Which is true: creationism or evolution?

[Valley Oak]

I'm terribly confused and torn by this dichotomy. Can anyone please lend me a helping hand with their honest opinion?

Which is true: creationism or evolution?

[wisewomn]

Seriously, Ed? A publically-declared atheist is asking this question? Or is your tongue poking through your cheek?

Personally, I don't see why it can't be both. :-)


I'm terribly confused and torn by this dichotomy. Can anyone please lend me a helping hand with their honest opinion?

Which is true: creationism or evolution?

[Hotspring 44]

No reason it couldn't “technically” be some of both...

There is the Ancient astronaut hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronaut_hypothesis) which has enough merit to seriously consider.

Ancient astronauts hypothesis of creation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronaut_hypothesis#Ancient_astronauts_hypothesis_of_creation)

Proponents argue that the evidence for ancient astronauts comes from documentary gaps in historical and archaeological records, and they also maintain that absent or incomplete explanations of historical or archaeological data point to the existence of ancient astronauts.

The evidence is argued to include archaeological artifacts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artifact_%28archaeology%29) that they deem anachronistic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism), or beyond the accepted technical capabilities of the historical cultures with which they are associated.

These are sometimes referred to as "out-of-place artifacts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact)"; and include artwork (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_art) and legends (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend) which are interpreted in a modern sense as depicting extraterrestrial contact or technologies.

Legitimate academics have responded that gaps in contemporary knowledge of the past need not demonstrate that such speculative ancient astronaut ideas are a necessary conclusion to draw.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronaut_hypothesis#cite_note-9)

Thomas Gold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold), a professor of astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy), suggested a "garbage theory" for the origin of life, proposing that life on Earth might have spread from a pile of waste products accidentally dumped on Earth long ago by extraterrestrials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrials).[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronaut_hypothesis#cite_note-10)


Seriously, Ed? A publically-declared atheist is asking this question? Or is your tongue poking through your cheek?

Personally, I don't see why it can't be both. :-)

[Thad]

It would be hard to argue that tools haven't evolved, so to back track to a point where human culture had no tools and what then would have been the higher order specie or what the human physique looked like having to deal with such a brutish existence.

tonight's menu is road kill

[Hotspring 44]

...so to back track to a point where human culture had no tools and what then would have been the higher order specie or what the human physique looked like having to deal with such a brutish existence.

tonight's menu is road kill
Roads?:hmmm:... ...When?:hmmm:...Exactly why-for?:hmmm::thinking:

[handy]

As a "publicly declared" militant agnostic, and observing an apparently orderly self-organising reliably taking place in Nature, I would ask, "Do we prefer intelligent design or unintelligent design?" :wink:


Seriously, Ed? A publically-declared atheist is asking this question? Or is your tongue poking through your cheek?

Personally, I don't see why it can't be both. :-)

[Valley Oak]

Carl Sagan was an American astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, science popularizer, and science communicator in astronomy and other natural sciences. Pay special attention to what Sagan says in the last ten seconds of the video below:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECuarAmpK00