|
|
|
|
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/23/2008 4:13:13 PM | Maybe this has been covered already in another thread, but putting aside all shape shifting lizards for a second, is it plausible to suggest that humans are part of an extra-terrestrial hybrid blood line? According to Zecharia Sitchin, the Sumerians speak about how a group of extra-terrestrials known as the Annunaki created man in their image. They did so to create a slave race of humans that would mind gold in what is now called Africa. Studies by the Anglo-American Corporation have found extensive evidence of gold mining in Africa at least 60,000 years ago. Other scholars argue that the Annunanki didn't come here for that reason, but that's irrelevant. The Sumerian tablets describe how the genes of the Annunaki and those of the native humans were combined in a test tube to create the ‘updated’ human capable of doing the tasks the Anunnaki required. The idea of test tube babies would have sounded ridiculous when the tablets were found in 1850, but that is precisely what scientists are now able to do.
Again and again modern research supports the themes of the Sumerian Tablets. For instance, there was a sudden and so far unexplained upgrade of the human physical form around 200,000 years ago.
Official science is silent on the cause of this and mutters terms like ‘the missing link’.
But some unavoidable facts need to be addressed. Suddenly the previous physical form
known as homo erectus became what we now call homo sapiens. From the start the new
homo sapiens had the ability to speak a complex language and the size of the human
brain increased massively. Yet the biologist Thomas Huxley said that major changes
like this can take tens of millions of years. This view is supported by the evidence of
homo erectus which appears to have emerged in Africa about 1.5 million years ago. For
well in excess of a million years their physical form seems to have remained the same,
but then, out of nowhere, came the dramatic change to homo sapiens. About 35,000
years ago came another sudden upgrade and the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens,
the physical form we see today.
I came across this article a while back, and thought it was definitely worth a read.
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01288.html
Making the assumption that extra-terrestrials do exist and indeed have visited Earth, then given the fact they're intellectually evolved to the point they can master space/time, I think it's fair to say that a few thousand years (since the dawn of man) really isn't that long of a time period for them. The ancient astronaut theory adds credence to this, not to mention countless drawings (Usually of religious significance) that depicts UFOs.
I don't know... It's all a bit of a head ****. What do you guys think? | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/23/2008 4:26:59 PM | | I think this theory is way off base. I think our ancestors expanded their minds/evolved from eating the cannabis plant. now do the spacecraft depictions make sense? | |
|
| |
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/23/2008 4:50:59 PM | I'm for :Panspermia (Gk. πάς/πάν (pas/pan, all) and σπέρμα (sperma, seed)) is the hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies.
The related but distinct idea of exogenesis (Gk. εξω (exo, outside) and γενεσις (genesis, origin)) is a more limited hypothesis that proposes life on Earth was transferred from elsewhere in the Universe but makes no prediction about how widespread it is. Because the term "panspermia" is more well-known, it tends to be used in reference to what should strictly speaking be called exogenesis. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/23/2008 5:47:34 PM | Sitchin is hilarious ?
Well i would really love to see all this info that is brought into light shown as fact. Im really into this kinda work but til there is real facts about this i dont know if i could really keep up the idea. There are no other ideas out there, that made better sense. They all sound like BS to me. The human body is so conplex.
So much info is out there all you have to do is really really look. So much bs info as well but im sure there are alot of smart ppl who can get thru al the crap.
I wonder what you think of Jordan Maxwell. He sponsers Sitchin. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/23/2008 6:15:06 PM |
Sitchin is hilarious. Thanks for pointing me to his inane, pointless ramblings.
Why hilarious? Granted Sitchin isn't entirely accurate when it comes to the translation of the sumerian tablets, indeed he actually speaks an older dialect of Sumer, however I think his themes are correct, indeed other accounts and evidence supports this, but I personality doubt some of the detail. I think that a number of Sitchin's interpretations are extremely questionable, while I agree with the overall thesis. | |
|
| |
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/23/2008 6:29:54 PM |
Then who made the aliens? And who made the aliens who made those aliens. See the problem?
When you say 'made' you automatically imply some divine creator. I favour Evolution, though I don't want to debate evolution vs creationism. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/23/2008 6:40:50 PM |
When you say 'made' you automatically imply some divine creator.
Actually, no. That's a non sequitor. You are asking if aliens making humans is a plausible theory. The problem is, it only transfers the problem of natural evolution from here to the home of the aliens to the home of the aliens who made the first set of aliens.
No divine creation in question. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/23/2008 7:06:54 PM |
Actually, no. That's a non sequitor. You are asking if aliens making humans is a plausible theory. The problem is, it only transfers the problem of natural evolution from here to the home of the aliens to the home of the aliens who made the first set of aliens.
I had to keep the subject of my thread quite brief, for obvious reasons. If you read the post in its entirity, I'm suggesting that the homo erectus (which I believe came about through evolution), was updated to the homo-sapien (homo sapiens sapien infact) thorugh extra-terrestrial intervention. I can't conclusively tell you the origins of these extra-terrestrials, or our own origins for that matter, but I'm willing to put my money on evolution.
I'm not going to debate semantics either, but for some reason having a forum thread entitled "Current Homo-Sapien form of man genetically engineered by Extra-Terrestrials: Plausible theory?" just seems like a lot of information for the average reader to digest. I don't even think you can have a forum thread that long anyway! Lol. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/23/2008 7:23:24 PM |
According to Zecharia Sitchin, the Sumerians speak about how a group of extra-terrestrials known as the Annunaki created man in their image. They did so to create a slave race of humans that would mind gold in what is now called Africa.
Have they returned for their gold? Why not? If they were that advanced, why not merely bulid machines to do the work as machines are more dependable and controllable than humans? What about all the gold elsewhere on the planet?
Again and again modern research supports the themes of the Sumerian Tablets. For instance, there was a sudden and so far unexplained upgrade of the human physical form around 200,000 years ago.
No, science does not support Sumerian mythology. First, you say that aliens created humans but you don't say how. Now, you are stating that humans were merely improved by aliens. You cite a data gap in anthropology as evidence for this although that fact does not support or contradict either of your posits.
Official science is silent on the cause of this and mutters terms like ‘the missing link’.
What is "official science"? Is it a drive-up window where any quack can spout idiocy and wait to have a lengthy and considered response? Nope.
The reason that most sicentists have not responded to Sitchin is that his ideas are just silly. For his claims to be true, modern man's DNA would have to be dramatically different than that of evolutionary precursors. It's not. Not by a long shot.
Be very wary of people of no scientific expertise, especially those who want you to believe that myths and legends are true based on a gap in the fossil record. Fossils are rare and can only partly tell the story of biological evolution. To think that a gap in the sequence opens the door for childish speculation is, frankly, ignorant.
Why in blazes do you believe Sumerian mythology over all the other mythologies of creation that exist today? What about Xenu and all the other ridiculous creators? | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/23/2008 9:17:57 PM |
When you say 'made' you automatically imply some divine creator.
Not so, although a distinct comparison to creationism is being made. The problem in both cases is that an explanation is being taken from a cause without any evidence for its own existence. This is compounded by the fact that the "explanation" is an internal contradiction: man is too complex for me to understand, so something intelligent must have created him. All this does is defer the initial problem to a cause which is equally complex. How did such intelligent aliens or divine beings come into being?
Granted Sitchin isn't entirely accurate when it comes to the translation of the sumerian tablets
He's out to lunch. He claims sole authority, though he lacks any training. His authority is belied by the Sumerians themselves. Although the Sumerian language didn't survive long enough for us to decipher it directly, Sumer didn't exist in isolation. They were in contact with languages and cultures which still exist, such as the Greeks. As a result, they left behind multilingual dictionaries. Those who actually spoke, read, and wrote Sumerian and Greek left records which clearly show that Sitchin's "understanding" is fantasy. He's built his house of cards with no walls, and then proceeded to embellish it with further fantasies which have NO evidence at all.
I'm for :Panspermia
Thus far, there's no evidence for this either. It's not entirely precluded, but it faces the same problems as above: it doesn't actual answer the question of biogenesis. It simply diverts the question elsewhere and leaves it unanswered. It adds unneccesary steps to the questions, while offering fewer answers.
According to Zecharia Sitchin, the Sumerians speak about how a group of extra-terrestrials
Sumerians did not speak of extra-terrestrials. Sitchin does, and has force-fit his ideas into deliberately fudged ancient stories.
The Sumerian tablets describe how the genes of the Annunaki and those of the native humans were combined in a test tube to create the ‘updated’ human capable of doing the tasks the Anunnaki required.
Another Sitchin claim, not one of the Sumerians themselves. Bad translation force-fit to preconceived and unsupported ideas.
Again and again modern research supports the themes of the Sumerian Tablets
If by "themes of the Sumerian Tablets", you mean "Sitchin's claims about the Sumerian tablets", then this is false.
there was a sudden and so far unexplained upgrade of the human physical form around 200,000 years ago.
Support this please. What "upgrade" do you refer to? I can think of many fairly trivial changes over the millenia, and plentiful explanations to accompany them.
Official science is silent on the cause of this and mutters terms like ‘the missing link’
There is no "official science". There is science, which uses physical evidence and logical tests of alternate hypotheses in order to come to a most parsimonious conclusion. There is also pseudoscience, which makes any old claim the proponent wishes, regardless of whether it is supported by evidence or is in contradiction of natural law. Sitchin and his ilk are firmly in the latter camp.
But some unavoidable facts need to be addressed. Suddenly the previous physical form
known as homo erectus became what we now call homo sapiens
What is unavoidable is that this claim is false. Homo sapiens did not evolve from OR replace Homo erectus. We actually coexisted for a long time with Eurasian H.neanderthalensis, and FAR longer with Asian H.erectus. H.sapiens was preceded by H.heidelbergensis and H.antecessor. All of these may have descended from African H.ergaster and H.habilis.
From the start the new
homo sapiens had the ability to speak a complex language and the size of the human
brain increased massively
Also not true. This claim is dependant on a comparison of modern H.sapiens with much older species such as H.ergaster and H.habilis. Comparing to more immediate ancestors shows far less distinction and more gradual change. Comparing to contemporaneous species like erectus and neanderthalensis pretty much negates the claims entirely.
Yet the biologist Thomas Huxley said that major changes
like this can take tens of millions of years
Comparison with the views of a pioneering biologist born nearly 200 years ago is fallacious. Huxley's views don't come close to modern understanding or evidence of evolution.
This view is supported by the evidence of
homo erectus which appears to have emerged in Africa about 1.5 million years ago. For
well in excess of a million years their physical form seems to have remained the same
In fact, it remained pretty much the same, as this species overlapped with at least two other hominids at once. H.erectus did not become H.sapiens, but was eventually supplanted by it. Many species seem to have an existence of a couple million years before they die out or diverge into multiple distinct sibling species. The "sudden change" of erectus to sapiens is a myth.
I came across this article a while back, and thought it was definitely worth a read
WikiNews seems to have an article questioning Chang's part in the project [he does not speak on behalf of the project], but someone has erased the article and left only a rude comment.
The entire source you provide has an appearance of validity, but the article itself is tabloid hysterical fiction.
viz: "The non-coding sequences are common to all living organisms on Earth, from moulds to fish to humans."
In other words, the "extra-terrestrial" DNA they refer to...is found in EVERY life form on the planet. Yet somehow, in humans, the same DNA must have come from aliens. Seeing the problem here? 1+1=2, unless the authors wish for it to equal 3.
"Professor Chang is only one of many scientists and other researchers who have discovered extraterrestrial origins to Humanity."
False. To make such a discovery, they would first have to discover extra-terrestrial life [which no-one has done yet]. THEN they would have to show a stronger link between human life and extra-terrestrial life, than between and their hypothesized closest kin on Earth. That would be chimpanzees, who have more than 99% of their DNA in common with us including "junk".
The claim lacks critical evidence and contradicts strong existing evidence.
"Mr. Chang then affirms that the "First fact is, the complete 'program' was positively not written on Earth; that is now a verified fact."
Verified how? See above.
"Evidence for this idea is found (a) in the improbability of Homo sapiens emerging so suddenly, according to the principles of orthodox Darwinism; and (b) in the myths of ancient civilisations which describe human-like gods coming down from the heavens and creating mankind 'in their own image'"
Orthodox Darwinism? Myths of ancient civilizations? No-one follows "orthodox Darwinism", and neither of these claims is "evidence".
I could go on...and on...and on. I'll just add this:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml
That's the official site of the project your reference claims to prove extraterrestrial origins. On that site, the word "extraterrestrial" appears only once:
1995: Lithoautotrophic Microbial Ecosystems in Deep Basalt Aquifers by T.O. Stevens and J.P.McKinley, Science 270:450. This article described a newly discovered microbial ecosystem, which may have served as a first life form on earth and perhaps even in extraterrestrial bodies. (PNNL)
In short, your source offers no science and no evidence.
Making the assumption that extra-terrestrials do exist
and indeed have visited Earth
then given the fact they're intellectually evolved to the point they can master space/time
I think it's fair to say that a few thousand years (since the dawn of man) really isn't that long of a time period for them
first - a reasonable assumption, though not supported by any direct or indirect evidence.
second - not a reasonable assumption, particularly in light of no proof of existence.
third - space perhaps, but time is not a given.
fourth - it's not fair to say. We can and do plan hundreds or thousands of years into the future, yep we rarely live more than a century, and seldom plan more than days or weeks in advance. There's no reason to think any other species would view the time span much differently.
The ancient astronaut theory adds credence to this,
No it doesn't. It's equally unsupported and just happens to agree. Since both claims tend to get intertwined, they're also not independant corroboration.
not to mention countless drawings (Usually of religious significance) that depicts UFOs.
That's "unidentified" flying objects. Some guy 750 years ago says he saw something in the sky. Clearly this is proof that Jimmy Carter sent flying stealth Lamborghinis back in time. Same evidence, equally valid conclusion.
Maybe this has been covered already in another thread
Yes. More than one. It's remarkable how little evidence is required to sell fallacies and pseudoscience to an indiscriminate audience. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/24/2008 12:50:49 AM | I don't think it is plausible to suggest aliens created human beings. The arguments given by the alien theory seem very similar to those given by creationists; basically it boils down to the 'inexplicable' difficulty of how human intelligence and sophistication evolved from more primitive ancestors. A similar type of argument is often involved in trying to show complex organisms or organs or physical systems cannot arise from natural processes and activities.
One could invoke aliens, angels or God to try and explain whay seems to be a mystery to science, but in my view it isn't helpful. First, the mystery or puzzle isn't solved in a satisfactory manner (you are just left with another mystery - aliens, angels, or God) and second, the explanation seems to be derived from an argument from ignorance in disguise.
Another matter is there seems to be a lot of evidence to suggest humans evolved from similar ancestors, but little to suggest aliens have visited the Earth. Surely the aliens would have left something behind at least to let their 'experiments' know they had been there at some time in the past, once their 'experiments' had evolved sufficient intelligence; this is cleverly the case in Arthur C Clarke's brilliant story based on this sort of theme, 'The Sentinel', where humans discover an alien artefact deliberately left on the Moon once humanity had evolved enough in intelligence and technology to discover the artefact. Given the immense difficulties and challenges that must surely exist in travelling the galaxy and seeding planets with life and overseeing and guiding the rise of intelligent, sentient beings, it would seem logical that aliens would both make an effort to leave their prescence known or to make contact once civilisation on the seeded world had reached sufficient complexity to make contact with its original 'parents.' Yet despite the fact scientists have scoured the planet for the past few centuries to discover the geological record, to examine the history of ancient life (in the form of fossils), and also archeaologists have very carefully searched for and excavated many sites relating to ancient civilisations, no solid evidence has been found of a life-form or artefact that is clearly 'not of this world.' One may well exist somewhere on Earth or in the solar system and remain undiscovered, but it seems more likely to simply hypothesize no aliens have ever visited Earth and meddled with the evolution of life, or if they did, they came at a time when the planet had no intelligent life and simply 'moved on' after cataloguing the planet (or more likely, an interstellar probe did).
In any case, the scientific community seems happy to believe life (including intelligent life) from the viewpoint of science, needs no more explanation than the laws of nature working over long periods of time to explain the complexity of the universe, its structures, and its inhabitants. Quite rightly scientists complain about those who are unable or unwilling to see the beauty of nature's laws and their ability to create complexity, and try to substitute pseudo-explanations in their place, such as quasi-magical entities such as extremely advanced aliens or entities derived from religious belief (such as angels or God(s)). | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/24/2008 1:15:08 AM |
Suddenly the previous physical form known as homo erectus became what we now call homo sapiens
This sudden change was alien in nature? Our modern dictionary has five times the amount of words than in Shakesphere's day. Homo Sapiens are almost ready for an upgrade based on the- new man-we have become. The Fore Fathers of America did not have the speed to process information as we do today. Homo Sapiens have evolved. Don't count the birth control pill out of the equation either. Maybe the new millenium humans wil be reclassified one day; today there is no one respected enough to make such a bold claim. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/24/2008 7:59:50 AM | | I use in a story the classical Humans came to be on such planet because of a large space craft packed with thousands of people crashed, the radiation the ship collected when crashing down prevented a lot of those people form surviving close to the ship forcing a migration away from the ship. It's a fun one to write from, the number of reasons the people several generations after that don't know how they came to be on the planet is as large as your imagination, if your clever they even sound plausible. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/24/2008 10:49:03 AM | | It depends. If you're an evolutionist, then this seems to suggest an alternative to the standard model, and so would depend on how dogmatic you are about evolution. If you're a creationist, then you might find this contradicts your sacred texts, but it's not really proposing something that much different. | |
|
| |
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/24/2008 1:26:53 PM | | Oh I totally agree with it. This is why most Alien worlds in Star Trek, Starwars and other SciFi are populated with very human looking foreign species. It's hard enough to breed a pig and an elephant but alien species of the humanoid form easily reproduce. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/24/2008 2:14:22 PM | For alien lovers, I tell them this. We are all aliens...seriously.
The building blocks for our society flew through space before reaching here. This means, that those same building blocks flew in other directions meaning chances are, there is life like us out there somewhere.....our alien cousins.
I don't think humans were created specifically but life was created. It's a big mystery as to what started it all so feel free to fantasize all you want for now just know that it's not fact. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/24/2008 3:54:29 PM | I'd say it's more like baseless, implausible conjecture.
Is it "possible?"
Sure, why not? On the surface it seems to make as much sense as amino acids being formed in nature by lightning (except that amino acids have actually been formed in the lab with artificial lightning).
Is it "likely?"
No. I'll bet it sells a bunch of books, though. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/24/2008 8:04:55 PM | Somebody's reading too much Ian Douglas!
Must make a correction. The Annunikai - aka An did not create humanity. That was done about a million years prior by the Builders who operated from a base on Mars which they were attempting to terraform. They were in the process of genetically uplifting Homo erectus into the archaic Homo sapiens when the Xul- aka "Hunters of the Dawn" struck and wiped them out. The Xul which is Sumarian for ghoul or demon also smashed the reptilian An which colonized and exploited the human population of ancient Earth.
It's called the Predatory Survival Hypothosis. Explains why the silence of the stars is deafening. There's nobody else out there other than the Xul because they are systematically exterminating any technologically advanced life they encounter. We've so far managed to escape their notice- namely because the galaxy is a big place to cover and our ever expanding bubble of radio noise has yet to reach the nearest Xul listening post. When it does- they'll be back!
Woooooooooooooooooooooohooooooo!
JF | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/24/2008 8:17:11 PM |
No. I'll bet it sells a bunch of books, though.
Wha!!??? Beau, I'm shocked. Such cynicism.
Wait! Are you saying he's tapping into the cottage industry of New Age believers who buy books related to the idea of alien visitors just to make...*shiver*...money?!
No way! And Erik Von Daaniken is surely living a pauper's life, isn't he? | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/24/2008 8:52:36 PM | "...humans are part of an extra-terrestrial hybrid blood line?"
I've been thinking along the lines that IF there's been any genetic experiments or DNA manipulation done - and I'm not ready to speculate on who has done it . . . but, the ETs might be the result . . . not any humans.  | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/24/2008 11:24:34 PM | Implausible! Creationists have a book which supposedly documents the creation of man. Believe it or not. If aliens had the propulsion system to readily arrive on Earth from their planet, they would have left such a record to notify humans of their origins. Can we realistically suspect that a life form was without an ego? That they would not have left a record of their dominance of this planet? Only our modern understandings of science would allow such an argument that has humans originating from aliens. The argument can only be fabricated from a human. And then, to suppose that an alien would have God like powers is as ridiculous as God creating humans.
Sorry to tell ya, when you die, that is the end of your life.
Or you can jump on the next Hal-Bot comet that comes along. | |
|
| Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 11/25/2008 12:42:09 AM | This belief system is needlessly complex- it admits evolution exists and created life- but it seems to doubt the ability of intelligence to form naturally. Well, strike that- since we're going from Homo Erectis to Home Sapain, that means you admit that life can create a creature capible of learning and thought further than that of a normal species, as well as admitting that this can form on other planets, but for some reason, humanity needed that extra kick in the ass to get going.
Why? If you admit intelligent life can form naturally, and assume that intelligent life has formed naturally elsewhere, then why do we need the aliens to begin with? Doesn't evolution already explain how humanity came to be? And the parts we don't know- what were the conditions to create a higher form of intelligence- you already admit was being enacted naturally.
This seems like a desperate attempt to equate space creatures with our creation, because it admits we don't need the aliens, but demands the aliens be there just to justify Sitchins beliefs. | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 43
|
1, 2, 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 |
|
Home
login 
