|
|
|
|
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/11/2009 2:10:54 PM |
No, we see evidence of things, we receive information from our senses, through our comprehension, through communication and observation. Think of all the things you believed when you were a child and how it's changed. But the thing is you are still that child, you will never grow up to know everything. Humility is hard for people
zed, you are indeed a rare breed.
humility, the true measure of a man. yet it is so hard to be humble when there is so much to prove. | |
|
| |
| |
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/11/2009 6:19:18 PM |
What!? You don't think there aren't people in these discussion groups that believe exactly that sort of "we're all here for aliens to munch on" nonsense?
So I'm guessing you don't wanna order 1 of my special medallions? You can choose either an "I'm not meant to be eaten" or "I'm to be saved for the stud farm" model.
 | |
|
| |
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/13/2009 9:00:51 PM | | Funny how I should come across this thread as work circle has recently discovered it too. Being an open minded sort I cannot deny the whole theory yet... I think the primary suggestion is to tie the loose ends together. Aliens were created by a higher being. Aliens created humans ie. theorized by the bonded gene claims (which no other life form has) for purposes of slavery. By the way, there are very detailed explanations of this theory on You Tube for those more interested. A little something something to ponder anyway. | |
|
| |
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/13/2009 9:59:50 PM | >>>My point is that you don't know what is possible. So technically anything MIGHT be possible, until proven otherwise, that doesn't mean EVERYTHING is possible.
And MY point is, at what point are the things we are discussing proven otherwise? Omniscience? Omnipotence ? At what point will we be free to reach a conclusion based on what we do know and what our current observations have achieved? At what point can we look at the data found, and not decide that, no, the data is wrong, and we simply haven't looked for the answer we prefer hard enough? And how is that perspective lead to good science?
>>>1. what is useful, 2. what is likely and 3. what makes me happy.
What about our observations of the universe implies it is useful? Does that mean our observations are flawed on the premise that, the universe must be useful. It just has to!
And Happy? Why would the universe change if you gained comfort for it? Why would it care?
And Likely? Who are you to judge likelihoods? Whatever likelihoods you can offer, I can contradict, and neither of us would be wrong, because we simply do not have enough knowledge to decide how the universe SHOULD act- we must only rely on how we see it acting.
I honestly do not understand why you have such a sheer terror of making the wrong conclusions with the right data. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/13/2009 11:24:28 PM |
And MY point is, at what point are the things we are discussing proven otherwise?
When they ARE, and if it doesn't happen then the case MUST remain open to creative hypothesizing and wonder.
At what point will we be free to reach a conclusion based on what we do know and what our current observations have achieved?
An observation is only an observation, if you want to test a conclusion you test it and observe. No conclusions can come from it except what has been observed. The mistake is in the extrapolation and interpretation. So basically - that point only comes in order to be useful for further inquiry, it should NOT become an absolute truth used as a weapon against other ideas, only as questioning for those other ideas.
At what point can we look at the data found, and not decide that, no, the data is wrong, and we simply haven't looked for the answer we prefer hard enough?
That was a triple negative and you lost me.
What about our observations of the universe implies it is useful? Does that mean our observations are flawed on the premise that, the universe must be useful. It just has to!
No, I mean as a human being - I'm talking about WHY you might come to a conclusion, which is what you asked. A conclusion is not static, and so you suppose for a moment, you will assume that the floor you are walking on is solid so that you can walk along on it. You don't need to know "for sure" that the floor is solid as you are walking, you make an assumption that it is solid so that you can go about your daily life. The rest of the comments you made about the statement I made I can't answer to because you misunderstood why I said it. Also - science is supposed to be useful, which is why it is useful to come to temporary conclusions based on evidence, in order to further investigate whether that conclusion is correct or not. Coming to the conclusion that the floor is solid is useful for walking, but when asking the question scientifically, one must be meticulous. What part of the floor is solid? Under what conditions? What is it made of? What does solid mean?
I honestly do not understand why you have such a sheer terror of making the wrong conclusions with the right data.
Don't you? Because you're likely to be WRONG? I have no problem with seeking evidence and observing and testing, but once you get to the end, and you have evidence of something, you cannot extrapolate your findings to anything which is beyond what you tested. That is why scientists make the most absurd statements from their own personal interpretations of results. It happens all the time. That's why science is "self-correcting" - meaning eventually someone will look over your study and your evidence and prove your conclusion wrong! By that method - the ENTIRE basis of science might easily some day be proven WRONG!
The only reason I can think of why people cling to scientific conclusions as though they're permanent truths instead of temporary, useful possibilities is that there really is a religious impulse in humans that makes us convince ourselves that we already know the truth. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/14/2009 12:13:29 PM | >>>When they ARE, and if it doesn't happen then the case MUST remain open to creative hypothesizing and wonder.
What do you mean? I'm asking for specifics. At what point is it okay to make any claims on the subject matter and obvious questions this topic presents? When is it okay to claim that Aliens do not exist? When we've explored everywhere in the universe? When is it okay to claim that traveling the deep void of space is impossible? You know, other than the evidence that already exists explaining that there isn't enough resources to make such a thing possible? And why do you take the opposite stance of the scientific principal- that we must prove that aliens DIDN'T create man, as opposed to the critics having to prove their assertions true?
When is it okay to claim that aliens didn't make man, or can't make the journey here, or even do not exist? And why do you take the stance that is contradicted by all of our observations, claiming that our observations are flawed because they aren't giving you the answers you'd expect, or prefer? | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/14/2009 2:27:36 PM | ^^ Easy answer. IT'S NEVEr OKAY to claim something impossible without knowing it is impossible. The point you think should come prematurely (which seems to be right now, so that you can shut down the discussion of possibilities you find uncomfortable) should NOT come until - as you said -we've explored everywhere in the universe.
I am NOT claiming that we are for sure part alien, I'm saying it's a possibility. You can criticize intelligently with whatever evidence you can come up with that will make it unlikely but you CANNOT say it isn't possible!!! Because it is possible! Wow, you already know why you can't do it, you just want to do it because you want the truth to be easy, and you want it to be within your grasp, but it isn't. Nothing you can do can change the truth that we don't know.
"All our observations" are puny compared to how vast and how unknown the universe is! You don't get to decide you know everything beyond the scope of those observations. Until then it is all speculation, and you have no right to shut down a proposition based on what tiny fraction we know with certainty. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/14/2009 4:00:17 PM | I was in Sedona this last week, and went up to one of the petroglyphs. There were saucer shaped drawings, and an image of what modern day aliens are drawn as. These petroglyphs are 1500 yrs old, AND were discovered in the 1800's when there was not flying machines...
I personally found them as good as a photo, especially since they didn't have cameras to draw things that amazed them...
THIS DOESN'T say that they, or we come from aliens, but it seems rather apparent something came to visit these people...
Way back in this thread I had been challenged about these petroglyphs existing, well I can say first hand I seen them in person, and they were documented in the 1800's before any flying machines, so they aren't a doctored up drawing...
zedstead, I agree that many people have a problem with something they aren't comfortable with, and further more will discredit anything that may suggest their conclusion is incorrect...
I challenge any one to go see these petroglyphs in person, and then decide for themselves whether they have a flying machine or not...
I have seen people on this thread say first hand witnesses are anecdotal, that is if they have seen things that don't agree with them... Go look for yourself, then use your own anecdotal tale to describe how they are something other... | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/14/2009 4:50:56 PM |
That's why science is "self-correcting" - meaning eventually someone will look over your study and your evidence and prove your conclusion wrong! By that method - the ENTIRE basis of science might easily some day be proven WRONG!
You seem to have a highly flawed understanding of what science is. Science, or the philosophy of science, or the scientific method, is a specific method of obtaining reliable consistent answers. Your statement above is a paradox. The only methodology which can prove anything conclusively "wrong", is science. Just how do you propose to use the scientific method to show that the scientific method doesn't work?
PS - same problems apply to alternative medicine. Alternative treatments may or may not work. When these treatments are analyzed, tested, explained, and proven by the scientific method, they are no longer "traditional", but "western". Ethnobotanists study traditional medicines. Their studies are furthered by chemists and others, and the results are incorporated. You don't see the results because you don't associate willow bark tea with acetylsalicylic acid.
I have seen people on this thread say first hand witnesses are anecdotal, that is if they have seen things that don't agree with them
Yes, they're anecdotal, because the conclusions drawn are subjective and done in the absence of physical evidence. No independant verification is possible, so they're not useful on their own.
Although the petroglyphs you describe may in general be 1500 years old and discovered up to 200 years ago, that does NOT mean that the ones you specifically refer to meet either of those standards.
Likewise, saucer-shaped drawings do not necessarily mean "flying saucers", and large-eyed figures do not necessarily mean aliens. Infants of a great many vertebrate species have large heads for their bodies and large eyes for their heads. Such drawings could represent children, or simply be stylized. Asian cartoons typically show people, especially whites, as having oversized eyes. In 1000 years, are we to assume that manga and anime are records of aliens? We know NOW that such figures are exaggerated representations of fictional humans. Would indiginous Americans not stylize their petroglyph artwork? They certainly did when it came to making totem poles, homes, and boats on the Pacific coast. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/14/2009 6:04:23 PM |
sorry ... embrya .... on dialup here .... U.tube won't cut it as a credible source.
real literature with proper references is needed
Wasn't particularly giving reference to his credibility... merely references for research. If interested there are many books by Zecharia Stitchin on the market. As well, I believe that you can find some of his videos on History.com if you are not a You Tube fan.
Curious the beliefs for Planet X.... among others that were predicted before their time. | |
|
| |
| |
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/14/2009 6:14:19 PM |
I was in Sedona this last week, and went up to one of the petroglyphs. There were saucer shaped drawings, and an image of what modern day aliens are drawn as. These petroglyphs are 1500 yrs old, AND were discovered in the 1800's when there was not flying machines...
I personally found them as good as a photo, especially since they didn't have cameras to draw things that amazed them...
THIS DOESN'T say that they, or we come from aliens, but it seems rather apparent something came to visit these people...
I'd say the only thing the petroglyphs make apparent is that someone drew them and mothing else. Maybe they're art drawn by someone on some hallucinogenogen ( peyote, magic mushroomms? ).
Or maybe the petroglyphs were made by human time travellers from the future to screw with our 20th century minds... that's as legitimate an explanation as extraterrestrials, and there's as much proof ( none ). | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/14/2009 8:42:49 PM | Frogeyes, I would agree that they draw what they'd like, however these beings were tall, long armed and legged, with a triangle head.
The saucer was depicted to be over the land creatures, horses (?) deer (?)
Saucers like we see with the dome on top.
Susan CD, what they demonstrate is that there is more to think about, AND these are as good as good one can get of a photo from that time period... As I stated it doesn't say WE or they come from aliens, but they seen something worthy enough to carve out on the rock.
Hallucinogens maybe, but once again if a person has never seen something mechanical flying in the sky, how could they visualize them???
The scientific test is this, these weren't drawn after mechanical flying machines or we have been duped in believing that flying machines didn't come on the scene until the 1900's. What ever the case, I find it interesting that these are dismissed, and wonder WHY...
Personally I find them worthy of consideration, even if there is no means to get answers of their specific meaning... Heck the spiral drawings petroglyphs all over the place are unknown as to their meaning.
I think they have something to say, the what, I don't know... | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/14/2009 9:36:26 PM | | They are definitely noteworthy, and curious. But too many people take the Von Daniken ( did I spell that right?) approach and anything curious & unexplainable ( or in his case lots of explainable stuff too) is deemed to be proof of extraterrestrial intervention. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/14/2009 9:42:53 PM | | I think that I need more data to confirm and/or deny the claims of being truth versus untruth. If nothing else I can definitely appreciate those willing to venture outside the realm of our comfort zones and discover it. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/15/2009 12:09:13 AM | >>>IT'S NEVEr OKAY to claim something impossible without knowing it is impossible.
Could your mother be a very tall pixie, and your mother be a very small elf? Would it be wrong to claim they weren't? Would it be wrong to claim such a thing doesn't exist? How could you possibly know for sure?
>>>The point you think should come prematurely (which seems to be right now, so that you can shut down the discussion of possibilities you find uncomfortable) should NOT come until - as you said -we've explored everywhere in the universe.
Are....are you serious?
You know that'll never happen, right? Even if we find a means to be in one solar system a second, find out everything in that solar system, and moved onto the next, and everyone in the world were to do this, for their entire lives, there would still be solar systems left unexplored. Not to mention, we'd eventually have to start over, because the universe is not stagnant. You ask an impossible standard.
You can enjoy your life of ignorance, where you reject everything we see because you're certain the universe acts how you feel it should, rather than how we see it actually does. I will base my conclusions on actual evidence, though, thank you.
>>>I am NOT claiming that we are for sure part alien, I'm saying it's a possibility.
By what standard? What evidence is there to produce such a possibility? Couldn't we, under that standard, claim that its possible that there's a giant mash mellow on the complete opposite side of the sun to the Earth?
>>>Nothing you can do can change the truth that we don't know.
Granted, but nothing can deny what we've already found, either. How long do you have to walk amongst trees before its prudent to call it a forest? Until you've explored every square inch of the world?
------
>>>There were saucer shaped drawings, and an image of what modern day aliens are drawn as.
That hardly proves anything- you can look back 25 years, and aliens were different. Look back another 25, and again, hugely different. Is a coincidence so impossible?
>>> but it seems rather apparent something came to visit these people...
And "messages to God" didn't seem well enough? Or an artistic creation? There must be a physical verification- not just a spiritual quest?
And since when has something been proven true cause someone, somewhere wrote it down?
>>>however these beings were tall, long armed and legged, with a triangle head.
Of course! Just like all the alien abduction stories! Triangle Heads!
>>>if a person has never seen something mechanical flying in the sky
Omg! I remember you now! You mentioned you were in this topic earlier- and I ask, yet again- what about the image implies it is mechanical?
---------
>>>Sitchin is a thoroughly debunked fraud, as is the existence of "Planet X". There are several other threads which deal specifically with both.
Errm.....You're kind in one of 'em Frogo. Read the OP.... | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/15/2009 10:23:42 AM |
Errm.....You're kind in one of 'em Frogo. Read the OP....
You're right. I get tired of refuting the same crap every time it's presented as if it's some spectacular new fact. It's easy to lose track of just when and where it is repeated.
Planet X/Nibiru - refuted many times
Young Earth creationism - refuted countless times
Sitchin - flushed repeatedly
Irreducible complexity - nonsense n-times over
Improbability of life - fallacy, fallacy, fallacy
I believe Divagreen referred to the "Pseudoscience threads", which struck me as about the most accurate description lately. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/15/2009 12:11:42 PM | I feel many of you would benefit from reading up a bit. All you need to do is wrench your selves out of the mainstream information crap that attempts to keep us from finding our true history. The truth is all over the place. OPEN your minds.
Ever wonder why there are so many races of humans? And, gee, science always speaks of the "missing link"... hello...?
FEAR is the biggest issue at hand here. Lose your fear of the unknown, and then intend to know it. Our multiverse is infinite... don't attempt to limit your selves into a box. In this way you will never learn the truth. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/15/2009 12:22:48 PM |
I feel many of you would benefit from reading up a bit. All you need to do is wrench your selves out of the mainstream information crap that attempts to keep us from finding our true history. The truth is all over the place. OPEN your minds.
Many of our minds are open. However, our standards for proof are a lot higher than "I feel it is true so it must be." There's a great video on what having an open mind really means. Have a look at that one.
"Mainstream information?" The moment someone starts talking "scientific dogma" or "the establishment," those of us with critical minds get twitchy. That's because we know that's when the woo-woo starts.
Ever wonder why there are so many races of humans? And, gee, science always speaks of the "missing link"... hello...?
Question 1: Migration and evolution. Question 2: Um, which missing link? That's definitely one that's brought up by creationists. However, every species is a link from something before to something later. Links in a continuous chain.
FEAR is the biggest issue at hand here. Lose your fear of the unknown, and then intend to know it. Our multiverse is infinite... don't attempt to limit your selves into a box. In this way you will never learn the truth.
What truth? What evidence? "Our multiverse" isn't even a proven concept...yet. Relying on it as a proof of concept is fallacious at best. And, just so you know, science is really about the unknown. It's kind of it's stock and trade. However, any reasonably intelligent scientist recognizes that the "Truth" today is tomorrow's quaint and false paradigm.
Perhaps the ones who need to really open their minds are those who espouse "Truth" with a capital T. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 9/15/2009 1:41:10 PM | the human brain with 50 billion neurons, a million billion connections, and a firing rate of maybe, 10 million billion times per second, evolved.
my mind is so open now, bring on the alien stuff, leprechauns, and all. | |
|
|
| Page 42 of 43
|
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 |
|
Home
login 
