, and some Baskin-Robbins stores that have run out of coconut. So much for that theory.

Evolution? Well, good try, but look at this way. If evolution works, then we are the most advanced and intelligent species that x gazillion years of progress can come up with. Well, take a look around you. Think of the teachers you used to have. Think of some of the people you have worked or woken up with. Watch some cable TV. Consider the worldwide success of the Spice Girls. Hell, hang around the SDMB for a while. Be honest now, ‘advanced’ and ‘intelligent’ aren’t the first words that come to mind, are they?

And so to the much-needed Third Theory! May I have drums and a fanfare please?

Thankyou.

I humbly submit to the forum the proposition that there IS a god, and he created it all, but he’s a fairly incompetent kind of god, or a trainee, and he made\makes a whole ton of mistakes. This is not the conventional creationist line, but it works better.

This theory I call Ooops! Creationism. It explains why His Divine Creation includes phlegm, credit cards with signature strips made of the world’s least write-on-able surface, Richard Simmons, vanishing wire coathangers, the odd sock laundry syndrome, birds that can’t fly, the duck-billed platypus, things that breathe air yet live in the sea underwater, people who want to be on ‘Big Brother’, movie executives who spend x million dollars on stuff like ‘Howard the Duck’, signs saying ‘No dogs except guide dogs’, eyepatches sold in packets of two, mayhem war and strife ad nauseam - often perpetrated by avowedly ‘religious’ groups, and lots of other stuff you can add for yourself.

Ooops Creationism. My New Year’s gift to you all.

14

Actually, ianzin, “Ooops Creationism” makes more sense to me than Evolution ever will.

15

pkbites, care to explain what about evolutionary theory doesn’t make sense to you? Arguement from incredulity rarely makes friends in these discussions.

16

My personal belief is basically Oops Creationism (I like that term), and I seriously believe it.
There is no mention in the Bible or most other religious texts or traditions of God (or Gods) being Infallible or Omnipotent or Omnicognescent. That’s all been implied recently even in the Christian religion. Of course I don’t actually believe in one god creating everything to his own specs anyway.
My reasons for not believing current evolutionary theory are exactly the ones Derleth uses to support it. The evidence doesn’t support it. Amino acids cannot be made and maintained under any conditions aproximating any theoretical composition of primitive Earth, amino acids can’t realistically form proteins in acid salt water, you need DNA to code for the necessary complexity to get self replicating proteins, and proteins to produce self-repicating DNA. The probabilities are too big, and contrary to the ‘climbing mount improbable’ school of thought you can’t do it in little steps: if one fails you have to start again from scratch.
But that’s not with this thread is about. I simply took exception to anyone making a blanket statement to the effect that only ill-educated loonies have any problems with current evolutionary theory.
Oops creationism. I never had a name for it before, but I like it.

17

Evolution? Well, good try, but look at this way. If evolution works, then we are the most advanced and intelligent species that x gazillion years of progress can come up with.

ianzen - I surely do like your style, and your views on stuff, but I have to disabuse you of a misconception. Evolution not only DOES work, but it is still working. But it works in every living thing on earth. All species alive on earth right now are at the current endpoint of their evolutions. Note: CURRENT endpoint. Each one has survived by adapting and changing over the years so that they all exist now, despite the warts that we’ve put on the environment. Those that will be able to make it through another generation will be even more “advanced” than those extant now. We are not the most advanced species on earth. That is a misapplication of evolutionary theory. We are simply the most advanced that our species has been thus far. Cockroaches are in the most advanced form that they’ve come to - thus far. Anthrocentrism really has no place anymore in evolutionary theory. However, to be fair, Oops creationism may be better at explaining HMO’s.

18

Exactly, Gaspode. Your key words say it all. “approximating” and “theoretical.”

Of course we can’t get make and maintain amino acids in any experiment that we try. We have only approximated a theoretical composition of primitive Earth, not *duplicated it, which would be necessary if we wanted the experiment to be accurate one way or another.

19

Blessedwolf
Precisely my point.
We’ve given it our best shots, none of them have worked, therefore the entire theory lacks the only experimental legs it might ever have. I can’t fully support a theory that suggests random chance can come up with something that cannot be achieved with conscious, directed intelligent thought and manipulation.
Otherwise it becomes another “We can’t come up with a plausible explanation of how this happened, it’s improbable that it could have happened but we know it must have happened because we’re here” statement. Very common in all literature trying to grapple with the inneffable mystery that is current evoloutionary theory.
I don’t want to hijack this thread any more, but I’ll gladly discuss this elsewhere.
My support is still for ‘Ooops creationism’ (I really love that name!) simply because it’s the only theory that fits the all the known facts.

20

Huh? You can build and “maintain” (if I understand how you’re using that word) amino acids on a bare rock in outer space. There are amino acids on the surface of Mars. Could you please expand on your point here?

And acid salt water is the only thing you would find ANYWHERE on the Earth? No other conditions are possible?

Whadabout RNA? I’d always heard of that as the frist self-replicating molecule, and it can replicate itself without proteins.

Too big according to whom? That’s just an argument from incredulity dressed up in a Sunday hat. The timescales involved are mind-boggling, and the Earth is a really big place.

Ah, but theoretically you only have to succeed once.