Aliens, yay or nay?

[BushyOldGrower]

We came in peace but you keep shooting at us.

We brought you chickens and cannabis because we knew you guys needed to get high and have eggs for breakfast.

Our grand plan proceeds to this day and soon you will be freed from yourselves.

We are your Gods and our rule over you is far preferable to you guys ruling over yourselves. Humans still have many flaws as can be easily seen in this thread.

So karma is coming to you Earthlings...enjoy your last days ruling this planet.

Liberation is coming very soon. We do have one rule you may not like however...

No more killing. Thou shalt not kill. We will do that when necessary.

You can't even kill bugs or chickens because they are closely related to us.

The good thing is that time travel is allowed so we change the game everyday.

You earthlings really don't have a clue.

 

[Hubbleman]

Hmmm

 

[mrcreosote]

Some day some guy with a sore ass is going to show up in a hospital and the proof of aliens will be his Blue Cross health insurance denying him coverage because the instrument recovered from his ass is of non-terrestrial origin.

 

[Anti]

Can you point me to the source Anti?
Not really interested in the chicken example but in general. I remember reading evolution isn't necessarily a slow process but rather spontaneous jumps.

Evolution is a slow process which is punctuated from time to time by spontaneous seeming jumps. There are random mutations that occur within a given population. (Like when a person is born with 6 toes) Most of the time, the random mutation is not beneficial or might even be detrimental to the organism. In such cases, there is not much change to the gene pool. But in one out of a million cases that random mutation happens to provide a distinct benefit to its possessor. The benefit gives a slight advantage to the possessor of the mutation than to its breeding competitors and the result is that the genetic traits that bring about that mutation get passed to the next generation and the possessors of the mutation end up SLIGHTLY superior to their non-mutated brethren. Over enough time, that slight advantage will come to dominate the gene pool.

Wolfgang Smith, a mathematics professor from MIT and Oregon State University, made his point very clear.
"Today...The Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from evolutionist camp. For the most part, these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblicial persuasions, but strictly scientific grounds."

Darwin died awhile back. Nobody follows evolution out of some devotion to Darwin. The physical, archeological, biological and chemical evidence all agree that evolution happened. It's as close to the "fact" of evolution as the theory of gravity.

If you want a really good, easy to read book on the subject (with lots of pictures and illustrations) I recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins.

In 1960, W.E. Swinton, from the British Museum of National History said, "The evolutionary origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.

In the 53 years since W.E. Swinton said such thing, there have been MANY, MANY, MANY discoveries that have proven Evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. Fossils, DNA, Biology, Chemistry, various dating methods, etc. THEY ALL AGREE.

If your interested in evolution check out Michael Cremo, totally debunks Darwins theory of evolution, and claims we humans have been on this planet for millions of years, not thousands..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPyqrZmxrak

Human ancestors that would've looked pretty much like modern humans have been around for about 2 million years. We have evidence. The best evidence we have thus far is that modern humans evolved around 100,000 years ago.


I'll check it out, but where's his Nobel Prize? Geneticists, Biologists, Chemists, Archeologists, etc. still work from the theory of evolution (though nobody follows darwin anymore. Science PROGRESSES! It's not like a religion where the words of the originator are thought to be holy and unchanging.) If Michael Cremo has published a peer-reviewed paper on the subject that debunks evolution he should have a Nobel Prize and he should be on the cover of Time magazine. Where's he at?

This quote below is from teachthemscience.org/evidence

Paleontology shows us that organisms have changed gradually over time, as reflected in the fossil record.

Biogeography shows us how new species only arise near very similiar species. Similar species share a common time and place.

Developmental biology shows us that an organism builds on ancestral features as it develops from a single cell.

Morphology shows us how organisms adapt ancestral features to new uses, even when there are more efficient solutions elsewhere in nature.

Genetics shows us that we can group species by similarity of genes. These groups even share unused DNA.

The following is from http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html:

Mechanisms of Evolution
Biological evolution results from changes over time in the genetic constitution of species. Genetic changes often, but not always, produce noticeable changes in the appearance or behavior of organisms. Evolution requires both the production of variation and the spread of some variants that replace others.

• Genetic variation arises through two processes, mutation and recombination. Mutation occurs when DNA is imperfectly copied during replication, leading to a difference between a parent’s gene and that of its offspring. Some mutations affect only one bit in the DNA; others produce rearrangements of large blocks of DNA.
• Recombination occurs when genes from two parents are shuffled to produce an offspring, as happens regularly in sexual reproduction. Usually the two parents belong to the same species, but sometimes (especially in bacteria) genes move between more distantly related organisms.
• The fate of any particular genetic variant depends on two processes, drift and selection. Drift refers to random fluctuations in gene frequency, and its effects are usually seen at the level of DNA. Ten flips of a coin do not always produce exactly five heads and five tails; drift refers to the same statistical issue applied to the transmission of genetic variants across generations.
• The principle of natural selection was discovered by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), and it is the process by which organisms become adapted to their environments. Selection occurs when some individual organisms have genes that encode physical or behavioral features that allow them to better harvest resources, avoid predators, and such relative to other individuals that do not carry the same genes. The individuals that have these useful features will tend to leave more offspring than other individuals, so the responsible genes will become more common over time, leading the population as a whole to become better adapted.

Distinct species diverge from one ancestor and can no longer interbreed.

• The process that many people find most confusing about evolution is speciation, which is not a separate mechanism at all, but rather a consequence of the preceding mechanisms played out in time and space. Speciation occurs when a population changes sufficiently over time that it becomes convenient to refer to the early and late forms by different names. Speciation also occurs when one population splits into two distinct forms that can no longer interbreed. Reproductive isolation does not generally happen in one generation; it may require many thousands of generations when, for example, one part of a population becomes geographically separated from the rest and adapts to a new environment. Given time, it is inevitable that two populations that live apart will diverge by mutation, drift, and selection until eventually their genes are no longer compatible for successful reproduction.

I'll check out Mr. Cremo's link and get back to you on that.

 

[HempKat]

y'all are just mad because i'm obviously a super genius and i know everything

:snicker:

 

[Anti]

I'm less than one minute into the 1994 video about Mr. Cremo. They've already asserted that there's a vast scientific conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Anybody who believes that it's possible to get all the scientists (in various disciplines) all over the world to participate flawlessly in a conspiracy to suppress the truth has never spent any time with scientists.

People who get advanced degrees in biology or archeology are SEARCHING FOR TRUTH. They've devoted their lives to it! They would not all go along with some conspiracy to disguise the truth. Some of them would AT LEAST have death bed confessions to their closest friends. It would get out!

Back to watching the video...

 

[Him]

"Cremo has presented his findings from the book at mainstream conferences of archeology and history of science, at leading scientific institutions, such as the Royal Institution in London, and some of his findings have been published in mainstream academic publications. For example, his paper "Puranic Time and the Archeological Record", presented at the 1994 meeting of the World Archaeological Congress, appeared in a peer-reviewed conference proceedings volume edited by archeologist Tim Murray and published by Routledge, a major scientific publisher. The paper incorporates extensive evidence from Cremo's book Forbidden Archeology.[13][improper synthesis?] Cremo's paper "The Discoveries of Carlos Ribeiro", which he presented at a meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, was published in a peer-reviewed archeological journal.[14][improper synthesis?]" - Wikipedia, RE: Michael Cremo

 

[Feyd]

all jokes aside, i actually do know whether or not alien life exists

but i'm not going to tell you guys because you're all a bunch of jerks

 

[HempKat]

Can you cite that? I've never heard of any individual taking credit or being credited with the lines, nor any firm understanding of why they were created, or exactly when. It's my understanding that they were also created before it would have been possible to see them from the sky, that's part of the intrigue.

They can be seen from nearby foothills. I'm getting a lot of my info from Wikipedia's page on the Nazca lines. There's actually a number of different theories that have been put forth, one was that they point to things like the sun's position at the solstice but that's not entirely accurate so many doubt that theory. Another theory is that the lines are copies of the dark areas between constellations in the night sky but that explanation doesn't account for details within some of the shapes. Still another theory contends that they were sacred paths and that walking them invoked certain reactions from the gods. As for the theory that it was something they were doing for their gods to look at, it doesn't say who takes credit for that theory even though it does tie some of the other theories to individuals. Wiki usually has a list of sources for what they post though so you can check that if it's really that important to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_Lines

 

[HempKat]

To think there is no other life of some kind ..... in the billions of earth like planets alone in our galaxy cmon how many more galaxies are out there ?????
we must be freaks off nature then, maybe were boring to them or there like us no way of contacting

As depicted in the beginning of the movie ‘Contact’, the earth has an expanding ‘bubble’ of man-made radio signals expanding outward at the speed of light. These early radio transmissions were short range experiments that used simple clicks and interrupts to show transmission of information in the 1890s. In 1900, Reginald Fessenden made the first — though incredibly weak — voice transmission over the airwaves. The next year saw a step up in power as Guglielmo Marconi made the first ever transatlantic radio broadcast.

This means that at 110 light-years away from earth — the edge of a radio ‘sphere’ which contains many star systems — our very first radio broadcasts are beginning to arrive. At 74 light-years away, television signals are being introduced. Star systems at a distance of 50 light-years are now entering the ‘Twilight Zone’.

It’s now becoming possible to detect the atmospheric composition of extrasolar planets. This breakthrough has allowed researchers to narrow down our hunt for earth-like worlds. It’s quite possible that an advanced alien culture can also do this, and detected an abundance of water in our atmosphere. If they have, they may have sent a focused radio message in our direction. If we’re not listening though, we may just miss it.

I would bet on other life and pretty sure were going to see it happen in the next 20 years

That's an interesting point about the signals and how in terms of the size of the universe they really haven't gotten all that far. So logically we could see things change dramatically in terms of evidence of alien life because those signals are just now getting to places where maybe someone or something might notice and investigate.

 

[HempKat]

Can you point me to the source Anti?
Not really interested in the chicken example but in general. I remember reading evolution isn't necessarily a slow process but rather spontaneous jumps.
And Professor Louis Bonoure, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientifich Research said, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.
Wolfgang Smith, a mathematics professor from MIT and Oregon State University, made his point very clear.
"Today...The Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from evolutionist camp. For the most part, these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblicial persuasions, but strictly scientific grounds."

In 1960, W.E. Swinton, from the British Museum of National History said, "The evolutionary origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.

Source: Swinton, W.E. Biology and comparative Physiology of Birds.


Edit. Yeah it was Bruce Lipton and his work Spontaneous Evolution.

Well what's really interesting about chickens or any bird for that matter, they're all believed to have evolved from dinosaurs. In fact I was just watching a show the other night where they were saying genetic research has advanced enough that they now think they might be able to reverse engineer a bird into a dinosaur. IT also showed where in early testing of this theory they actually found which genetic marker to turn on to make a chicken grow teeth.

 

[Anti]

At 4:30 he says Richard Leekey says the book is rubbish. But then he says "on the otherhand, we've had many scientists and scholars who think it's really great."

So he can name an actual person who DOESN'T agree with him. But he doesn't specifically name a credible person who DOES agree with him. He just ASSERTS that "many" do.

At 5:46 he asserts for the second time that he has researched "EVERY archeological discovery ever made"

EVERY SINGLE ONE?

At 6:43 the interviewer incorrectly identifies Evolutionary Theory as "The Darwin Theory."

At 7:25 he cites J D Whitney as an expert from Harvard who had discovered evidence of human settlement inside 10 million year old rock formations.

A quick googling of J D Whitney turns this up:

Controversy: Yosemite Valley origins

While in California, Whitney became embroiled in two notable controversies. First, Whitney maintained that Yosemite Valley was created by a cataclysmic sinking of the valley floor. However, John Muir, who was exploring the Yosemite area during the same time, argued that the valley was carved by glacial action. Whitney derided Muir as an “ignoramus” and a “mere sheepherder.” Whitney's survey reports suppressed evidence of glaciers, and he never abandoned his viewpoint. Most scientists eventually dismissed Whitney's hypothesis and accepted Muir’s.

Controversy: Calaveras Skull

The second controversy involved the discovery of the Calaveras Skull, allegedly uncovered by a miner 130 feet beneath the surface of the earth. Eventually the skull made its way into the possession of Whitney, who quickly pronounced it genuine and concluded that it came from the Pliocene era (5.3 mya – 1.8 mya). However, others assert that the skull is much younger, as little as 1000 years.

Conclusion? Anyone who is using J D Whitney as a source has been unable to find a more credible source.

At 8:40 he claims that in 1979 Mary Leakey discovered "completely MODERN human footprints no different than you or I would leave on a beach today" in 3.6 million year old rock.

Here's what Wikipedia says on the subject:

Hominid footprints

The principal discovery is an 80-foot (24-meter) line of hominid fossil footprints, discovered by Mary Leakey and her team in 1976 (and fully excavated by 1978), preserved in powdery volcanic ash originally thought to have been from an eruption of the 20 km distant Sadiman volcano. However, recent study of the Sadiman volcano has shown that it is not a source for the Laetoli Footprints Tuff (Zaitsev et al. 2011). Soft rain cemented the ash-layer (15 cm thick) to tuff without destroying the prints. In time, they were covered by other ash deposits.

The hominid prints were produced by three individuals, one walking in the footprints of the other, making the original tracks difficult to discover. As the tracks lead in the same direction, they might have been produced by a group visiting a waterhole together but there is nothing to support the common assumption of a nuclear family.

The footprints demonstrate that the hominids habitually walked upright as there are no knuckle-impressions. The feet do not have the mobile big toe of apes; instead, they have an arch (the bending of the sole of the foot) typical of modern humans. The hominins seem to have moved in a leisurely stroll.

Computer simulations based on information from A. afarensis fossil skeletons and the spacing of the footprints indicate that the hominids were walking at 1.0 m/s or above, which matches human walking speeds.[1] The results of other studies have also supported the theory of a human-like gait.[2]

Here's a picture of the fossilized footprint:

Here's a picture of footprints in sand that "completely modern humans no different than you or I would make on a beach today"

I would not say that the fossil impressions looked identical. That they are vaguely similar would be expected if these impressions were made by human ancestors.

(This is only 9 minutes into the 45 minute video. Do I really need to watch the whole thing?)

Could someone who HAS watched the whole video point me to the really amazing evidence?

 

[Anti]

Oh wow! In minute ten he says humans were around BEFORE THE DINOSAURS!

Minute thirteen? BIGFOOT IS REAL!

Oh my god you guys!

 

[Him]

Footprints are footprints, whether identical or not. Would you say they are not actually footprints then?

 

[Anti]

Footprints are footprints, whether identical or not. Would you say they are not actually footprints then?

He claims they are identical. You offered his video as evidence. If I can show that the claims in the video are untrue, then your evidence fails. I have shown that he claims they are identical. All of us here can see they are NOT.

Any animal with feet will produce footprints in sand.

I have already stated that current evidence suggests that our ancestors looked pretty much like us as long as 2 million years ago.

That's quite different from asserting that MODERN HUMANS existed 2 million years ago and that fossil is not very convincing evidence of such.

Also, I spent some time watching your video and then researching what it discussed.

You reply with a one line question.

Why should I bother to continue taking your argument seriously (semi-seriously) if you won't do the same?

BTW - Around minute 33 we learn that
"rather than say that humanity evolved from simple celled creatures we rather descended from spiritual planes."

Watch minute 34! He's a creationist!

You are aware that there are more scientists named STEVE that support the theory of evolution than there are SCIENTISTS who support the hypothesis of creationism, right?

(Google "Project Steve" if you're not already familiar.)



He's a creationist!

 

[bombadil.360]

Oh my god you guys!

hey hey hey! I'm not a fan of Cremo, don't toss us all under the bus...

on the other hand, I'm baptizing you as Anti Pro Darwin

sounds cool.

peace!

 

[Anti]

hey hey hey! I'm not a fan of Cremo, don't toss us all under the bus...

on the other hand, I'm baptizing you as Anti Pro Darwin

sounds cool.

peace!

I was already baptized long ago. Apparently it didn't take, or something.

But I'm not Pro-Darwin. Darwin is dayid. Evolution lives.

 

[Him]

Ica stones

 

[Anti]

View Image

Ica stones

So we're officially done with our little conversation, then?

 

[Him]

Yes its official