Seeker's topic got me thinking about how many of us believe in the possibility of life as we know it, started someplace else. This could be achieved in one or two ways. We may have been delivered by a comet or meteor, asteroids and such or we arrived her by intelligent means of one kind or another. A capsule could have been sent here or interstellar craft manned by extaterrestrial beings. Scientist tend to disbelieve this because they state 'they do not have that type of transportation of intersteller travel and it would take (insert number here) years to get here. This is absurd. I can't believe that 'Scientist" can''t concieve of the idea that they would have to be far more advanced and think in terms of our reality as we see it at this point in time. Geez, talk about thinking inside the box.

To me, this is very possible. Religions can't convince me that there is a single or for that matter multiple supernatural 'creaters' that pretty much 'zapped' us into being. It is known now that humans share many of DNA attibutes as other animals and Dawin may have had the right idea as far as evolution but is far away from the real answer. It could simply mean that we may have been manipulated and gives a whole new meaning to "we are all brothers and sisters under the skin"

For example, the chimp share about 99 percent of the same DNA that humans do. But so do a lot of animals far away from humans like lizards.

A number of ancient drawings in Egypt, peru etc show the possibilty of being visted, the multiple sightings that ordenary people and professional astronouts have seen alien craft and arbitrarily dismissed as fantasy.

So, do you think it's possible that we could have come from extraterrestrial life? And maybe they simply look in on us from time to time

I read (years and years and years ago now) a great story which suggested that an alien race had developed a symbiotic relationship with humans, and had developed human intelligence for it's own ends. Your post got me thinking about it again...

Personally, I don't think that humans are the result of alien intervention in the way that you describe. However, I can see a case for alien's teaching us, and/or acting as deity figures, or existing in different dimensions/planes of existence. I'm not sure I'm convinced by this case, but I'm happy to examine it.

Maybe "life" was seeded from elsewhere, but that only moves the question of how life started to a different location rather than answering the fundamental question.

In this kind of subject about the only thing I can say is that I don't know... Helpful, arn't I?

Well, the trouble with interstellar space travel is a basic physics problem. The NEAREST star to us is Alpha Proxima (or Proxima Centari). At the speed of light it would 4 1/2 years to travel that distance.. And that is just to the closest star.. This area of space is pretty sparse and stars are few and far inbetween. And the trouble is also light-speed. According to Einstien's theories, as your speed approaches light speed you need more and more energy to keep speeding you up.. . The end result is you need an infinite amount of energy to reach light speed, therefore it is impossible - those scientists aren't just thinking inside the box, they are bound by what the laws of physics show must be the case. Now, that doesn't mean interstellar travel is out... I have read scientific articles on things like folding space and hyperspace (for example, 2 places might be very far away in normal space, but very close in hyperspace).. Maybe there are possibilities, just not under normal physics. Some ideas for example require the existence of something in physics theory called "Exotic Matter". The idea of the possibility of exotic matter has been around for many years ( I remember first reading about it in a magaizine at my high school about 23 years ago). Trouble is, physicists haven't been able to prove it really exists, and if it does, we have no idea how to make it... But, who knows, maybe somewhere there is a race who does know about it an can make it and has solved the problem...

Regards,
Seeker

Scientist are tied to the known physics and perhaps quantum physics later on will show the capability of space travel. I am aware that stars/planets are quite far away but in the 1940's the internet and space travel was relegated to the relm of science fiction. Which many scientist are relegating the possiblity of alien space travel. Yet considering the number of credible professional people, including Major Gordon Cooper who aledgedly saw a UFO in 1963 during the Mercuery mission and at the UN delivered a speech saying he believed in extraterrestials. Astronauts Buzz Aldin and Neil Armstrong said there were alian bases on the moon telling some that they in no way wanted us there in 1969. I don't think we should arbitrarly dismiss these reports. There is no evidence that these people took LSD or were hypnotised, crazy or anything else. It wasn't one astronaut it was several. And it wasn't just astronauts that have seen ufo's but test pilots and commercial pilots as well.
Perhaps the aliens have a different type of propulsion system that we haven't even thought about yet.

It's like saying that if we don't know about it, it doesn't exist.

oh gods! here we go again.

I'm sorry but this whole Origins of Man debate seems pointless to me. Show me some evidence of these alternative theories, wheres all the little green (or grey) men? Until i get a proper answer i'll stick with Darwin. The theory is sound, there is evidence to back it up and we can see it for ourselves in nature. I cannot see any reason to think that this planet was singled out for special attention from some alien/god, i think people have an ego problem.

I find it infuriating at times that people cannot except Darwins theory even after almost a 100yrs. I have heard so many people turn it down for the simple reason that they feel insulted when told they are decended from apes. why? Or the Xtians Intelligent Design theory, what a load of poo.

I find it much more amazing and wonderful that the universe and life itself can begin, change and adapt 'Without' intelligent interference. I think the main reason is that many people do not really understand how it works, so think of it as something of supernatural nature.

*gets off soapbox grumbling*

Nightcelt

I do believe in other forms of life i.e aliens etc.Not sure whether I can agree with them "making" us. Like Nightcelt I believe the Univese is more than capeable of creating what it does without some "superior" race having to do any of the work.

Thats all I will say for now currently fighting my one year old for control over the keyboard!

I will say that i do believe in aliens or beings from other planets. I just don't think they are here yet. or find us so primitive that they haven't bothered with us. It is theoretically possible that life started on other planets as this i one HUGE universe, also they will probably be more intelligent and more technologicaly advanced than us.

Have they even been there?

Well, there is Darwin whose theory is interesting but yet just a theory with a few flaws in it. It is known that we have evolved but the decendents from apes is a bit far fetched considering there are still apes around and the fact that, as I said before, many animals including some lizards have the same dna as we do. So do we now say that we could also be decendents from lizards as well or do we start looking for different answers. And why do you think that Darwin and evolution cancels out the idea we were seeded? And the assumption that Earth is the only one were we were seeded? Considering the number of heavenly bodies and I can almost guarantee you, more planets in this solar system and others do you not consider the possibility that life, possible different from us but life just the same can exist?

We already know or at least there's a good possibilty that Mars at one time had liquid water and where there's water, there's life. Along with one of Saturn's moon which has another possible ancient sea.

We don't know all there is to know on Earth and very very little about space, time, the universe and other planets.

That is called bad science Deebs.


Bad Science

to you too!

nope same answers.

1) I think we first need to look at the timeline for life on earth. Life began 3.5 billion yrs ago. thats a long time for life to evolve into its present state.

2) Ok, the ape problem. There is fossil evidence to track our evolution from an 'ape' like creature. That is fact. As you have stated there is 99% dna match to us. Apes also display characteristics which are extremely similar to human behaviour. We have a similar bodytype... etc.

3) We are simply descended from the better designed ape.

4) Again with 3.5 billion yrs to evolve without fresh dna from off-world the worlds life is going to share silimar dna markers, because it is simply from Earth. We all started off from the same primevial soup.

5) if you want to be technical, then yes we could be descended from lizards, specifically dinosaurs.




because there isn't a shred of real evidence to support it. sorry



I believe there is life out there i just think they either don't know about us or don't care. Really the question is about them interfering in our development, to which i again answer where are they and wheres the evidence to show that we have been interefered with. As too humans being on other planets... i think someones been watching to much Stargate.



We'll find out when we get there, but i hope they do find life there. But i don't think it has anything to do with Earth.



True. But we work with what evidence we can see or prove to learn more.

Apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46 and they share similar characteristics.........So did the Neanderthals yet they died out some years after Cro Magnan man appeared. This may have ended the Ape connection. Besides, virtually identical is not necessarily translate into perfectly identical. The lack of evidence is well known and chronicled, and that is the preverbial 'missing link'

Fossilisation is actually a rare occurence as natural materials get recycled into the earth in most cases. Many creatures could have existed but unless their remeains were covered with sediment fast enough their remains would have been lost forever.

I doubt if we could be decendent from dino's cause they died out.

We actually are unsure of the age of humans as it is being called into question a number of times and the age of the Earth is an estimate.

I do not believe that Earth has been consciously seeded by intelligent life, but certainly some of the components of life as we know it come from space. When the age of the universe and the lifetime of stars is concerned, it is possible that WE might be the most advanced race in the universe. This argument is based on the following:

There need to have been at least one generation of stars to form before our sun and solar system for the appropriate heavy elements needed for live to have been formed. This meant that the universe was already ~10 billion years old by the time the Sun formed.

The Earth and solar system are often taken to be typical. There may be many solar systems similar to this one but the chances of finding another planet like earth similarly with a giant sattelite are very small.

It has taken almost half way through the lifespan of the sun for intelligent life to have evolved. If this is typical for life-baring planets, then advanced civilizations may exist, but considering the distances associated with intestellar travel, they are unlikely to have explored this far.

It is more probable that life is ubiquitous in the Universe, but intelligent life as we know it is very rare. This would mirror what is observed on Earth, where the majority of organisms and diversity thereof is bacterial.

Another note on science and scientific research in general:

Theories are often descibed as having flaws, and although no theory is complete this definition is open to misinterpretation. Just ask a 'scientific' Creationist.

Theories can be defined as methods which are used to explain how a certain process happens. Once a theory is formulated, observations are made to collect evidence to either prove or disprove the theory. Often as it turns out, the evidence shows that the original theory was incomplete, or the assumptions where wrong. This does not mean that the original theory was wrong, just incomplete. Collection and analysis of evidence can then be used to modify the theory so that it is more in line with observations, and a second set of observations can be made to test the modified theory.
The scientific method is an inherently iterative process, therefore it is important to note that the binary distinctions of 'right' and 'wrong' are more graded when considering and evaluating theory and experiment.

For instance Darwin's theory of evolution in its original form, compared to the theory of evolution used today is wrong if the strictest sense of right and wrong is applied. One of these reasons being that Darwin was a believer in evolution being gradual and occuring at the same place throughout Deep time. However, modern evidence of mass extictions and 'punctuated equilibrium' show that the rate of evolution can be very variable, for instance very fast after a mass extinction, to virtual stagnation if there is no enviromental pressure for change.

What I am trying to say here is be careful whenever you discuss flaws and gaps in theories. While no theory is complete, all are based on actual evidence. It is not good to invoke the God of Gaps for things unexplained.

Technical point - not *all* the dinosaurs died out, so yes, we can be descended from them/their DNA, or else their ancestors.

As someone much more famous than me once said, the best theory to explain if there is intelligent life elsewhere is that they haven't bothered with us!

I'll go with Darwin's theory - it fits the facts.

On Space Travel: The apparent physical problems of space travel are pretty much based upon our current understanding of the laws of physics and the nature of the universe. To physically travel through space and across mindnumbingly vast distances would require not only that we achieve the speed of light, but that we achieve several thousand times the speed of light. I don't think that we're likely to achieve that in the near future considering that we've still got astronaughts with hacksaws pulling packing material from between ceramic tiles in the hope that the packing was apparently unneccessary in the first place Other theories indicate that travel between points in time and space might be theoretically possible i.e. worm holes, membrane theory, folding time and space theory etc.I think that if we accept that there are other intelligent life forms out there that are travelling through the universe; that they must by the very nature of their suspected activities, have cracked this nut.

On ET:The universe is one hell of a big place, I think that it would be fairly arrogant of us to assume that our little corner of it is the only place where life in some form might exist. However "the universe as no limits and goes on into eternity" is a statement that is coming under increasing debate and is contested in some quarters of the scientific community. It just be that whilst the universe is unimaginably large; it might have boundaries, that it might not be the only universe or that whatever might be outside and beyond this universe is substance quite simply outside our experience, our terms of reference and our imagination. We don't know and we're not really likely too. Even within such theoretical bounds however; the known universe is still vast beyond comprehension. Are we alone in the universe? I doubt it.

On UFO'sWe have to accept a lot of unprovable possibilities before we can absolutely accept extraterrestrial explanations for UFO's. This makes the whole UFO debate entirely subjective. At the same time we have to recognise that many previously unexpalained sighting are now perfectly explainable. Secret technologies are on average around twenty years ahead of anything that we're allowed to see or that we're made aware of. We also have to accept I think; that most of the unexplained sightings and claimed activities are also without substantiated proof and that they are almost entirely reliant upon the perceptions of the individuals involved, again making such claims highly subjective and completely open to debate.

On Von Daniken:As far as I'm concerned; that guy was completely discredited thirty years ago. At the same time however, ignoring his, at times, obviously fraudulent claims of evidence of alien intervention in human evolution, sociology and cultural evolution, I can accept that alien intervention theories do have some merits but again all claims of evidence are yet again highly subjective and completely unproveable, they are again highly open to debate.

On Darwin:Darwins theory on the origin of species deals very nicely and acceptably with the evolution of life on earth. What it does not deal with to any depth is the precise origin of "life". It barely addresses the issue of where that initial spark came from and according to some of Darwins other works and known idea's via other sources, it seems likely that he retained the idea that the initial spark of life was of divine origin as did other evolutionist of his day.

On The Divine Spark:We have between us so many different idea's and combinations of idea's that we can at the end of the day only make judgement based upon our own individual final analysis. We might belief that life has always existed within the univers in some form or we might believe that it actually "began" at some point in space and time. If we believe that life has always existed in some form then planetary seeding becomes a possibility. Even if we believe rather; that life "began" at some unknown point in space and time, then planetary seeding is still an equally relevent possibility. However; if we believe that life began at some point in space and time then we also have to accept the possibility that it began right here on earth. There's absolutely no reason why we should assume that it began here but equally there is absolutely no reason why we should not. The vastness of time and space in no way precludes the possibility that life began here.

My thoughts:We don't bloody well know. We don't have anywhere near enough factual incontravertable evidence to form a sound conclusion. So I cop Out but:

My feelings:Whilst planetary seeding is a possibility, I see no reason to automatically assume either that life has always existed in some form or that life came to earth from elsewhere in the universe. The arguments for and against are equally inconclusive and non-pursuasive. I find Alien intervention theories to be personally fairly unbelievable when placed alongside known histories of human socio-cultural evolution. I personally find current alien intervention theories to be driven and promoted by people that I wouldn't class as entirely well balanced individuals. I accept that planetary seeding is a possibility but I also accept that earth as an originator of life is an equally valid possibility.

On Occums Razor:"The simplest explanation is probably the correct explanation"Very true but that "probably" is in there for a very good reason. I generally work to the principle of Cccums razor but also accept completely that it does not hold true in many cases. Without the benefit of substantiated and incontravertable fact however and taking into account the massive volume of highly subjective and batently erroneous information that's around; I find it to be a fairly good fall-back.

OK; I copped out but give me something solid to work with and I'll gladly form a conclusion of my own.

Von Daniken has been discredited somewhat because of the fraudulant pottery he supposedly found indicating 'ancient' astronauts. The rest of it has to do with many scientist claiming that he isn't giving any credit to ancient man for their creations as in the Easter Island statues, Stonehenge and the Egyptian toombs. However most critics tend not to mention some of the hieroglyphs on Egyptian toombs depicting what looks like floating men in space suits.

The Bible also is chuck full of mysterious visitation that could possibly be extraterrestial. Moses and the burning bush and other prophets who have visions of chariots coming out of the sky, being visited by angels and so on.

Aware as I am of this issue being highly speculative, it still is an interesting idea. If one can accept the possibilities of aliens and UFO's, why not?

..and his blatent misrepresentation of the Nazca Lines and his claim that ancient egyptians couldn't even have worked out the base levels for the pyramids and rather that ET must have helped and a myriad of other discrepencies in his work. Sorry but the man is just totally untrustworthy as a researcher.and all have other possible explanations that are at least as valid as alien intervention theories. We don't assume alien intervention every time a shamen goes into a trance state do we?
but there again, and equally valid; why? considering the previously mentioned problems with the likeyhood of achieving space travel. Yes, I know; a bit of a corner for me there.

Of course; if alien civilisations have reached a stage whereby they can visit us then we must assume that they are far more advanced than us and then all things become possible but possible to me doesn't necessarily mean probable.

Sliding along Occums Razor again; if we could accept that life may have begun here on earth, then why would we need to reach out to more improbable theories?

Also if life did begin right here on earth, why isn't it possible that something similar has happened elsewhere in the cosmos especially allowing for the vast distances and times that we're trying to comprehend?

The fact that we don't yet understand the mechanism for the formation of life doesn't neccessarily prove that that the appearence of life is a rare occurrence on a cosmic scale.

I don't see at all why we need to automatically look for alien intervention theories to explain the origins of life on this planet. It simply isn't automatically neccessary.

None of these points make the idea of interplanetry seeding any more or less valid. The same principles do however apply.It is, but personally I would prefer something a little more conclusive than a good idea before I go rushing off to contact Elvis.

Hey Gyps; Thanks

Well strictly speaking we are all aliens anyway as everything on this planet and the planet itself is made from the elements that were produced within a supernova before the Solar-system was born.

Doesn't that make us integral rather than alien?

Hmmm.
Suppose so.
We're universal.

Interesting site:http://www.astrobio.net/

Like what? That a superior being contacted Moses and the burning chariots really were angels?

Using Occum's theory in this case then the simplist explanation is we are the products of creation from some superior being or beings, a concept that I really can't buy.

Life began here on Earth in the form ferns and fauna then later fish, animals etc. Dinosaurs roamed the Earth for 65 million years according to scientist. Why did man appear so late in the life of the Earth? There is now some debate among scientist as to whether or not man and dino's co-existed but if they did, it was probably close to their being literaly wiped off the face of the Earth. If the big bang theory is true and the dino's were killed off by a massive collision from a rock from space, what conditions then was available to provide for humans?

As far as Von Daniken is concerned critics stated the idea that he wasn't given the ancients credit for their inteligence and inginuity for their buildings. One could imagine the Aliens giving that technology to them and told them to have at as it were. It doesn't negate the efforts of ancient man, they are the ones that could have created them with mentoring


What seperates us from other animals could very well be our mental capablities. Possibly more capabilties that we use at present. We are able to alter our conscience through meditation and visualization, we seek answers and ask of our higher selves. Many animals are extremely intelingent yet I don't think they are capable of the meditation thing, (Except for hibornation and that doesn't count )

Our brains are what control our bodies and that goes for other animals as well and is therefore nothing more than a carbon based computer putting out elecrical impulses, giving us emotional ability, to puzzle something out etc etc. It can also be used to heal. Other animals rely mainly on instinct, we generally don't. Something must have happened to make us similar in some ways to other animals, such as having two eyes generally in front of the head, two ears, a nose and a mouth. Some have four legs some have two and some dna similarties and yet they are distinctly different.

(I love playing devils advicate, must be the Irish in me)

Bugger my quote button's packed up, so quotes are green font in this one.

Like what? That a superior being contacted Moses and the burning chariots really were angels?

Not exactly, I was thinking more along the lines of those biblical depictions being a product of the spirituality and perceptions of the time. Not that they are to be taken litterally in the way you suggest any more than the idea of alien intervention is to be taken litterally as you previously suggested.

Using Occum's theory in this case then the simplist explanation is we are the products of creation from some superior being or beings, a concept that I really can't buy.

or possibly that life on earth originated on earth and evolved to the point that we find ourselves at now. A bit of a pointless excercise really

Why did man appear so late in the life of the Earth?

Why not? we don't have a monopoly on timing.

There is now some debate among scientist as to whether or not man and dino's co-existed but if they did,

As far as I'm aware there is at least 200,000,000 years of separation between Dinosaurs and humanity. I'd be interested to find evidence otherwise though. Have you been reading Watchtower and Awake again?

If the big bang theory is true and the dino's were killed off by a massive collision from a rock from space, what conditions then was available to provide for humans?

Sorry; I don't see your connection between big bang and mass extinction events.

One could imagine the Aliens giving that technology to them and told them to have at as it were.

One could imagine that...as easily as the biblical prophets imagined chariots of fire.

It doesn't negate the efforts of ancient man, they are the ones that could have created them with mentoring

They could have or we could have worked things out for ourselves. There is every evidence to suggest that the Sumerians, Babylonians, Hitites, Egyptians, Aztecs, Olmecs and Inca's were every bit as intelligent and capable as we are today. the only difference between them and us being that our technology's have evolved further.

What seperates us from other animals could very well be our mental capablities.

Oh.

We are able to alter our conscience through meditation and visualization, we seek answers and ask of our higher selves.

...and your point is....

Something must have happened to make us similar in some ways to other animals, such as having two eyes generally in front of the head, two ears, a nose and a mouth. Some have four legs some have two and some dna similarties and yet they are distinctly different.

ah, that would be "evolution" wouldn't it.

(I love playing devils advicate, must be the Irish in me)

I'm going to resist the temptation to use the old Phil Lynot joke there. He did quite a bit of seeding too but that was mostly backstage rather than interplanetary.

I come from Atlantis which is situated on a planet that circles the Alpha Centuri star system.
Over the millennia i have imparted vast amounts of knowledge to human kind.
I am now in retirement and make crop circles in my spare time.
My spaceship is currently under Silbury Hill which is why i dont want EH to start messing around with it.
I can be found dressed as a hippy during the summer in Wiltshire with a plank of wood on a bit of rope.

Best Regards

Zurg

Do you indeed?

You see; it's getting silly now.

Ah, but what if their spirituality was based on what they saw, going on the premise that the Bible is not a product of imagination. And similar depictions of spirituality is seen in many other cultures.

In an ancient Indian text, the Mahabharata, the authors mention the word Virmanas, which means flying machines. The Virmanas are described as having the abiltiy to fly in a vehicle used by the Gods. One description could be describing a nuclear missle.

"A blazing missile possessed of the radiance of smokeless fire was discharged. A thick gloom suddenly encompassed the hosts. All points of the compass were suddenly enveloped in darkness. Evil bearing winds began to blow. Clouds reared into the higher air, showering blood. The very elements seemed confused. The sun appeared to spin around. The world, scorched by the heat of that weapon, seemed to be in a fever."

Evolution is defined as a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form or is genetically altered into another species. The fact that all the animals, humans and some insects have eyes in the head, nose etc attached to the head near the brain has been consistant in almost every species througout time. It hasn't changed so I wouldn't be inclined to say that we are the result of evolution only. The simplist explanation still would be creation acording to your favorite Occum theory. On the other hand, the fact that we, as understood by evolution can be genetically altered can also point to Alien manipulation. So evolution and Alien parentage do not cancel each other out.

Nope, don't read Watchtower or Awake, I'm not the one that was raised in a JW household.

To explain, Mass extinction according to still some scientist was the result of collision of a massive rock from space. I was being sarcastic referring to the big bang. Sorry 'bout that. My point was that the dino's lasted million of years and for some reason, it took longer for man to make an appearance. I often wonder why it took so long. Cockroaches have been here, and still are longer than we have or will be and they haven't evolved much over time and they are resistent to radiation. They haven't evolved much. For that matter neither did the wooley mammoth. Elephants simply got smaller and lost their hair.

I'm not discounting evolution all together. It makes sense that we will change and evolve based on evironment and technology. We may soon be able to grow organs, replace bad parts with good with our own clone and implants will replace identity papers. And We will more than likely lose our appendix in a few thousand years as it is not needed for digestion anymore like it used to be. Evoultion will soon turn into a man made thing.

Actualy the death of the last dinosaur and the appearance of the first “human” (genus homo) is estimated to be separated by about 64 or 65 million years. Dinosaurs become birds. And Scientist estimate their time on earth to be about 150 million years. I evidently got those two figures confused. And I still wonder why it took so long for man's appearance. 65 million years should be more than enough time for the Earth to calm down enough to have man emerge. What were we waiting for? Godot?

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of us having been seeded - just because we don't know how to travel quickly through space doesn't mean that there aren't more advanced 'things' out there that could. And some things make sense if we were - such as designs on the earth that only make sense when viewed from the air but which were created before man could view them from the air.
However, they could have been done for whatever gods were worshipped at that particular time and place.

Also, it seems instinctive of us to think of gods being above us, in the sky...if we had come from there, that would make sense.

I don't see why we couldn't have been dropped off here in our unevolved state though. If we had to live here, and had come from another planet, with different conditions, surely we would need to evolve so that we were as suitable as possible for living in the new conditions.

And I think it's silly to say 'well, why would they have bothered'. There's lots of reasons why they might; their planet coming to the end of its existence, threat from somewhere else, not wanting all their eggs in one basket or maybe just to see if they could do it. Maybe they dropped us off so they could see how we turned out on a different planet.

At the end of the day though, I don't think it really matters because whether the spirituality we feel is for the divine or whether the divine is actually another species and it's a link with that that we feel, we just don't know. And is there necessarily a difference anyway?
I don't think we can discount the evidence that we've found, but I'm quite prepared to believe that there could be other evidence out there.

**Cue X-Files music**

[quote=gypsimoon,Aug 3 2005, 06:32 PM]
[quote]I was thinking more along the lines of those biblical depictions being a produce of the spiritualilty and perceptions of the time[/quote]

Ah, but what if their spirituality was based on what they saw, going on the premise that the Bible is not a product of imagination. And similar depictions of spirituality is seen in many other cultures.

In an ancient Indian text, the Mahabharata, the authors mention the word Virmanas, which means flying machines. The Virmanas are described as having the abiltiy to fly in a vehicle used by the Gods. One description could be describing a nuclear missle.

"A blazing missile possessed of the radiance of smokeless fire was discharged. A thick gloom suddenly encompassed the hosts. All points of the compass were suddenly enveloped in darkness. Evil bearing winds began to blow. Clouds reared into the higher air, showering blood. The very elements seemed confused. The sun appeared to spin around. The world, scorched by the heat of that weapon, seemed to be in a fever."[/quote]
Presumably you've read that in the original, so that you're certain that's what it says?
[quote]
Evolution is defined as a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form or is genetically altered into another species. The fact that all the animals, humans and some insects have eyes in the head, nose etc attached to the head near the brain has been consistant in almost every species througout time. It hasn't changed so I wouldn't be inclined to say that we are the result of evolution only. The simplist explanation still would be creation acording to your favorite Occum theory. On the other hand, the fact that we, as understood by evolution can be genetically altered can also point to Alien manipulation. So evolution and Alien parentage do not cancel each other out.[/qote]
It's Occams Razor and it's not a theory, but a principle that is used in argument, debate and research; it states that one should make no more assumptions about something than needed. See Wikipaedia's entry on Occam's Razor for more.
The fact that all animals have the same general body configuration of sensory organs in the head is to do with the fact that having eyes, ears etc close to the brain is more efficient; it is an aid to survival, which is what Evolution is about. The animals who are better at catching prey, better at evading predators will inevitably survive longer and procuce more offspring, who will inherit their characteristics. So this configuration is produced by evolution, without any need for alien intervention.[quote]
Cockroaches have been here, and still are longer than we have or will be and they haven't evolved much over time and they are resistent to radiation. They haven't evolved much. For that matter neither did the wooley mammoth. Elephants simply got smaller and lost their hair.[/quote]
Any entemologist will tell you that cockroaches have evolved quite a bit over the many millions of years that they've been around. But they don't need to evolve very quickly, as they are so suited to life in many varied conditions. [quote] 65 million years should be more than enough time for the Earth to calm down enough to have man emerge. What were we waiting for? Godot? [/quote]
Why should it be so strange that apelike animals took so long to evolve? And, btw, it's a myth that we descended from the apes that you see today; in fact all the apes, including us, descended from a common ancestor. So we are cousins to the apes, not descendents.
And why assume that we are the pinnacle of evolution?

In essence, the simplist explanation is best. Also found in Wikipedia.



True, in that they adapted to certain pesticides and antibiotics. Like I've said all along, I believe in evolution, I just don't believe that evolution nullifies the speculation of alien interference or parantage. Evolution as a theory states that all species came from other species (maybe even alien) and I can agree that we are all related to other animals to some extent. Much of evolution though is through genetic mutations.
Perhaps aliens used the same DNA map and changed things around to make us different from one another somehow. We all have individual footprints and fingerprints and I guess the same is true in the great apes, though I've no idea if that is an actual fact.

If it's true that the universe was always there and at one point continuing to expand with all kinds of things happening in space, worm holes, super nova's etc to the point that many stars you see at night are merly reflections of stars that novaed thousands of years ago, then it's entirely possible that life also evolved elsewhere with different chemicals and other substances brought on by these space events, perhaps adapting and evolving aliens created technologies far beyound our capabilities and for some reason may want to populate the universe with those heavenly bodies that are capable of supporting life, but maybe not like life as we know it. Or we could have been seeded here through an astroid, possibly during the big bang.

...and Jesus wasn't "taken up", he was teleporteded to the mothercraft.....on a flying carpet.

It could, or a meteor impact.

I would say that simplest explanation is what evolutionists often call "sympathetic evolution". i.e. that different species acquire similar characteristics as a result of adopting similar roles in similar environments. I would tend towards that easily understood and logical explanation before I would assume alien intervention and genetic manipulation as I would with evolution as a whole..

I agree, that's all possible but in light of the fact that simpler and more direct explanations are readily available for the physical evolution of life on this planet and for the socio-cultural evolution of man; I would say that they remain possibles but do not rate as probables.

Should we have been first then? why shouldn't it have taken so long? Sorry; I just don't see the relevence of the question ot a need for it. Why on earth should the appearence of man have been earlier in the history of this planet than it was? Why did we appear when we did? because conditions favoured the possibilty of a reasonably intelligent upright walking medium sized mammal being successfull as a species at a time when just such a creature was making an appearence. A set of circumstances which hadn't combined well enough to favour that evolutionary possibilty/opportunity before.

Sorry; I was interupted by that darned work thing.

We'll have to talk about definitions of dinosaurs if we're not careful. But fair comment.One branch of dinosaurs are believed to have evolved into birds, the broad hipped dinosaurs, not dinosaurs generally.This planet is no more "calm" now than it was during the age of the dinosuars. During that period, the formation of the planet was as complete as it is today. Earth was changing during that period but earth is still changing today, that's just an ongoing process. If we were waiting for earth to calm down we would have had to wait a great deal longer than 65 million years.

We weren't waiting for anything. We didn't exist and there was no reason why we should have existed. There is no possible logical argument that would indicate that we should have emerged as a species either any earlier or later than we did.

I agree again but I would say that the evidence that we have for extraterrestrial intervention on this planet is not material evidence, it is conjectural evidence. The evidence for interplanetary seeding is far less even than that, it's pure conjecture.

Back to Sophia's comments where I was interupted:
Working on the basis of simple likelyhoods (Occums bloody Razor again) I can very easily work on the basis that the bible is to a very large extent a product of the human imagination, or at the very best a combination of human spirituality and imagination.

Known historical human diaspora might suggest that this sharing of myths across the globe might be more expected than it might be cause for surprise or unneccessary speculation. If we all come from Africa, via the Middle East and Asia Minor as paleantology and archaeology suggests; why should we not share our most ancient myths and legends.



Why not? Evolution has thrown up some very odd responses. Why shouldn't it have increasingly favoured an intelligent species of ape as their intellect developed.

No they don't neccessarily cancel each other out but but neither do they in any way confirm each other.

A point that I'm quite fond of making. For the purposes of simple reference though I often tend to talk in more quickly understood terms.

Interuption again, sorry, BRB.

I'm going to make this my last post in his thread as I'm almost certainly boring the pants off everybody.

Gypsimoon, there were so many "ifs" and "maybe's" in the last two paragraphs of you last post that you'e made my point for me.

The only point that I'm trying to make is that it might possibly be a little niaive of us to automatically assume that this is the case when there is such scant confirmatory material evidence. The evidence that we feel we might have is entirely conjectural. The whole proposition is entirely conjectural. I would therefor tend towards that which we know; material evidence, geological, paleaological, archaeological and known human socio-cultural history before I would seek to combine this knowledge with pure conjecture. As I feel that the material evidence adequately addresses the subject of "why we are as we are", I feel no need whatsoever to introduce conjectural evidence into an equation that is fully addressed through the use of material evidence.

Whilst it is fascinating to consider the possibilities it is not neccessary to adopt those possibilities as fact.

Guys; I totally and fully accept that there is a possibility that life was seeded to this planet from elsewhere. I totally and fully accept that extraterrestrial intelligences might have played some role in evolution upon this planet and in the socio-cultural evolution of man and that they might even be still doing so.

...But my reservations are stronger than my acceptances.

Absolute last post by me in this thread, I promise.

I think we're in danger of severely underestimating the possible capabilities of the evolutionary process and I think we're also severely underestimating both the intellect and imagination of man both past and present by automatically assuming that the evolutionary process and mans intellect and imagination doesn't provide the answers to all of our questions and leading us to look for other explanations as to why we are as we are and how we reached this position.

[QUOTE]Guys; I totally and fully accept that there is a possibility that life was seeded to this planet from elsewhere. I totally and fully accept that extraterrestrial intelligences might have played some role in evolution upon this planet and in the socio-cultural evolution of man and that they might even be still doing so.

...But my reservations are stronger than my acceptances.[QUOTE]

That is pretty much what every one is saying. I used might and if because we are debating possibilities, not fact. There is simply so much we don't know and the question of where we came from and what is our purpose has been bothering man since the begining

Sorry dont have time to debate so found some stuff:

Early Hominids:

A combination of the genetic and fossil evidence point to the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees living in East Africa between 8 - 6 million years ago (mya). The currently oldest classified hominin fossil in the published literature is that of Sahelanthropus tchadensis at 7.4 - 6.4 mya (millions of years ago). The two next oldest hominins are Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, dated at 5.6 mya, Ardipithecus ramidus at 4.4 mya and Orrorin tugenensis at 5.7 - 6 mya. For the next three million years australopiths occupied various ecological niches in East, Central and Southern Africa. At roughly 2.5 million years ago the first stone tools (termed the "Oldowan Industry") are evident in the archaeological record. This coincides with the appearance of the disputed Homo habilis. The new skill was copied by their australopith contemporaries. Homo erectus is descended from Homo habilis and, around 1.8 mya, migrated first into the Near East, then into Asia and finally later from the Near East up into Europe.

http://www.antiquityofman.com/hominin_evolution.html


Big Bang
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble found experimental evidence to help justify Lemaître's theory. He found that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html


Space Travel

Space Travel
The velocity addition law 11.11 implies that no object can be accelerated to speeds greater than the speed of light. At first glance this seems to put a damper on the prospects for space travel beyond our solar system. The nearest star to our Sun is four light years away, and to get to a potentially more interesting star, say one with planets, you would have to travel hundreds of light years. A light year is the unit of distance corresponding to the distance light travels in a year. It is a terribly long distance, about 1012kilometers. More importantly, the speed limit imposed by Special Relativity forbids us from getting anywhere in less time than it would take light to get there, so that trips to even nearby stars would take many years, and perhaps even hundreds of years. If this were true it would make travel between the stars undesirable at best for a species whose life span is only about one hundred years. Luckily, what Special Relativity takes away with one hand, it gives back with the other.
A trip to the nearest star would take approximately four years for a spaceship traveling at 99% of the speed of light. However, this is the time as measure by observers stationary with respect to the Earth and the star (we assume that the relative motion between them is nowhere near light speed). According to the time dilation effect, the time required for the same journey would be shorter to those on the spaceship. For example, if the spaceship is moving at 0.99c, the time dilation factor is seven, so that to the astronauts, the journey takes only 4/7 of a year, or about seven months. If the spaceship were able to reach 0.999c, the time dilation factor would be twenty, and the trip would take only about one month. Space travel, and the colonization of space are therefore possible despite the relativistic speed limit. The only downside is that the taxpayers on Earth who funded the mission would still have to wait at least eight years before the astronauts returned, even though the astronauts themselves would have only aged two months.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node140.html

Back to work now so got to go.
Loads of interesting stuff out there on Astrobiology,DNA research,archaeology etc etc and none it written by VanDanikan but much more interesting.

And this:

http://www.antiquityofman.com/pseudoscience.html

excellent discussion thread.

I absolutely in with Dave and Nightcelt on this.
The Darwin theory rules for me.

The fact that all living cretures have so much similar DNA can only add to it, as we all come from those little organisms that so many years appeared in the sea.

Following Darwin, by no means prevents me for believing in the Divine or (intelligent or not) life outside this planet.

Our changes for being were so low when the big bang happened that there must have been some help getting all the parameters right.
If the Divine managed doing it once, I sure It will have done it again, perhaps with different settings if tey are not happy with the current or previous results.

As for planetary seeding, why would intelligent creature (surely more intelligent than us, as they manage to travel the distance) even interested in creating us the way we are or were at the rise of humanity. Unless we are lab test run out of hand.

Suppose you had the technoloy , would you be creating something like us?

usually Nightcelt talks alot of bo**ock but this is one of those cases i am in agreement with him LOL Nightcelt

oi! leave my bo**ocks out of this. Your just jealous

yeah yeah... oh look whats that!

*cough* bump lol

more food for thought.

Watch out they've brought out the big guns. lmao

The Men in White Coats

I think it's long overdue. It's about time this was studied again as Darwin, although possibly on the right track, it still doesn't answer all the questions.

Suppose similar DNA is found in Aliens? Maybe all animals have similar DNA. It doesn't prove evolution. All it proves is that animals and humans are similar in certain ways. For example, Apes have similar DNA's as humans but they are configured differently. Some lizards also. I don't think that applies to birds, but not sure.

Take the elephant. The elephant hasn't 'evolved' much from the Wooley Mammoth. It got smaller and lost it's hair. Aligators are a throw-back to the prehistoric period. Although the ape may be 'our closest' relative, does it mean that in a few million years they will be human? We have had different species of human before we became homosapians. Homosapians came within the same time that the Neanderthals were here. Where did they come from? There is no evidence that Neanderthals mated with homosapians.

I have always thought that man is behind the times, that our technologies should be much more advanced than it is. Now, with the computer age and other major advances in science, we are moving at worp speed. I don't think we are to far away from artificial inteligence for example. Stem cells may possibly provide us with new organs or nerves. Kind of remindes me of the song of years ago, 'In the year 2525'

Sorry, come into this very late but I am a firm believer that the simplest answer is probably the correct one and evolution seems a much simpler answer than intelligent design from outside. I also think we all have great difficulty in imagining the 4 billion year span of our planet and how much can happen by the simplest of means in that huge length of time. Hey, the earth has been 4 billion years in the making of the place where you live and your own genetic makeup !

"Exogenesis" is one of my favourite words.

as i see it, life evolved here, life could evolve somewhere else (after all it did here so why not somewhere else)

Why does life have to have been intelligently designed, whether by a god or alien.

My own opinion is that there is no intelligent design involved, no super-deity behind the multiverse. Creationism (or it's off-spring Intelligent Design) are nonsense.

That Humans started elsewhere and were transplanted here makes perfect Ecological Sense!
Personally I think we are Martians!

The idea that the seeds of life were carried here on meteors or whatever is called panspermia (I believe). Scientists are still looking into the possibility that that's how life started on the earth. The idea fell out of favour for a few years but has been resurrected.

Y'know, all that's coming to mind here is Terence McKenna and the mushroom debate!