Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 436
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?Page 12 of 53    (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)
Excellent post Frogo- damn I wish I could just hand over the keys to this thread and just watch you beat these people with their own messed logic, but it doesn't seem like you really keep up with users on a day to day basis....

>>>These theories hold until proven wrong, at which time the next best theory moves to the head of the line.

Please, explain, how can these theories be proven wrong? Under what criteria?

>>>Science will never prove this.

Why do you believe this?

>>>Otherwise, there is really no proof of anything. No proof that you exist. None. If all matter is made up of strings of energy, then you are merely a mirage. A dream. Why am I even replying to you.

Well then, its no wonder you're so willing to accept that aliens exist- you missed the most basic and fundamental issue of existence.

Basically, it follows the concept if "I am"- a being that does not exist could not question its own existence- so by questioning your existence, you, in turn, have proven that you exist.

You have concluded that, since we cannot prove aliens exist, that proof itself does not exist- that its not your fault there is no evidence of aliens, but rather, its realitys fault. And thats is simply terrible logic driven by desparation to not be wrong.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 438
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/4/2009 10:18:18 AM
The simpliest solution would be the observers misinterpreted the speed, most likely from the fact that they are completely unfamiliar with what the speed looks like to begin it.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 439
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/4/2009 11:41:17 AM

anyone ever pond why there is no sonic boom with these fast moving sighting? Does rockets in lift off make a sonic boom siginature like the crack of a bullet when it reaches that 600 mph barrier? How can an object exceed this barrier and not register shock waves?


That would seem to disprove the whole flying at super speeds phenomenon, wouldn't it? After all, if something is flying through the atmosphere at supramach speeds, then you're going to get a sonic boom. It happens with the space shuttle all the time.

If that is the case, the object being observed likely isn't moving that fast and, therefore, logically, an interpretation in that direction is flawed.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 440
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/4/2009 12:01:59 PM
It also claims that there is a massive conspirsity accross the world between scientists of differenting branches, countries, and beliefs- that tens of thousands if not hundreds or even millions of scientists are keeping the world in the dark.

Basically, they're arguing Hindu Creationism rather than Christian Creationism.
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 442
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/4/2009 1:48:07 PM


Of course science can not prove existence of UFO’s. No aliens have ever submitted to laboratory testing. Science will never prove this. Even if Aliens revealed themselves, it would not constitute scientific proof of their existence.


That we know of, and is in dispute by those that witnessed the Roswell incident as well as several others. However they remain in dispute as "swamp gas" and weather balloons, et al, because that is what we are all supposed to believe, because other wise there'd be a lot of explaining to do.

Whether it is concern of the mass freak out theory, or the mass want to see theory.

Then of course there is the astro belt, that supposedly doesn't have enough mass to even create a moon. It is ALL speculative theory as way it is out there, let alone how can any scientist say they know for certain with out really collecting all the pieces just how much is there. If a planet was hit, what was broken into tiny pieces, and when this event happened.

Jip I am so glad you feel you have OFFICIALLY elected yourself to help us way ward thinkers, my gosh what would we do with out you disputing everything, and determining what is fact and what is NOT fact. Must really be a tough job trying to control the masses, that may actually feel like thinking for themselves...

Here is the point that gets repeatedly missed... Plausible... Why such an issue for those that have the need to tell others this is NOT plausible... When those that feel it is, aren't here to say anyone elses opinion is wrong, but rather we see things in a different way?

It seems so nice to be told how our logic is incorrect, while yours is...

Then we are told WE NEED TO PROVE all of this and that... At the same time I don't see any of you PROVING your own theory. Any one of you archeologist? Frog, I know you research amphibians, I will give you that as at least in the science field, and understanding scientific process...About frogs..

The rest, what is the need to disprove what others feel is PLAUSIBLE???? Why is there a need to say we aren't thinking logical, when the gunk that you deem as scientific facts, has its major holes as well.

YES, life forms evolve, that remains indisputable, were we humans tinkered with??? Plausible, because through out history and we are talking way back to cave drawings their are drawings depicting space ships, that did NOT remotely exist in any form. A mechanical flying machine wasn't around AT ALL; if that was just a doodle, where did the idea of the doodle come from?

There are paintings through out history that have these same "spaceships" which once again there wasn't any flying machines around. We have tablets and biblical accounts of machines that weren't around. Today we still have sitings of mechanical flying objects, and mass witnesses, that would be able to tell the difference ESPECIALLY when they seen these objects up close.

Since these "flying mechanical" objects have been observed since mankind was not all that brighter than an ape, through the ages where very skilled, YET unflying civilization have drawn the same objects. IE: these similar drawing as on the cave walls have been seen in Egypt, and don't have a hieroglyphic meaning attached to them. as well as in South America.

What does that say, these people were seeing swamp gas, smoking weed, it was a weather balloon???

Last night I missed a show on Geo, that talked about an odd object that was found in the "bronze age", which was asking the question as to where it came from. As well there are disk plates of an unknown origin in China, with odd writing on them..

There has also been unearth steel bearing type of objects that have been dated as several million years old... I'll do a jip, I don't have the book marked pages, however I am not going to Wiki to demonstrate the source. Sorry my schooling doesn't allow Wiki as a source, so I just can't do it...

HOWEVER, if I need to later when I am NOT in class, or finishing my mid term, I will unearth the info I have on it.

Point being, there is evidence of things that say alien life and aliens visiting IS plausible. Just because they aren't topped as empirical proof, doesn't mean they don't exist, or aren't valuable evidence that since the dawn of man kind some sort of unknown and unexplained flying objects have been in the skies...

NO JIP, that does NOT say that because someone sees them, and labels them as unidentified and people talk about them, that they are NO LONGER unexplained, because they remain unexplained.

I did notice on the news today that university students are launching a satellite to try and locate planets like our own. Hmmmm, good to know that they understand the concept of plausible, and someone is willing to shell out the 5 billion for the project. I'd hate to think that in our economy upheaval, someone would waste that kind of money on total BS...

Before I go, take note... Twister does not believe that aliens intervened in our evolutionary existence.. However neither of us put down the others belief, nor do we find the need to convince the other of the illogicality of the others beliefs on plausibility.

How nice it would be if you too could present YOUR own information with out the disrespect, and calling those who don't agree with you as "messed up" or illogical (wow do I smell a trekky in disguise???) . NOR do we feel like we need to keep in check this thread, that is some really arrogance...

 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 443
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/4/2009 3:25:10 PM
>>>Then of course there is the astro belt, that supposedly doesn't have enough mass to even create a moon.

Then where is the missing mass? And why don't we see this missing mass when examining the graviational effects these astroids have on surrounding planets- thats how we knew Neptune and Pluto was out there before we found them- through examining the graviational effects- your hypothesis, which is based on no observations, is actually contradicted by methods that have proven to work effectively.

>>>let alone how can any scientist say they know for certain with out really collecting all the pieces just how much is there.

Gotcha- so its impossible to prove you wrong, so we should accept any insane assertions you make.

>>>Jip I am so glad you feel you have OFFICIALLY elected yourself to help us way ward thinkers, my gosh what would we do with out you disputing everything, and determining what is fact and what is NOT fact. Must really be a tough job trying to control the masses, that may actually feel like thinking for themselves...

What you're doing isn't thinking for yourselves- you are making shit up. You scoft at the kind of conclusions that defy your preconceived conclusions- when enough information is presented to make it utterly ludacris for you to continue to play out the charade, you drop to your knees and deny that anything, anywhere, can be proven- that there is no proof, or existence, and because of that any thought that comes into your head is somehow equally valid as something that people spend entire careers carefully measuring and judging- and anyone who objects is somehow stifling your ability to think for yourself??!

Being coy is really immature of you though thyme- I could equally say you have elected yourself to dispute anything scientific- clearly nothing you've said here is confirmed by anything observed.

>>>Here is the point that gets repeatedly missed... Plausible... Why such an issue for those that have the need to tell others this is NOT plausible...

Because it isn't. If there was another planet in our solar system, we'd know it. We knew there was Neptune in our solar system before we saw it because of the observed effects on other planets- the same is true for Pluto- but there are no observed effects from this planet you claim to be out there- according to Sitchin, this planet is nearly as big as Saturn, and closer too- and yet, we are unable to either see it or the effects of it.

Making such a planet completely implausible.

>>>When those that feel it is, aren't here to say anyone elses opinion is wrong, but rather we see things in a different way?

You're right- it is a feeling- its not lead by anything observed, but rather, that you FEEL its true

As for why- reality doesn't change from person to person- something cannot be all wet to one person and all dry to another- if you "see things a different way", and that includes seeing space creatures, then its up to you to prove that these space creatures exist outside of your own head- objective evidence.

I honestly couldn't give a damn your reasons to be here- if it is to state something is plausible, or absolute, or that it changes from person to person- but If I find something I feel is not supported or is completely contradicted by the evidence, then your reasons aren't important- the truth is.

>>>It seems so nice to be told how our logic is incorrect, while yours is...

Why? I'm just as able to be wrong as anyone else.

>>>At the same time I don't see any of you PROVING your own theory.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I asked you- if you doubt something I've said, don't hestiate to ask for proof. You then completely ignored that statement, and came back the next day saying that I am withholding proof?


Have I stated something you feel needs proving? By all means, don't let me stop you.



Again, if you find something wrong with my beliefs, by all means


>>>Any one of you archeologist? Frog, I know you research amphibians, I will give you that as at least in the science field, and understanding scientific process...About frogs.

Actually, we are equally discussing things such as geology, astrophsyics, phsyics, and some biology- none of which anyone on here can truly claim to be an expect in all such fields, let alone yourself- so why you are challenging my or anyone elses authority on a subject, while equally claiming you hold an authority on a subject, is beyond me. Kettle calling the pot black and all that jazz

>>>Why is there a need to say we aren't thinking logical, when the gunk that you deem as scientific facts, has its major holes as well.

Because they follow logic.

More importantly, though, we aren't talking about evolution or any of that- if there are holes in what we have said on this subject- by all means- but the fact that science doesn't have the answer for everything everywhere isn't proof that aliens exist.

>>>Plausible, because through out history and we are talking way back to cave drawings their are drawings depicting space ships

.....Or the sun, or clouds, or the moon, or gods or birds or wooly mammoths, or just scratching doodles

The fact that you interpret these drawings as spaceships doesn't make it so- nor does it mean that the people who drew them were drawing events from their life- people 10,000 years ago had just as much the ability to make shit up as they do today.

>>>A mechanical flying machine wasn't around AT ALL; if that was just a doodle, where did the idea of the doodle come from?

Where did the idea of the Matrix come from? Is the fact that the idea exists mean we are in the Matrix?

And again, I believe I asked this when you first presented this 'evidence' months ago- how do you know it was mechanical at all?

>>>We have tablets and biblical accounts of machines that weren't around.

.....which you, not the bible or biblical scholars, interpret to be aliens.

>>>that would be able to tell the difference ESPECIALLY when they seen these objects up close.

Again, why do you assume any random person off the street would be able to identify it something was made by humans or aliens? You can figure that out by looking at something 3 miles away?

>>>these similar drawing as on the cave walls have been seen in Egypt, and don't have a hieroglyphic meaning attached to them. as well as in South America.

Again with this?

dragons, giants, gnomes, sea monsters, yeti's, fairies and unicorns- all of these things have been "spotted" in different parts of the globe- does that mean they are also real?

>>>Sorry my schooling doesn't allow Wiki as a source, so I just can't do it...

Better to offer no source at all then, I suppose.

>>>Just because they aren't topped as empirical proof, doesn't mean they don't exist, or aren't valuable evidence that since the dawn of man kind some sort of unknown and unexplained flying objects have been in the skies...

And where else do you trust such proof? If you drop off a car to get the oil changed, and come back and the guy tells you an alien stole your car, and theres nothing they can do- will you accept their story, or would you need more evidence?

>>>that they are NO LONGER unexplained, because they remain unexplained.

......Although you are explaining them and their origin.....

>>>Hmmmm, good to know that they understand the concept of plausible, and someone is willing to shell out the 5 billion for the project.

Are you serious?

If they felt the way you do, they wouldn't be sending out a probe- they would be content in their knowledge that they were open-minded, and leave it at that. They are doing something far greater than just making shit up- they are attempting to prove it.

>>>However neither of us put down the others belief, nor do we find the need to convince the other of the illogicality of the others beliefs on plausibility.

Zipity Doo- I don't feel the need to challenge Frogo or stargazer when they say they agree with me on everything but the plausiblity of aliens, either.
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 446
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/4/2009 6:20:02 PM
Ohhh Willow, the fact that we think something is "plausible", seems to grate against what someone else wants to say is a fact... When in reality over and over it still is only a theory.

The arrogance, and nastiness of this thread has gotten to the point that if aliens did help in the DNA of man kind, it didn't do it for all beings, thus they simply have to argue for the sake of arguing...

Plausible doesn't say true, and that is what I have said through out my OWN posts... However some people just have to jab and jab, because of their lacking life I guess. ME, I have kids to raise, other projects to work on, schooling, community projects and the interest of seeing what else exists, and why.

That doesn't settle for some, meh like it really matters all that much.

I like your thoughts, because I too don't feel confined to what one person says is a FACT, unless of course I have to defend it in a court of law, that is a different story... We all know that facts and reality have relatively little to do with each other in law, so who says science is all that different... OHHHH they do... Meh what ever, my mind is free to travel the universe and ask more questions than what is a proven fact.

What I do kow is a fact, we are living on a planet in a solar system with a limited amount of human time, and planetary time... We keep abusing this place, just because we can and nature has a way of rebelling... Now that's a fact....
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 449
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/4/2009 8:42:40 PM
>>>Before that who knows, more than likely it was pure energy without form.

Define 'Pure Energy'

Sounds like people are pulling out the newage explainations again....

>>> All we really know is that it did.

Huh? You just said that we're not sure what the universe was before the universe existed- now you're saying you know what it is, and what it has done since then.

>>> If we are so narrow minded to think that all there is to infinity is a few beings, existing for this brief second, in this small corner of a vast universe, on in infinite plane, then we are truly in a sad way.

The universe doesn't have to justify itself to you, nor does it have to be a positive meaning if it does.

Nor is it narrow minded to base our conclusions based on actual observations, rather than grand sweeping assumptions to give crediblity to our preconceived conclusions.

>>>Why not.

Again? Really?

>>>Why would this energy form into the universe and then form into life (which by the way is pretty spectacular) and not spread the seeds of experience (life) throughout the cosmos.

You're trying to justify the universe- make it seem like there is a greater meaning by actually contradicting what we've observed about it. There is no reason to believe the universe exists for any reason- expecting it to exist solely for a purpose IS NARROWMINDED. Someone who is open minded would accept that the universe doesn't nessarily have to have a purpose.(not to mention this furthers my argument that you folks are creating a religion)

>>> This is only a few hundred years in a universe that is billions of years old, and who knows how many infinite numbers of universes existed before ours, and exist parallel to ours.

Again, claiming alien life must exist because the universe is big is like claiming mermaids must exist, because the oceans are big.

>>>It is plausible that a civilization at one time, perhaps eons ago, continued to advance its technology to the point where it were able to travel to other planets

And what about our understanding of phsyics makes you believe that is even possible? Isn't defying our understanding of science to support your claims without even venturing as to why is the wrong way to better understand the universe?

>>> All things are plausible in a universe were all matter is energy, an illusion.

And that really is your crutch, isn't it? Its Pippi Longstocking beliefs- Everything is possible, so long as you believe it to be true! Water can burn, Cars can explode into a million slugs, and houses can come alive and start fighting in the streets- you depend on absolutes for your coffee maker to work, for your heat to keep you warm, and for the words you type to have the meaning you believe they hold- but at the same time, claim anything is possible.

--------

>>>Plausible doesn't say true

No, it says it may be true- and that is simply not true- alot of your claims could not be plausible- I'm not simply saying they could not be true- I'm saying they couldn't even be maybe true.

>>>However some people just have to jab and jab, because of their lacking life I guess.

When you fail to be able to defend your beliefs, you resort to personal attacks, eh?

>>>because I too don't feel confined to what one person says is a FACT

Exactly- you feel a sense of accomplishment by sticking it to the man- to not falling into line, and coming up with your own conclusions- but that doesn't make what you say true, or even maybe true. The rewarding feeling you get from making shit up isn't a greater understanding of the universe no more than the rewarding feeling scientoglists get when they get an audit.

---------

>>>perhaps contact was made 2012 years ago before organized religion came to be ?

Ha! By 0BC, there had been over twenty eygptian dynasties- you think organized religion is bad now, imagine religions that own millions of slaves.....

>>>I do feel blessed to be witness to these times

Exactly why I do not believe in 2012 being some spectaular event- because the people who believe it in see it as a means to skip ahead thousands of years, unearned and unlearned. I am excited for 2012, but only for it to pass by without a hitch, and watch people scramble to find the next random number for an amazing event to occur....
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 455
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/4/2009 10:50:36 PM
>>>Actually that is not true at all! The probability of their being intelligent life beyond ours in the universe as calculated by some scientists is significant. Look up the stats!

Well, lets look at the stats for mermaids- life theorically originated from the oceans- so it would make sense that a more advanced life came from the oceans first- equally, there is a greater diversity of life in the oceans, and a far greater portion of our planet is underwater- plus, we've barely begun to scratch the surface of....beneath...the surface of the ocean(wow....bad analogy...)

In all plausiblity, it should be more likely that we should find intelligent life in our oceans- plausiblity clearly isn't always right.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 460
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 8:55:59 AM
LOL- does anyone else find it childish to argue about whether or not my analogies are apt?

But my analogy isn't that he universe is to oceans as mermiads are to humans- I'm using mermaids as an example that, if we are to simply assume that if something is larger, and has been around longer, that intelligent life isn't more likely. If that were true, then yes, we would find intelligent life in our oceans- the fact that we don't should bring serious doubt to the assumption.

>>>that is NOT to say that scientists believe that there is little possiblity of intelligent life beyond human beings on Earth.

I'm not interested in regurgitating what other people believe- this is what I believe, and I base it solely on the evidence we've achieved. I say the science is on my side because any assumption that there is life out there without evidence is exactly that- an assumption- I do base my beliefs on a scientific basis, but I do not reach conclusions without evidence.

Meanwhile, other people are making claims that are completely contradicted by the evidence- thats what I mean when I say the science is on my side- although my opinion isn't agreed upon by all scientists, it still uses the scientific method- other users on this fourm do not, and many of them admit their beliefs have no scientific background.

>>> There IS intelligent life in the oceans for crying out loud...and...lest it be forgotten...that's where WE came from.

Huh?

I mean, there is certainly a level of intelligence of the life in the ocean, yes, but not on the level of the Homo genus- thats just a broad interpretation, claiming all life is intelligent life since we came from those previous life forms.

----

>>> actually water can burn, to my great surprise! and it's very simple to do.

LMAO! Alright, I'll admit that was a stupid comment on my part.....
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 463
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 1:41:05 PM
>>>I mean COME ON...that doesn't even make sense...I don't care what scientists say...but my views are scientific because they are my views!

I didn't say anything even remotely like that- I'm not saying its scientific because they are my views- I'm saying I use science to reach my conclusions. Some scientists agree, others disagree- you cannot find a single branch of science where there is some debate over how to interpret the facts, so the mere fact that "other people believe it, so it must be true" isn't really an issue. I use an objective way to reach my conclusions, demanding scientific evidence in order to verify peoples hypothesises.

>>>so since intelligent life (humans) do exist in this large pond, you've defeated your own analogy before you start!

But that doesn't make any sense- your evidence that life must exist on other planets then would literally be that life exists here, and thus it must elsewhere- that since humans exist, so must aliens, and anything else is an illogical conclusion.

But, like I said, childish- so whatever
 Bluesman2008
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 465
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 3:47:39 PM
He keeps yelling the same mantra over and over and over again - science. Yet I have yet to hear exactly what his scientific credentials are. What scientific degrees does he have? What's his scientific field of study? Or does he just deliver pizzas for a living and blow smoke on everyone else in his spare time? Curious minds want to know.
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 466
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 4:19:33 PM
Bluesman, that was my question too....

It has been stated by others, and my self asking where his authoritative credentials are, because he seems to think he is the voice of all logical reason. I guess the week doses of pot have gotten him into a grandiose stupor of thinking.

I agree with Kirk, that there are things that scientists can't touch and see up close these things thus they have to use what they think is reasonable, mathematical methods for their scientific explanation.

Kirk, I am well aware you are NOT arguing for the issue but rather for actual logic.

Those who argue for do it based on our own logical conclusion, as well as plausibility. It isn't a matter to us of being right or wrong, but rather seeing things that lead us to believe that their is a plausibility of this being an option.

We have our own information that is considered scientific experts, and are considered experts in the field UFology. Not one of us have said we know for a fact that their was intervention, however we know for a fact that people, and we have experienced things that are unexplained. It is not misunderstood sightings, because those responsible for radar, and making sure that there are or aren't planes in the air space have said, no planes, or military in the area.

IT IS annoying to have someone that doesn't state what his credentials are, states he knows these things he is saying are a scientific fact. Glad you can point this out, and make a point of probabilities, this is your field of expertise..

Me, I have science knowledge of the human body, and am currently studying legal studies, which requires a certain amount of proof, to absolute proof. As a medical professional, the dr's all practiced medicine, which is an accurate term.

My point is this, some of us want to be able to voice our own opinions without someone that feels the need to tell us what is real, and want isn't... In one of his last post to me he repeated calling me a liar, and making up stories...

The same guy NOW that wants to bring mermaids into the equation, but then not be able to define the fact he isn't using reality as scientific proof of something.

I haven't seen scientific proof in anything he has to state, and he brings Wiki in... As a legal studies student, Wiki is NOT used at all as a primary, or secondary source, and some of the information he has used, states it hasn't been cited for accuracy.

While most of the rest of us have pulled up information that is a primary source, or physical evidence during a time where there were no mechanical flying objects that were man made.

Repeatedly we have not stated this is PROOF, but rather what gives us reason to believe it is PLAUSIBLE... As well we have explored other options, because they connect to questions that have been brought into this thread, which each of us have felt like we can benefit from learning from these sources.

It is good to see someone that wants to directly address what the rest of us have reached a point of ignoring, simply because this guy feels he has claimed this thread as his own..

I still have a lot of questions about the interpretation of the Sumarian tablets... They exist, and whether they mean one thing, or another, I personally would like to know who has translated them accurately...
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 469
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 6:41:59 PM
Oh dance you didn't type that did you. LOL

This is the subject that started this whole thread. It is a theory about Sumerian Tablets, that a fellow named Stitchin translated, I know it goes back to post one.

The theory is that these tablets state that aliens came along and interacted with the humans, and mated with them.. Which is one of the theories, another is that they helped man kind become intelligent, and more like them.

LBP, there is also a book called " The Gods of Eden", if you are interested in a interesting read on the authors belief of the infiltrate of aliens.

He has gone through a lot of research and the trouble of looking things up as much as he can through government documents. It also talks about secret societies, and the like, which is also interesting read.

I always say this is a subject that is difficult to get a primary source, especially when the subject is inflammatory, and based a lot on witness testimony and hidden cover ups with threats, that leave people in speculation.

I still find it a subject worth pursuing, and keep an eye out for viable information, and being willing to ask more questions than one set of scientists say. I also don't think anyone should feel bad for being wrong, or having an opinion that hasn't been proven yet.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 470
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 7:30:42 PM

At the same time I don't see any of you PROVING your own theory.

As pointed out before, and again, we do not have the burden of proof. The evidence is part and parcel of the world we live in, the machines we use. Laws of physics and chemistry work reliably and allow all these things to work. The same laws refute the claims made of aliens. When you contradict reality, it's entirely up to you to demonstrate why and how you could possibly be right.

Any one of you archeologist?

I don't think so, though I believe fiddler to have a strong background in history. I have a good background in anthropology and archaeology, with a recommendation for the same. Interestingly, and ironically, a friend of mine from college also filled in as an archaeology prof in university. Her name is Persis Clarkson. You may be lucky enough to find an archaeology textbook with a photo of her standing next to another friend of hers...Erich von Danniken! Don't know where I put THAT textbook, but “The Human Career”, by Richard Klein is handy, as is Scientific American, January 2009 issue. I continue to acquire and read about human evolution and archaeology, and have a pretty good grasp of the evidence and theories.

Frog, I know you research amphibians, I will give you that as at least in the science field, and understanding scientific process...About frogs


The scientific method is the scientific method, period. You'd be very lucky to find even one course of study on amphibians - it's the specific kind of field you pursue AFTER you learn the methods of science and are introduced to an array of related and unrelated fields. Including:
Embryology
Botany [was employed to help teach botany, and to manage a botanical collection]
Histology
Zoology
Vertebrate zoology
Invertebrate zoology [was employed to manage an entomological collection]
Microbiology
Biochemistry
Biostatistics
Physics
Organic chemistry [received an A based on original research which extended well beyond the end of the course]
Inorganic chemistry
Archaeology [various]
Anthropology [various - received a recommendation for the field]
Vertebrate paleontology
Psychology
Genetics

So...my specialty may be frogs...but my background is diverse and firmly grounded in science and the scientific method, with a significant underpinning in anthropology and archaeology. If that isn't enough, I'm pretty good at reading, interpretting, and writing law. That doesn't come from a study of “law” per se, but from study of science, language and linguistics [another minor hobby], and specific legislation.

When you say “...About frogs”, you are commiting a couple more fallacies. You are suggesting that 1) the field of study is irrelevant, and 2) that the value of my input is therefore questionable. Hopefully you can see from above, why argument on the basis of fallacy fails:
In this case, the field of study may not be directly relevant, but it actually provides a lot of parallel evidence, and the background training required is largely the same as that required in many directly-related fields.
Second, the assumption that a stated interest on one field precludes me from qualifications in another...is clearly and abundantly WRONG.

Fallacy is a poor basis for an argument, and 99% of the argument in favor of aliens is securely founded on fallacy.


large ocean is supposed to represent universe OKAY?

mermaids are supposed to represent intelligent life OKAY?

Not quite. See below:


this was your analogy...and you're right it fails in every direction because it is a bad analogy

The analogy is fine. A fantasy creature in the ocean with no actual evidence - but the ocean is big and we're barely exploring it, so the fantasy creature could be there.

A fantasy creature in space with no actual evidence - but space is big and we're barely exploring it, so the fantasy creature could be there.

Intelligence of that creature is never relevant, since in neither case is there any evidence for the creature, and in both cases it's an appeal to ignorance.


Moreover, given the vastness, age and so on of the universe, many scientists argue that the likelihood of our planet being the ONLY one in the history of the universe to have been capable of supporting intelligent is very, very, very, very remote...i.e. the reverse is far more likely!

I agree, as I've said at least once. However, this is a matter of how much subjective value one places on particular sets of evidence. The evidence is the same, but it is always open to a certain amount of subjective interpretation. What it comes down to is that some feel, based on life known ONLY here, that life is unlikely to come about, period. And some of us feel, based on the broad adaptability of the life we know, the nature of chemistry, and the abundance of building blocks, that life is more or less inevitable.

What scientific degrees does he have? What's his scientific field of study?

Irrelevant. Anyone may use logic and the scientific method, and most people do to some degree. It is simply more likely that a “scientist” will use these methods more frequently and consistantly. Then there's Dwayne Gish. Scientists can be as irrational as anyone else, and non-scientists can be just as scientific and rational as the most distinguished grant-recipient. Jiperly's arguments blow yours out of the water, even if his approach is a bit acerbic at times.

It has been stated by others, and my self asking where his authoritative credentials are, because he seems to think he is the voice of all logical reason

And to rephrase - you don't need credentials to be logical or rational, or employ the scientific method. The question is irrelevant.

Those who argue for do it based on our own logical conclusion, as well as plausibility

It's really only plausible if you ignore the actual logic and evidence, all of which are strongly against the idea. Zero evidence and many fallacies argue for aliens, abundant evidence and the scientific method argue for terrestrial origin without outside influences. Combine them and the plausability is pretty much gone.

We have our own information that is considered scientific experts, and are considered experts in the field UFology

When your basic arguments and assumptions are fallacy, you cannot be considered a “scientific” expert, no matter how many people say so. That compounds the original fallacies with the appeal to popularity fallacy and the appeal to authority fallacy.

I haven't seen scientific proof in anything he has to state

He's not suffering the burden of proof. Claimants for aliens are, and they haven't provided any proof - only fallacies and assumptions. Proof of terrestrial evolution is, pardon the pun, astronomical, and so is evidence applying to the nature of space and the solar system.


and he brings Wiki in... As a legal studies student, Wiki is NOT used at all as a primary, or secondary source, and some of the information he has used, states it hasn't been cited for accuracy

Unimportant in this case. If you were discussing particle physics or systematics of Poaceae, primary sources would be important. That's not the discussion here. Wiki will do just fine to define basic terms and criteria, and it will provide more than enough background for a topic in which one side argues from a position with zero primary sources, and the other argues from a position with literally millions of synergistic sources. Primary sources in this case would be mostly too specific to adequately address a fairly broad subject.

While most of the rest of us have pulled up information that is a primary source, or physical evidence during a time where there were no mechanical flying objects that were man made.

Man has always dreamt of the “freedom” of flight. He has fantasized about it and written fantastic stories about it. When he has seen things ANYwhere which he was unfamiliar with, he's invented explanations. Now is no different. These “primary sources” do not provide any proof of flying machines, they do not clearly identify anything which can be shown to be a mechanical flying device, they offer no proof, no rigorous or logical analysis, nothing to test. As “primary sources” go, these are pretty close to the brothers Grimm.

which each of us have felt like we can benefit from learning from these sources

As long as you don't “learn” facts from sources which don't actually have any evidence or logic to support them. Not to say you can't gain insight or ideas from them; just don't make the mistake of confusing a tantalizing story with a rational interpretation.

I still have a lot of questions about the interpretation of the Sumarian tablets... They exist, and whether they mean one thing, or another, I personally would like to know who has translated them accurately

Already provided. The Sumerians and the ancient Greeks. They created fairly detailed bilingual dictionaries. Somehow, Sitchin manages to contradict those who actually spoke and wrote the language.

Here is one particulary good source:
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/index.html

It's difficult to get a primary reference on this subject because there ARE none. There are two reasons for this. One is, it's damned hard to research anything for which there is no tangible evidence. Second, when you DO research things for which there is no evidence, anything you offer up for critique is going to be poked full of holes in ten seconds flat. That only leaves arguments based on fallacies and assumptions, and those will only appeal to an uncritical audience [ie., preaching to the converted].

I'm sure I've missed a few points, though doubtless they've all been addressed several times already anyway.
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 471
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 8:17:27 PM
Frog eyes, ACTUALLY I have much respect in the fact that you DO study amphibians, which I was NOT making a comment as it being less than a minor study... Those of us who live in the Willamette valley are very aware because of frogs that we are poisoning the crap out of our environment... There was never slight meant against you in the least.


<div class="quote">
He's not suffering the burden of proof. Claimants for aliens are, and they haven't provided any proof - this is where you and I disagree, he is making claims of evolution, without providing proof. For those of us that are here to learn, we want primary sources to analyze, not some secondary source that has many areas left uncited from wiki.

Coming from a scientific position, you want proof and you have the ability to go out and research for proof. Those of us that are interesting in separating fact from fiction, want these primary source... I like you, can decipher the meaning of anthropology, because I worked in the medical field, that required P and A, biology, cell biology, and physics limited to X radiation As well have always had an interest in the field, because I was an amphibian buff in my young days as well as a dinosaur buff.

Erich von Danniken, I am actually familiar with his work, thanks I will recheck his stuff out, I think I have an article or two of his floating around my computer some where. Chariot's of the Gods, yes???

Frog, the point is this, it is one thing to attack anothers beliefs, you may find him delightfully insightful, and from time to time when he isn't either high on himself, or what have you, he does have some good insight, that makes logical sense.

In debate it is to persuade a person to your side, NOT to put the other people so far off that they no longer are interested in what you have to say. Since he has gone on rude, and arrogant tangents, people no longer want to listen. Which doesn't speak well for him as a person who wants people to listen to him as someone with knowledge.

You may appreciate what he says because it is in agreement with what you believe to be true. However for us who think there are plausible explanations beyond what has been presented, we would just like to be respected for having views, and reasons for them.

We don't call them facts, but observations worth looking in to, and paying attention to what has been presented from the past.

I don't care who a scientist is, they can't say they have the past 4.5 billion years of earths existence all figured out, because there is way to much to understand, and research for any one person to know. There may be a group who also agrees with this scientist, but once again that doesn't mean they know everything that possibly happened.

I can go back to medicine. I have watched many dr's stumbling over their own knowledge with a patient that they are having a hard time treating. There is a LOT of misdiagnosis, and doses that are incorrect, or meds that do more damage than good.

From this point of view, I find there is a heck of a lot more to this world that we don't know, and that we have a long ways to go. If that means I believe in something you want to label a fallacy, I am ok with it, because I am not saying this is a fact, but rather something plausible.

Oh my gosh I have repeated this to redundancy... I find nothing wrong with being a visionary. I am NOT on the roof tops, or teaching a class, nor am I pretending to be an expert of anything... I am just willing to stand my ground and others, when someone wants to belittle or twist what I and others think into something that wasn't said.

If this is supposed to make me concede that I am incorrect in believing there is a plausibility of aliens, and them making earth contact... NO, I am not going to do that, because scientific proof or not, I still consider it a possibility. As dance said, sometimes that is how the tools get created.

Which is why their is a college that is sending up their own satellite to try and locate planets like our own. As I stated when I posted this before, obviously others that ARE educated in the scientific field are willing to continue to look for proof.

ME, I can't, not in my realm of studies...

Thanks frog for trying to hit all points... As I said absolutely NO disrespect which is why I said YOU have knowledge on the scientific process.

vvvvBill Brysons A Short History of Nearly Everything- How funny I have that book too... Bryson has a couple books out there... Jip if you want people to take you serious, and to hear your point of view, be respectful... Other wise people just get annoyed and then ignore you... If you just want to argue for the sake of arguing well that is your choice...vvvvv
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 472
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 8:27:33 PM
Awesome. I was abstaining from posting once they started arguing more against me than for their beliefs- clearly I cannot seem to get anymore answers from this crowd than snarls about how I'm wrong simply because they know it by some intangible means.

And to answer your question folks- I graduated high school, and have shown alot of interest in science privately- I have no actual training outside of high school, although I've read various books with the intention of dumbing down science for others to better understand it(like Bill Brysons A Short History of Nearly Everything- excellent book), and my career has nothing to do with science(I've worked everything from Cashier to Telemarketer to Line Cook to Factory Worker)

And I do not see how that changes anything I've said in the last 20 pages.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 473
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 8:28:31 PM
If you wish to bypass the above site, you can translate hundreds of thousands of Sumerian tablets yourself. Dictionaries, translations, and images of the tablets can be found here:
http://cdli.ucla.edu/?section=education
I would recommend looking under education: writing and language: Sumerian

This site offers an interesting perspective, while also pointing out what's wrong with Sitchin's views:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/esp_sitchin_21.htm

[and I'm rather fond of the Willamette Valley, though I really prefer the Gorge or points west]


<div class='quote'>I find nothing wrong with being a visionary
No, not at all - but a visionary won't defy reality. So, for instance, if one argued that we're going to be destroyed by the return of Niburu in 2012...one would NOT be a visionary. Why not? Because an object matching what is claimed of Nibiru would provide a lot of evidence, and there is none.

Where evolution of human life is concerned, I refer back to my comments on the wealth of evidence. If one is inclined to dispute it, a handful of papers isn't going to convince. Each of the eight species of Homo required at least one paper to describe and distinguish. Each fossil find is typically accompanied by a paper. Discussions of anatomical studies and genetic studies add up to another stack of papers. Comparisons with Kenyanthropus, Sahelopithecus, Zinjanthropus, Paranthropus, Australopithecus...all lead to many more papers, and in fact books. Add to these studies on the geology of the region, papers on the 3 million year history of H.erectus and his tools, papers on the methods of dating, papers on comparative flora and fauna over time and geography...ALL of these are relevant. Just which do you think should be included? There are MILLIONS of such sources. They occupy journals dedicated to such specific topics as the evolution of human mitochondrial DNA! To ask for such sources is more or less to close the eyes and simply deny they exist. Do you see our point? The evidence is too vast and interconnected to simply cherry-pick a couple as "proof".


(I've worked everything from Cashier to Telemarketer to Line Cook to Factory Worker)

And I do not see how that changes anything I've said in the last 20 pages.

Ditto, verbatim, but add the scientific background.
 Soul Union
Joined: 6/9/2007
Msg: 474
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 8:29:36 PM
This is the subject that started this whole thread. It is a theory about Sumerian Tablets, that a fellow named Stitchin translated, I know it goes back to post one.

The theory is that these tablets state that aliens came along and interacted with the humans, and mated with them.. Which is one of the theories, another is that they helped man kind become intelligent, and more like them. ~ nexthyme


I thought it might be helpful to mention a book called Nephilim Stargates: The Year 2012 and the Return of the Watchers, by Thomas Horn.

Here is an editorial review of this book:

One myth from the history of every great civilization spoke of beings descending from heaven and using human and animal DNA to create giant offspring. Rabbinical authorities, Septuagint translators and early Church fathers understood this as a factual record of history. The phenomenon began with the Watchers, who spawned Nephilim, resulting in judgment from God. The ancients also knew Bible passages that predict the Nephilim will return when Iraq and Iran are invaded and destroyed. Is this prophecy about to be fulfilled? Is man, in his rush to play God through biological weapons, biotechnology, and genetic manipulation, opening gateways to a supernatural unknown? Nephilim Stargates and the Return of the Watchers is a glimpse into this past, present, and future phenomena, with an eye on what sages and scientists believe and what futurists and prophets may fear. Thomas Horn is CEO of Raiders News Network, a syndicated columnist, and the bestselling author of The Ahriman Gate. He has written two other books as well as dozens of published editorials and magazine articles. His works have been referred to by writers of the LA Times Syndicate, MSNBC, Christianity Today, Coast to Coast, World Net Daily, and White House Correspondents. Thomas resides outside Portland, Oregon.

And here is just one reader's comments after reading this book:

SwampFox:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - From Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)

Over the last 100 years, it has been well documented that there are things happening in our world that just cannot be explained. Actually, it has been going on much longer than 100 years - in reality, since the beginning of time itself.

Conventional science has maintained, and would have us to believe, that nothing is going on - other than over-active imaginations or those suffering from severe cases of ADD. However, there are just too many witnesses and sources that have verified that many of these are real occurrences. The many sightings of UFOs, otherworldly beings and strange creatures by reliable witnesses have really happened. But, if they're real, what are they?

Some would have us to believe that these beings and those controlling the unidentified objects are simply benevolent beings who only wish to help humanity. But is that the case? Or, is it all part of a grand scheme of deception?

In his new book, Nephilim Stargates: The Year 2012 and the Return of the Watchers, Tom Horn delivers a wealth of research and information, both historical and current, that these are not benevolent creatures from another galaxy. Rather, they are ancient, evil beings from the spiritual dimension.

Tom Horn holds no punches in describing what he believes, in light of the Bible, are the plans of these beings. There are no flights of fancy here, only vividly frightening nightmares that few wish to accept as being real. We have a hard time comprehending how evil, evil really is. So, instead of accepting the truth, we tend to dismiss it out of hand. But, it's hard to dismiss what is actually taking place when it is placed directly in front of you as it is here.

No one can deny that current events are rapidly leading us to an extraordinary and potentially cataclysmic event. And, if Tom Horn is right, then surely we are living in the Last Days as described in the Word of God.

_______

Personally, I believe we have reached some kind of critical mass, call it End Times, call it Armageddon, call it what you will. Something big is happening right under our noses, but because it is right under our noses, we cannot see it. There are too many distractions with which to feed the masses today. Take The Simpsons, for example - that highly dysfunctional family, with the swearing, foul-mouthed, lying, dishonest, loud-mouthed, gun-toting Homer Simpson at the head. Agreed, it is only a cartoon, but how many people know the 'brains' behind this phenomenally successful programme? And how many people know why it was created? Believe me when I tell you it was not created for our benefit.

I read somewhere - I can't remember which book - that the US Government has succeeded in opening some kind of 'wormhole' in Time and Space, something that should never have been allowed to happen. I read, too, that this 'rip' in the cosmic curtain has created a 'hole,' through which some of the most hideous entities are now flooding into our world. I cannot recall the name of the book, it may have been in connection with the USS Eldridge, a ship that was 'transported' through Time and Space, to relocate in another part of the USA, killing many sailors and injuring many others in the process.

As the Amazon reviewer of the above book points out: "There are more things in heaven and earth . . . "

~ Peter
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 475
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 8:44:12 PM
I live at the Mouth of the Gorge on the Washington side... However have lived up and down and back up the Valley, as well as out in the west end of the Gorge.

Beautiful to be surrounded by the ring of fire we have out here.

Thanks I actually have read these sites in researching this subject. I am still mixed in my belief, and as Soul Union has stated, there is with good reason...
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 476
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 9:00:09 PM
Off the top of my head, I'm thinking...Camas? I'm in the area every July for the dog show...I generally ditch the show so I can hunt critters, though of late, I've been roped into planning a potluck dinner from 1000 miles away!

The book noted above is one of many which actually hinge back upon false sources: Sitchin - who ignores ancient Sumerian lexicons and translates things as he wishes them to be.
von Danniken - who doesn't actually believe his own writings [hearsay, I know, but I'm close enough to the source to be comfortable repeating it].
and another whose name I forget, and who preceded von Danniken - and who lied about his sources.

This is a distinctive case of a fantasy which SOUNDS appealing, but ultimately depends upon false claims. If you have no apples, you cannot possibly make apple pie. Smells nice, tastes good, but it isn't what it's made out to be.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 477
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 9:04:37 PM
>>>he is making claims of evolution, without providing proof.

I don't recall you ever challenging my statements about evolution. Regardless, I doubt I would have responded if you did, because I have a greater interest in seeing this thread survive, and there are plenty of other topics going ad nausm over evolution(at least 3 others by my count)

>>>we want primary sources to analyze, not some secondary source that has many areas left uncited from wiki.

You see, I still don't get all this sudden outrage over Wikipedia- the only article I've linked to from Wiki in the last week, maybe month is to explain the methods on how to identify psuedoscience - it was to indentify something, and by no means is an absolute fact- there is n0 such thing as a "primary" source to identify psuedoscience- I could have just as easily turned to Ask.com.

>>>Frog, the point is this, it is one thing to attack anothers beliefs

Attack? Get down from your cruxifix- this isn't a support group, its a debate- if you do not want your beliefs challenged, then don't go out of your way to assert your beliefs in a debate setting.

>>>However for us who think there are plausible explanations beyond what has been presented, we would just like to be respected for having views, and reasons for them.

But I believe those reasons and the methods you reach your conclusions to be faulty, and wrong! If you are begging for respect, why do you not respect my choice to believe your methods are wrong? Aren't you doing the exact same thing you claim I am doing- refusing to consider the possiblity that your methods are faulty?

>>>We don't call them facts, but observations worth looking in to

And what kind of study can there be from the examples you present? That there are cave paintings that can be interpreted to have several meanings, one of which could support your beliefs, and there are strange lights in the sky witnessed from time to time? How does one study those?

>>>they can't say they have the past 4.5 billion years of earths existence all figured out

No one said they did- but that doesn't mean we are incapible of reaching conclusions based on the information we have achieved. Again, you're arguing that we must have omniscience before we claim to understand anything thing about the universe.

>>Bill Brysons A Short History of Nearly Everything- How funny I have that book too

It really is an excellent book- I'm also listening to an audio book called "Physics of the Impossible", which addresses several theorical ideas, but I'm having trouble getting into it- I prefer to read, and hte sitting around listening to audiobooks- but my friend downloaded it and passed it along to me, and there's just been so many good video games lately that I have barely touched it...
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 480
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/5/2009 9:56:29 PM
Washougal, but very good...

I used to live in Scappoose on the other end of the gorge, Or side, way better view of the mountains, and the critters come into town all the time. Lived in an area that had the south fork of the River run past, swamp land that I turn part of the land into a garden, critters really loved that.

Jip, what you have missed from my repeated distaste of the use wiki, is that it is not a primary source, and if you remember back way back, you would know you didn't answer when I challenged you asking for your primary sources...

As for finding fault, there is no need to look very far, because I am stating an opinion. I have what I know to be questionable sources, and also know that I don't have the ability to research the subject, like it scientifically should be. So there is no need to challenge my belief, it isn't religion which you want to accuse me of, which is offensive to someone who doesn't believe in organized religion.

It is a subjective belief, which means I don't mind someone telling me with respect there are other options... Hell I am fully aware of them, at the same time I also know there is something that is missing, that is why it falls under STILL unexplained.. I find the whole subject interesting as I watch people trying to find proof. I also find it interesting that people have seen things and experience things, and there are a lot of trouble with the government covering things up.

If it is government secrets, then the American people who are financing these secrets want to know what they are. Do they really need so many secret weapons?

Jip there are a lot of things people want to understand, and try to put meaning to these things what ever way they can. Sometimes some things make sense to some people, and then these same things don't to others.

Why try to keep this thread going if you don't believe in any of it???
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 484
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/6/2009 9:30:16 AM
Serious contenders yes, but masters of their own environment none the less.

I have seen Killer whale while in a boat, and have watched as they passed under and around with great care. The 21 ft boat we were in would be nothing to smash to pieces but they don't, it just isn't in their interest to do so.

Shark aren't known for their interest in killing humans for the most part, in fact most wild creatures prefer to avoid humans, once again for the most part. They don't see humans as food when they have other choices, however when their choices have become limited then humans will do.

That gives me pause to wonder why humans are so separate from wild creatures that they only see us as a dangerous threat, but not much as part of the food chain.

Giant squid carcasses have washed on shore, so we do know they are out there.
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 487
view profile
History
Humans created by Aliens: Plausible theory?
Posted: 3/6/2009 11:31:34 PM
Dance for so many na sayers, it is very interesting they are launching a new telescope to look for life. There are a group of scientist that are willing to believe, and NASA is involved in it, its the Kepler spacecraft, which is supposed to give us news by 2013, hmmm maybe it will be to late?

If there were no life to look for, or the possibility then why launch a huge bundle of money?? After all couldn't that money be so much better spent bailing something out on earth?

Are we that bored of a species, that during an economy crises, we still have a need to look for something that several on this thread says doesn't exist?

Ahhhhh tells me people that are smarter than I, and many on here still believe, and even in an economic collapse want to see what is out in that vast milkyway which is just our own glaxy, not even not even out further into the universe.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >