IS it Possible That a Million Old Alien Civilization Terriformed Earth, Seaded Her with live and

[keep_it_real]

put the moon in place so earth has a smooth ride through space? And through DNA created all the creatures of life on earth?

Is it possible that there could be a intelligent life form in the cosmos that is MILLIONS of times more ADVANCED in science and MATHEMATICS then earthlings?

Could an intelligent people millions of years advanced in science and mathematics not only figure out how to transverse the cosmos but to terraform planets from giant gases to solid masses that support intelligent life?

Is human existence on plant earth the product of an million years more older civilization that created humanity through through advanced knowledge of the human genome out the GENOME OF ALL LIVE IN THE COSMOS?

[vadawg]

1. i guess anyting is possible, maybe ill even understand the purpose of your post, maybe ???

[Xipe Totec]

5. Be gentle...

:rofl:

[AtheistCrusader]

209. Drunkposting is the best posting.

[Vickers]

2. I thought some old man did it?

:shrug:

[bertman]

108. It may have been an old man that did it, but he definitely was NOT an English teacher or

a grammarian.

:(

[HipChick]

3. is it possible that someone could come up with an original theory..because

that one has been out for decades...

[Better Today]

4. This OP isn't congruous with your handle at all.

[nosmokes]

95. ya stole me post!

;)
great minds anat

[Oregone]

6. You cannot refute irrefutable imagination

Though anything can be imagined...even a noodlely appendage

Possible? Who cares? What difference does it make? That going to put food on your dinner table tonight? Jesus wont either

[HillWilliam]

174. I dunno about that

Looks like jeebus broadened Dobson and Robertson's arses pretty well :D

[A-Schwarzenegger]

7. Neverus mindus.

:*

[YOY]

8. L Ron-TASTIC!

n/t

[Occulus]

16. Kay Kenyon gave this idea a new twist in "The Braided World".

Great book. Hard science fiction, too, instead of sci-fi crap.

In the backstory of the book, an interstellar disaster sweeps through our solar system. It's a cloud of... something.... that absorbs and stores any organized information. Our DNA is organized information, and the cloud sucks up most of the genetic information available on Earth, until scientists come up with a crystal-like substance they call "ice" to defend humanity.

By then, it's far too late for our species and there isn't enough genetic diversity left to sustain us. Then Earth receives a message from a distant star: come here, and find what you have lost. What they find and how they find it is the subject of the novel, and it's beautifully done.

[donco6]

25. Sounds great. Thanks.

[blondeatlast]

20. ...

:thumbsup:

[-..__...]

9. Just finished watching (or reading), 2001: A Space Odessy...

did'ya now? (slightly different plot, but the basic premise is the same).

[HeresyLives]

10. Of course it's possible.

Why did you ask?

[lunatica]

11. Yeah, but if it so then they really fucked up!

And the joke is on them

[Ohio Joe]

12. Un-rec

Because, IMHO, non-sense like this does not belong here in GD.

[chat_noir]

208. agree

and resisting the urge to point out the spelling errors in the OP thread title


:banghead:

[peacetalksforall]

13. Yes. We may be their ant hill, their lab rat. But, I don't want to pain the

6000 years followers. The agony of 'if'.

[Donnachaidh]

14. rent Mission to Mars with Gary Sinise

Pretty much all of that is in the script.

[gmoney]

192. How do I get Gary Sinese to go to Blockbuster with me?

Will he watch the movie with me, too? Like explain it to me?

Hope he doesn't get the wrong idea.

;)

[SidDithers]

15. Possible? Yes. Probable? No...nt

Sid

[Xithras]

183. We could be the mud from their shoe.

This isn't a new idea, and I remember back in college that some guy was making a public argument in the student center that life on Earth had been seeded from the stars. His idea was that life, billions of years ago, was seeded throughout the universe by a race of advanced beings. He said that it was impossible for science to prove otherwise.

At that point, another student stood up and pointed out that he might be right. A billion years ago an alien might have visited Earth, stepped in a pile of alien-dogshit before walking out of his spaceship, and that all life on Earth today is descended from the bacteria in the alien dogshit the rude SOB tracked all over the place while exploring. He then pointed out that his theory was just as probable, and just as impossible to disprove, as the alien seeding theory the first student had offered.

It kind of put the whole notion into perspective.

[depakid]

17. About as likely as any creation myth

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

24. Or Scientific, Atheist Or Otherwise For That Matter.

[depakid]

28. Much of science is based on probability- however, it does so through obsevable and testable means

which places its explanations not only far more probable than myth- but in a different category altogether.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. In Relation To The Creation Of Life, My Statements Are Legitimate.

As it relates to that, they are all in the SAME category son.

[depakid]

32. No, your statements reflect ignorance of science and are akin to fundamentalist thought

Now, if you were arguing about the processes of self organized complexity in a dissipative system, that would be one thing. A rational, demonstrable and fairly well studied (if obscure) thing.

Instead, you're equating it with myth- which it most assuredly is not.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. There Is No Scientific, Atheist Or Otherwise Legitimate Explanation For The Creation Of Life.

You're being really quite silly in trying to state otherwise.

All your posts have amounted to is "cuz I say so", without any supporting legitimacy to your position. Care to provide any? Care to provide the rational and fact based explanation as to where life originated from? I'm anxiously awaiting your response lol.

[Zix]

92. Of course there is.

Go and look it up yourself.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

97. None That Is Any More Believable.

[Zix]

100. Read some more books.

[depakid]

114. Here's a fine paper to start with that sets out the processes and concepts

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/EOLSS-Self-Organiz.pdf

[Zix]

Magnificent, you rule!

Many thanks! :thumbsup:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

126. ROFLMAO!!!! You Didn't Understand The Paper At All Did You LOL.

I'd bet anything that you saw a bunch of intelligently written words that sounded good enough to convince you that it was evidence of your argument etc; even though the paper did no such thing and doesn't in any way shape or form explain the creation of life from non-life. But your response is friggin hilarious!

:rofl:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. That Paper Does NOTHING To Support Life Coming From Non-Life.

Intelligently written and scientifically sound; yes. Supportive in your argument towards a logical or rational explanation of the creation of life? NOPE.

FAIL.

[depakid]

157. Of course it does- that you're too narrow minded to see the processes

and how they give rise to points of criticality through magnitudes of multiple iterations- including emergent thresholds where organized systems begin to reproduce themselves and evolve, doesn't make it any less logical or evidence based.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

179. Care To Point Out Where Oh Wise One?

It's great reading, but at no point gives factual or sound scientific evidence as it relates to the formation of life. All it does is give someone the ability to theorize that just maybe, something like that occurred; though there is NOTHING right now that provides any evidence of it. In the end, it's still a leap of faith. In the end, the theory comes down to "and then, yeah, this sounds good... yeah, yeah, then this chemical here just POOF! evolved into nucleic acid that formed rna and dna!"

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

124. You Got Nuttin Huh. Pretty Obvious.

EPIC FAIL on your part... Again...

[rd_kent]

101. It certainly is MORE plausible than a magic man who snapped his fingers and ...POOF....life...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. What Is More Plausible? Care To Elaborate?

More plausible that random chemicals just all of a sudden came together and POOF! They were ALIVE!!!! ????

Care to elaborate on your more plausible theory? I'd LOVE to hear it! LOL

[Zix]

131. Go and look it up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

133. I'm More Than Educated Enough On It Already Kid. But You've Got NUTTIN, And It's MORE Than Obvious.

Nuttin. You've yet to bring a thing to this discussion. It's obvious for all to see. So keep responding with your avoidance. You look nothing more than silly.

[rd_kent]

154. No, there is already enough written about by actual scientists.

You know what I am talking about, so drop the obtuse attitude.

[Posteritatis]

94. Sure there is; there's a lot of people studying abiogenesis. (nt)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

98. Yes, Chemicals Just All Of A Sudden Evolved To Form Nucleic Acids That Formed Life.

Yup! That's totally rational!

They're gonna have to study it far more, and come up with far more FACTUAL evidence, before their own theory is any less absurd than others.

[Posteritatis]

99. Creationists are funny. (nt)

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Posteritatis]

130. The "arguments" are identical in any case, so it's close enough for my purposes. (nt)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

132. Not A Creationist At All. Try And Open Your Mind Just A Weeeeee Little.

All of you have cracked me up with your ad hominem dumbass ass attacks, while having YET to actually have to THINK yourselves and post supporting evidence to your argument. It's too fuckin funny! LOL

[Posteritatis]

135. QED. (nt)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

139. QEDMF. ( nt )

[Zix]

105. Here is just one example of a site that treats this question seriously

http://exploringorigins.org/nucleicacids.html

- unlike you, who are simply gassing around on the Internet, as usual.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

138. Never Said It Wasn't Worthy Of Being Taken Seriously.

You've missed the entire point obviously. The whole point is that there is YET to be any explanation that is feasible or non-wondrous. As of right now, EVERY leading theory has a point at which something came from nothing. They all come down to that.

Should the nucleic acid theory be taken seriously? Absolutely! Is it even close to breaking the barrier of non-wondrous where the pieces fall into place and actually have step by step factual evidence? Nope. Not even close. It's worthy of exploring, but FAR off from explaining.

As it stands right now, there are NO theories that are non-wondrous. All of them require a leap of faith of some sort.

[Zix]

149. At last - youve SAID something - SO - There's a considerable gap

Between the leap of faith required in the postulate that autocatalytic reactions could acquire evolutionary characteristics and the leap of faith required in the postulate that a spacefaring civilisation (whose origins are unexplained - how did THEY come about?) seeded the planet with intelligently designed organisms. It's silly to claim that the "advanced civilisation" theory is "as good as" the currently pursued models. If assumes things it sets out to prove, namely, a completed, and entirely mysterious origin of life that is conveniently somewhere else and even more wondrous than the "bottom-up" amino acid to polymerisation problem.

There is, as yet, no complete explanation of how life came about on this planet. That doesn't mean that a theory containing, at it's heart, the same unexplained phenomenon as a part of of it's narrative that it's trying to explain is equivalent to a theory that doesn't.

Your original point, was that the "advanced civilisation" theory was AS GOOD as the "bottom up" theory. It isn't, because it contains as a part of its make up, i.e. an unexplained life-form, the mystery that it's trying to account for. This is kind of a fatal error in any theory. The bottom up theory is incomplete, and contested, but it doesn't contain the mystery it's trying to explain a part of it's narrative.

This, coupled with the fact that amino acids have been shown to arise in conditions closely approximating what is believed to be the chemical conditions on the surface of the Earth in it's youth, that said amino acids also form peptides and in conjunction with them can form spherical membranes, that even SILICATES have been shown to demonstrate self-replicating properties and a host of other experiments yielding uncontroversial results supporting the likelihood that a range of abiotic reactions can give rise to life-like behaviours, which experiments, incidentally, what with your being so well educated and all, you will know all about, AND that as far as we know, there is nothing anywhere even remotely resembling evidence for an alien civilisation anywhere that we have looked on the planet Earth, leads me to favour the theory that life on earth WASN'T seeded by an alien civilisation.

It's specious to say that the current models "aren't even close".

[muriel_volestrangler]

167. An interesting new (as far as I know) suggestion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x57925

(the title of the article is slightly misleading - the contents of the article are actually suggesting the 'ancestor' could be a proton-gradient powered bubble in a rock)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

196. You're Gonna Have To Do A Heck Of A Lot Better Than That. Too Easy.

"There's a considerable gap between the leap of faith required in the postulate that autocatalytic reactions could acquire evolutionary characteristics and the leap of faith required in the postulate that a spacefaring civilisation (whose origins are unexplained - how did THEY come about?) seeded the planet with intelligently designed organisms."

Ummmmmmm, cause you said so? How bout saying what the gap is? And why are you implying that it is so unbelievable for there to exist a spacefaring civilization? Furthermore, THEIR origins are irrelevant as it relates to the OP. All that matters is whether or not they could actually exist.


"It's silly to claim that the "advanced civilisation" theory is "as good as" the currently pursued models. It (corrected for ya) assumes things it sets out to prove, namely, a completed, and entirely mysterious origin of life that is conveniently somewhere else and even more wondrous than the "bottom-up" amino acid to polymerisation problem."

Why is it silly to claim that? In fact, when looking at scientific odds, it's actually far more probable really. Are you ignorant to the scientific probabilities that there is life in the universe beyond our own life (to help ya out, it's pretty close to 1)? Would you care to provide for the audience here what the probability is that your bottom up theory would've been able to occur on its own, under natural circumstances, without any scientific intervention? You say it's silly but seem to be ignorant of the facts. In fact, even as highly improbable as your theory is; the fact that you defend it so righteously actually makes the concept in the OP even MORE acceptable. Why? Because if you consider as fact or explanation that life could arise from such a primordial soup in such ways, then it can be used as assumption for considering the concept of life elsewhere. Given the absolutely massive scale of the universe and the scientific certainty that life exists outside of our own solar system, then it wouldn't be so preposterous whatsoever to consider that out of the infinite number of primordial soups; and the certainty that many then produced life (especially if your theory is acceptable to you), that some of that life then became intelligent; and possibly intelligent millions or even billions of years prior to us. If that is the case, then why so astounding that such a form of life over additional millions or billions of years found ways to navigate the universe beyond our comprehension, with the ability to cause life to occur on a different planet? Not so astounding after all, when taken into consideration. In fact, the MOST absurd or unbelievable part of it, IS in fact your theory. The odds are far greater that life formed elsewhere in the infinite universe and that of that life some may have arisen billions of years before ours, and that the evolution/advancement has far surpassed our understanding in the additional years they've had; then are the odds in the first place that the nucleic acids, RNA, DNA, whatever you want it to be, ended up all of a sudden under the most improbable of perfect conditions ended up forming.



"There is, as yet, no complete explanation of how life came about on this planet."

No shit. There ain't even one that's close.


"That doesn't mean that a theory containing, at it's heart, the same unexplained phenomenon as a part of of it's narrative that it's trying to explain is equivalent to a theory that doesn't."

Ummmmmmm, ok. Doesn't mean it isn't; either. That whole jumbled up sentence is pretty much worthless.


"Your original point, was that the "advanced civilisation" theory was AS GOOD as the "bottom up" theory. It isn't, because it contains as a part of its make up, i.e. an unexplained life-form, the mystery that it's trying to account for. This is kind of a fatal error in any theory."

Ummm, What on Earth are you talking about? Unexplained life form? No, not really. Just stating there could be intelligent life on another planet with millions or billions of experience past our own, that has figured out how to navigate the universe. Pretty real possibility actually. There's no mystery. Hell; WE'RE alive. So the OP is just saying there is someone else alive elsewhere, smarter than we are. No mystery really. In fact, scientific probabilities predict that likelihood to be quite favorably probable or possible. In fact, the only reason it could be considered not as good as the 'bottom up' theory is because in order to be feasible, it also has to CONTAIN the 'bottom up' theory. The most improbable part then of ALL the OP (except for the moon part and stuff) is that fact that to make it work the bottom up theory had to work as well. That's the most improbable part of all of it.


"The bottom up theory is incomplete, and contested,"

You ain't kiddin. That's an understatement.


"but it doesn't contain the mystery it's trying to explain a part of it's narrative.""

Ummmmmm, who really cares? Not to mention that it doesn't. One question is "how did life start HERE", whereas the other is "How did life start AT ALL?". The mysteries are completely separate and identifiably so.



"This, coupled with the fact that amino acids have been shown to arise in conditions closely approximating what is believed to be the chemical conditions on the surface of the Earth in it's youth,"

Ummmmm, I think you mean in tightly controlled experiments in which a ton of scientific intervention was required; in which the probability of such perfect conditions arising appropriately in the primordial soup are about 1 - 10 ^40 power (or however the fuck you write it), and in which even then the results are still not even close to truly replicating life and are controversial as hell as to truly offering sound explanation.


"that said amino acids also form peptides and in conjunction with them can form spherical membranes, that even SILICATES have been shown to demonstrate self-replicating properties and a host of other experiments yielding uncontroversial results supporting the likelihood that a range of abiotic reactions can give rise to life-like behaviours, which experiments, incidentally, what with your being so well educated and all, you will know all about, AND that as far as we know, there is nothing anywhere even remotely resembling evidence for an alien civilisation anywhere that we have looked on the planet Earth, leads me to favour the theory that life on earth WASN'T seeded by an alien civilisation."

Wow. Whole lotta jumbled up stuff meanin nuttin. Fact is, though those experiments give hope; as of yet they really don't even come close yet. And nothing resembling evidence for an alien civilization? You mean, all the scientific studies and all that determined the probability of such civilization existing elsewhere in the universe to be for all intents and purposes 1? I just love how you say a whole lot of jumbled up shit, the results of which mean almost nothing as it relates to where life originated (since it's got a LONGGGGGGGG way to go to be considered any type of evidence) and then say that's why you favor it blah blah blah. You're a hoot!



"It's specious to say that the current models "aren't even close"."

It is? Nope. Sorry kid. The current models aren't even close to being close. Deal with it.

[Tesha]

102. Your ignorance of the explanation doesn't mean one doesn't exist. (NT)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. ALRIGHT!!!! You're Not Ignorant Of It Obviously Then? Well Then PLEASE... SHARE WITH US!!!!

I can't wait to hear the explanation oh masterful non-ignorant one! Please! Indulge us!

[Tesha]

175. I prefer to teach people to fish rather than hand them a fish, so...

Either:

1. Pick up some good books on the subjects of cosmology, the origins of life, and evolution and natural selection,

2. Search Wikipedia on those topics, or

3. Search the Internet in general.

You'll learn more by doing your own homework ;-).

Tesha

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

182. You Prefer To Cop Out Rather Than Face Embarrassment Due To Lack Of Education On The Subject Ya Mean

See, I've done the reading and am well educated on the subject. I also understand it just fine, hence my ability to use reasoning to recognize its TREMENDOUS gaps in the first place.

So it would appear that it is you, through a "learn for yourself!" cop-out, that is truly uneducated on the subject.

Tell me Tesha... Tell the crowd... Step up to the mic. Give us your side; your argument; your understanding. Hell, at the least, care to give the crowd even a rough estimate on what the scientific odds are of any of those theories happening under natural circumstances without scientific and controlled intervention? Mind doing that for the crowd at least? If you'd like to go further then please do! Tell us why those theories are more rational. How so?

C'mon Tesha. Don't proceed with the blatantly obvious cop-outs. Please; Tesha, step up to the mic and let's see how loud you are kid.

[Tesha]

195. You've proven, conversing with many DUers on many different topics, to be uneducable.

I'm not going to waste my time just because you say I should.

Tesha

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

197. Another Huge Obvious Cop-Out.

In fact, whenever a DU'er actually converses with FACTS or actual supporting INFORMATION, I respond just fine. There have been times in such conversations when I'll admit wrong when necessary due to HAVING been educated further on the topic. So nice try with your ad hominem empty cop out bullshit. Fact is, 99% of the replies I got are knee jerking ignorant bullshit wrapped in personal put downs, ad hominems, and grade school ridiculousness. No; not really gonna take those seriously bub.

So you copped out. Sorry to hear that. I would've like to have seen even a modicum of supporting evidence from you. Hell, if not for me, at least for others reading this thread. Wait; let me guess; they're ineducable (the real word) too? :rofl:

C'mon, at least tell the crowd what the probability of your theory occurring naturally on its own would be. C'mon, it'll be a riot!!!!!

:rofl:

[Marr]

146. *edit*

[Zix]

35. Science is not a religion.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

177. Explain.

In this and other threads you've claimed that the abiogenic origin of life is as ridiculous as the belief that a magic pixie created it out of nothing.

Explain why.

Sure, it has not been reproduced in the laboratory yet. But that doesn't mean the hypothesis is flawed, irrational, or physically impossible.

So please, in detail, explain the problem with the hypothesis.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

188. The Problem Is That The Odds Of ANY Of Those Things Occurring Due To

natural circumstances without scientifically controlled intervention, is astronomical.

The problem is that as you said, it HAS NOT yet been reproduced, even with ALL our technology and ability to do tightly controlled and perfect condition experiments. Even with all taht, we can't even begin to provide fact to the theory. Yet believing it could occur under natural circumstances without scientific intervention, though astronomical in lack of likelihood, is not as irrational as thinking there is some higher power, some higher force, that somehow created it?

The problem is that even if someday, though they are not even CLOSE at this point to having done so; they replicate the building blocks of life; there is still a ton of conflicting evidence that even if a cell was created, that the building blocks themselves were created, that it would be a 'shell' so to speak only, and that the 'intelligence' found in RNA/DNA would still not be present. There are scientific flaws all over the place with each theory, and mathematical probability issues with them as well, some figures being so astronomical that as a rule of math themselves, the probability is just considered impossible.

The theories are great reading, and I'm in the camp of hoping that someday, in my lifetime, scientists confirm through fact how life truly originated. I've loved science since I was a young child and would love to finally see the facts. My only point in this thread is that the facts aren't even close yet. The theories; though lovely reading and wrapped in nice little neat packages; are still way far off from actually being confirmed; and all contain an unlimited amount of flaws and probability issues that cause them to be just as irrational to believe outright as any other proposal.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

189. What are the odds?

Show your work.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

198. Depends On Where You Look. Could Be A 1 With 40,000 Zeros, A 1 with 10,000 Zeros, A Thousand Zeros,

etc.

It's a realllllllllllllly large number making it; as it stands right now given their best work; reallllllllly still improbable.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

199. Those are just numbers you made up.

If you don't know what the numbers actually are, how do you know they're too large?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

201. There Are No FIRM Numbers, But They All Have One Thing In Common: They're HUGE.

They're all astronomical. Care to find a probability of the primordial soup theory that ISN'T astronomical?

No, I didn't make up those numbers. I hope you don't make up yours.

And oh, while you're doing the research (if you choose to), when you find out from it that all of the probabilities ARE in fact astronomical and huge, would you please come back here and admit it? That would be nice for a change. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

203. You did just make up those numbers.

And they're only huge because you made up to be huge.

"Care to find a probability of the primordial soup theory that ISN'T astronomical?"

I'm not the one make a claim about statistics.

The onus is on you to support your claim.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

205. No, I Actually Didn't. You Never Provide Anything, You Know That? You've Got Nuttin.

Those are the numbers I've seen during my investigations to the topic. They aren't made up whatsoever; and they are all astronomical. Though ALL of my followings of those types of theories I have YET to ever come across a probability that WASN'T astronomical.

See, I've already had the experience, education and effort to learn enough about the topic to fully understand the astronomical nature of it; which is why in the FIRST PLACE I'm able to respond with and educated and informed position that all theories are equal as it relates to improbability; for all intents and purposes.

But tell me; have YOU had the experience, education and effort to learn enough about the topic to fully understand it, or are you instead simply talking out of your ass with no real scientifically educated leg to stand on, only doing so for sake of "gotta bust OMC" immaturity, while having NEVER yourself seen any evidence or supporting claim whatsoever that indicates the theories you are supporting are NOT astronomical?

C'mon, answer at least that much borniblahblah. I've actually SEEN the huge numbers I've listed. Have you ever actually SEEN numbers suggesting the odds are NOT astronomical? You say the onus is on me. Uhhhhhh, no it ain't pal. You're arguing your side. If you're arguing it, you then also have a responsibility to offer of supporting information for it. By taking the position you're taking, you're stating that in reality the odds are not astronomical or it is highly likely that the odds are not astronomical. Since you ARE in fact debating my position, then you ARE in fact also supporting that other position. So the onus is ALSO on you to provide at least something, nay, ANYTHING, to lend credibility to your position. Just simply arguing and debating my position just for sake of doing so doesn't quite cut it kid. So step up to the mic or sit your ass down, ya know? :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

206. 10^40000, 10^1000, and 10^1000 all numbers you just invented.

Unless you claim those numbers are supported with evidence.

In which case I'd like to see how you've derived them, or reference people who have.

"Those are the numbers I've seen during my investigations to the topic."

Great. Provide a link.

"See, I've already had the experience, education and effort to learn enough about the topic to fully understand the astronomical nature of it; which is why in the FIRST PLACE I'm able to respond with and educated and informed position that all theories are equal as it relates to improbability; for all intents and purposes."

If you've really worked hard doing your research, then why is it people who actually do this for a living- statisticians, chemists, biochemists, etc. make no such claims?

"But tell me; have YOU had the experience, education and effort to learn enough about the topic to fully understand it, or are you instead simply talking out of your ass with no real scientifically educated leg to stand on, only doing so for sake of "gotta bust OMC" immaturity, while having NEVER yourself seen any evidence or supporting claim whatsoever that indicates the theories you are supporting are NOT astronomical?"

I admit that I have done any original statistical research on abiogenesis. However, I have extensive expertise with chemistry and biochemistry. And I see no reason to believe that abiogenesis is impossible, or even unlikely.

Now I am also familiar with Creationist rhetoric, having run into them on several occasions. You're using one of their common (and debunked) arguments known as "irreducible complexity." You claim elsewhere in the thread that you're not a Creationist, yet here you are giving them lip service.

"You say the onus is on me. Uhhhhhh, no it ain't pal."

Sure it is. You made the claim. You support it.

"You're arguing your side."

I'm not claiming any statistics. Am I claiming abiogenesis? Sure. We can make amino acids synthetically. We can make nucleic acids. Oligonucleotides. Sugars. Peptides. Lipids. Phospholipids. Phospholipid bilayers which form micelles which consume others, grow, divide on their own, and evolve. The idea that all of the ingredients are there and that they couldn't have come together on their own strikes me as much more unrealistic than the idea that they did. Requiring some magic pixie to zap it with magic pixie dust is both scientifically nonsensical- and it reduces God to just a "god of the gaps." That is, using God to only explain those things that haven't been performed in a laboratory.

Yet.

"So step up to the mic or sit your ass down, ya know?"

You still haven't supported your claim.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

207. Thank You For Admitting You're Uneducated On The Topic. That Explains A Lot.

Unless you claim those numbers are supported with evidence.

In which case I'd like to see how you've derived them, or reference people who have.

"Those are the numbers I've seen during my investigations to the topic."

Great. Provide a link.

They're not made up. Funny part of all this is that when it comes down to it, I'm exponentially more interested in science than religion, and always am doing research to try and stay current on different things. Science fascinates me. In the end of it all, am I a firm believer that science will ultimately prove the origins of life and religion will take a catastrophic blow? Absolutely. Is there anything currently even close to doing so? Nope. But back to the point. The point is that I've invested a lot of time in educating myself on different things; including this. Am I of the desire to take that much time out right now to search for you? Nope, not really. Why? Cause I already factually know what I'm saying to be true, and that's enough for me at this point. Fact is, if you would've credibly claimed that you've seen competent and legitimate figures in relation to the probability of your theory, I would maybe then have either felt the need to debunk that through links, or just accept what you say as contrary but possible. Unfortunately for you, you've admitted to being uneducated fully on the topic, so I really don't feel the desire to prove the point in only a one sided fashion (meaning doing so at the request of an 'ignorant'... i.e. someone who is challenging without any standing).

"See, I've already had the experience, education and effort to learn enough about the topic to fully understand the astronomical nature of it; which is why in the FIRST PLACE I'm able to respond with and educated and informed position that all theories are equal as it relates to improbability; for all intents and purposes."

If you've really worked hard doing your research, then why is it people who actually do this for a living- statisticians, chemists, biochemists, etc. make no such claims?

Well there ya go just making up stuff again due to the fact you haven't done enough information gathering yourself, bornaginblahblah. They make no such claims? Yet these scientists are the ones who claim the astronomical figures in the first place? You say they make no claims, but have they made claims OTHERWISE? Are there scientists that say it is far more probable that a certain theory is correct? It would be good if they were unbiased scientists, or ones working on different theories than the one they're referencing. I know as scientists their interests lie in finding the scientific answer to the question, so they'd naturally discount non-scientific causes. But that doesn't mean that they would claim their current theory is actually probable. Can you show me where they have?

"But tell me; have YOU had the experience, education and effort to learn enough about the topic to fully understand it, or are you instead simply talking out of your ass with no real scientifically educated leg to stand on, only doing so for sake of "gotta bust OMC" immaturity, while having NEVER yourself seen any evidence or supporting claim whatsoever that indicates the theories you are supporting are NOT astronomical?"

I admit that I have NOT (just put that in, since you accidentally left that important word out) done any original statistical research on abiogenesis. However, I have extensive expertise with chemistry and biochemistry. And I see no reason to believe that abiogenesis is impossible, or even unlikely.

Ok, that one's hilarious to me two-fold. First, because you admit you are uneducated in that aspect, yet are standing here in the position of ignorance arguing it as if you have any standing to do so (I LOVE when people do that!). Secondly, because of your "and i see no reason to believe etc etc" line. Of course you don't. You're ignorant to the facts ( you just admitted that). How could you see the reason if you haven't educated yourself to the point of knowing them? Too fuckin funny.

Now I am also familiar with Creationist rhetoric, having run into them on several occasions. You're using one of their common (and debunked) arguments known as "irreducible complexity." You claim elsewhere in the thread that you're not a Creationist, yet here you are giving them lip service.

Actually, I've done no such thing. Nice of you to try and claim I did, but claiming so shows a huge lack of understanding on your part as to what my arguments have been. Have I argued anywhere that abiogenesis is impossible without god or some higher power having been also involved? Wait, I haven't? Nice try but FAIL. All I've done is say that both religious type and scientific type explanations for the origins of life are both highly improbable based on everything we currently know. Know what? That's a fact jack.

"You say the onus is on me. Uhhhhhh, no it ain't pal."

Sure it is. You made the claim. You support it.

Again, no it ain't pal. I've admitted to being educated on it, whereas you've admitted to being UNeducated on it. Therefore, you need to educate yourself before you even have any legitimate standing to challenge my statements.

"You're arguing your side."

I'm not claiming any statistics. Am I claiming abiogenesis? Sure. We can make amino acids synthetically. We can make nucleic acids. Oligonucleotides. Sugars. Peptides. Lipids. Phospholipids. Phospholipid bilayers which form micelles which consume others, grow, divide on their own, and evolve. The idea that all of the ingredients are there and that they couldn't have come together on their own strikes me as much more unrealistic than the idea that they did.

That's because you're uneducated (admittedly) as to the probabilities of those things coming together, in the perfect conditions, naturally, in the primordial soup. If you were educated fully on it; you'd see how improbable even that 'possibly sound from a 50000 foot view' type theory is.

Requiring some magic pixie to zap it with magic pixie dust is both scientifically nonsensical- and it reduces God to just a "god of the gaps." That is, using God to only explain those things that haven't been performed in a laboratory.

Yet.

Can't recall seeing any mention of pixie dust yet; but then from my experience with you I know how apt you are to just making things up anyway, so I'll let it slide.

And of course the concept of divine intervention is scientifically absurd. That what separates scientific theory from creationist theory. Which camp is right? No idea. As of yet, there is nothing solid that either camp has. Science has a far more readily available ability to produce nice sounding theories with nice sounding procedures etc due to the scientific nature of their theory to begin with; but if you take it all and condense it to simple fact; the simple fact is they ain't even close to providing a sound, grounded in fact and able to be accepted by the scientific community at large type conclusion yet. Ain't even close to being close.

"So step up to the mic or sit your ass down, ya know?"

You still haven't supported your claim.

I've supported it far more than you have kid. The only real thing you've said is that you're uneducated fully on the topic to begin with, thereby making your opinion basically worthless. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

210. Demonstrate where I'm wrong.

"Science fascinates me."

I haven't seen any evidence of that. By all reasonable standards, you've never even posted anything indicative of scientific literacy.

"Fact is, if you would've credibly claimed that you've seen competent and legitimate figures in relation to the probability of your theory, I would maybe then have either felt the need to debunk that through links"

Ah, but I didn't make any claims. You did.

You made claims, but you've been unable and/or unwilling to support those claims. So there's no further reason for me to debunk them.

"They make no such claims?"

No. There are no modern evolutionary biologists or evolutionary chemists who claim that abiogenesis is statistically impossible.

Now there was Fred Hoyle, which is from whom your 10^40000 claim comes from. Of course, Hoyle was an astrophysicist, not a biologist. So he was discussing something he did not understand. Furthermore, he made that claim back in the twenties. Back before any biomolecules at been synthesized abiotically.

Of course, it was easy to debunk at the time. There's a reason why it's called Hoyle's Fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

The only people who take it seriously are Creationists. The only place you'll find it is in Creationist literature, which you clearly have been reading and believing. This is why nobody takes you seriously when you say you're not a Creationist.

"It would be good if they were unbiased scientists, or ones working on different theories than the one they're referencing."

Unbiased scientists? OMC, scientists believe in evolution because of evidence. Not because they're biased.

"You're ignorant to the facts"

For example?

"Yet these scientists are the ones who claim the astronomical figures in the first place?"

Scientists aren't claiming those astronomical figures. It's just crap you made up.

"Have I argued anywhere that abiogenesis is impossible without god or some higher power having been also involved?"

You've claimed it's irrational. You claimed it's statistically impossible. The alternative would be invoking God. So, yeah. You've been weasley about it, not sure if that's a good way to express your faith, but that's up to you.

"I've admitted to being educated on it,"

You've claimed to be educated on it, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

"whereas you've admitted to being UNeducated on it."

You've confusing being uneducated with asking you to support a claim with evidence.

"If you were educated fully on it; you'd see how improbable even that 'possibly sound from a 50000 foot view' type theory is. "

By all means, educate me. Tell me what the real statistics are. Show your work.

"Can't recall seeing any mention of pixie dust yet; but then from my experience with you I know how apt you are to just making things up anyway, so I'll let it slide."

Pixie dust. God. Intelligent design. Whatever it is that you want to call your alternative to random chance.

"I've supported it far more than you have kid."

No you haven't.

My original challenge- 'provide the statistics and show your work' has gone unanswered.

[Arugula Latte]

85. Epic fail on your part again. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. Cause You Say So? ROFLMAO. You're Projecting.

Your response was an epic fail, with nothing to it whatsoever.

My post is 100% accurate kid.

[Zix]

107. Projection's actually a pretty complex psychological phenomenon.

It's a fair bet that the poster isn't projecting.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

122. Okey Dokie Ralph!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Zix]

134. You should try a more constructive way of communicating with people.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

140. You're Projecting Again Kid.

Still unwilling to provide ANYTHING that supports your argument son?

[Zix]

150. It's your "argument", dear.

You're the one asserting that the theory's equivalent to the currently held models. The burden of proof's on you.

Point me in the direction of the evidence for this alien civilisation, please.

[Garbo 2004]

18. It's also possible that we're butterflies dreaming we are human. nt

[TexasObserver]

55. Now, that's just crazy. I'm a horned toad dreaming I'm a man.

[Cleita]

19. No, but it could make a helluva story for a Sci-Fi writer.

What's that? Oh, I think it's been done.

[Subdivisions]

21. Just once I would like to

have some of what you're smokin' for reals!

[FormerDittoHead]

22. If life was planned out somehow, where did all those fossils come from? n/t

>And through DNA created all the creatures of life on earth?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. It's Actually A Quite Sound Theory (Except For The Moon Part).

It is an absolute possibility and there is nothing irrational about considering it. I do not; however, understand why the moon part had to be thrown in.

[keep_it_real]

33. Without the moon the planet earth would not have a smooth but eractic ride that would couse the

Waters to over run the land and there would be know life on earth. The moon is as important to human life on earth as the digital information in the human DNA is to human live.

[Zix]

109. It assumes the existence of something vastly more complex than what it's trying to explain.

This makes it a good deal less useful as a theory than most of the more currently popular theories. All it does is insert an enormous amount of untestable, unverifiable postulates that also probably can't be disproved. A theory that adds enormous quantities of new fictitious information to a mystery that can't be verified or disproved actually adds nothing to our understanding of the mystery. It's therefore of no real use, compelling though it may be.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. The Point Wasn't About Use. It Was About Possibility.

Wow are you closed minded.

[Zix]

Here's thought for you:

Perhaps your pursuit of "open-mindedness" masks an inability to distinguish between things that make sense and things that don't. Maybe you're just sufficiently frightened of looking stupid that you champion whatever looks like the opposite of the generally accepted viewpoint to make yourself feel different. Hey, that way, who needs to think about anything? You can just sit tight and oppose everybody and accuse them of being "close-minded" no matter what they say.

Does that sound open-minded to you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

145. Nope. Still Sounds Like You're Incredibly Closed Minded, And Again Having The Inability To Support

your case.

Why doesn't the core of the OP make sense? Why does it make less sense than other theories? Can you compare? Contrast? Offer anything other than ignorant putdowns? Are you capable of defending your position? If not, just admit it already so we don't have to keep wasting our time accomplishing nothing.

[Marr]

147. It isn't a "theory" at all.

Daydreams and baseless conjecture do not add up to theories.

[hlthe2b]

26. According to my dog, THEY are the advanced alian species....

who created mankind to be THEIR servants and then she points to me... I have to say, I have no argument against this....:)

[Juche]

27. Not really, here is why

The moon was caused by a giant asteroid hitting earth 4.6 billion years ago.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-was-the-moon-formed.html

Also, if there are aliens why do they have the same biochemistry we do? Where did they come from? Even if we were seeded by aliens, who created the aliens? The problem of biogenesis still remains. Somehow, somewhere life had to arrive from nothing. If life was seeded here that problem still remains.

If there is a species that is millions of times more advanced then us, they we owe nothing to them. We could have used that knowledge. Basic scientific info about germ theory, agriculture, nutrition, sanitation, the scientific method, transportation, pharmacology and herbology, etc. would've made the world a totally different place. If there are aliens, then they don't care about us and we owe them nothing.

If there is life that is millions of times more advanced, they either don't care enough to visit us or hide it well.

As far as life on earth, the first 3.2 billion years were pretty much all single celled organisms (if that). It wasn't until about 600 million years ago that multicellular life arrived. Homo Sapiens are barely 200,000 years old. And industrial technocracy (starting with the enlightenment, age of reason, industrial revolution and Renaissance) is barely 300 years old. If you take the circumference of the earth (25,000 miles) and make it the entire history of evolution, then humans have only been here for about a mile. Scientific civilization has only existed for the last 50 feet.

If these aliens guided our evolution, then they suck at it. Even manmade intelligent design in the form of breeding and gene therapy is far more advanced. We have turned tiny little vegetables into giant ears of corn via intelligent breeding.



Within a dozen generations you can turn foxes either into docile dogs or into raging attack animals by selective breeding. If there are aliens running our evolution, they are incompetent.

[keep_it_real]

57. It is also possible that live did not evolve from nothing:

That intelligent live was, is and always will be.

[Juche]

96. I doubt it myself

The reason is that we know what the universe was like when shortly after the big bang occurred. Intelligent life requires very advanced nervous systems, and complex biology to support those nervous systems. Nothing like that could've existed when the universe first started. Basic atoms like hydrogen and helium hadn't even formed at that point, let alone the complex molecules you need to have a nervous system capable of higher cognition. It is like saying you can build a complex office skyscraper full of computers, office equipment and people out of a beach full of sand. The building blocks for intelligence (oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, iron, etc) didn't exist until the second generation stars came about and created molecules larger than helium. So intelligence likely couldn't have existed until at least a few billion years after the universe was created because the chemistry that makes it possible wasn't around until then.

Intelligent life seems to be a byproduct of natural selection among mammals who live in social organizations. Steven Pinker found that the most intelligent life on earth (humans, birds, elephants, dolphins, other primates, etc) fit this bill. The reason intelligence evolved is supposedly so the animals could outsmart each other and gain personal benefit within the social unit.

So intelligence is likely just a byproduct of that, not something innate to existence.

[rd_kent]

104. HUh? What are you talking about.

Make sense please.

[trotsky]

136. "If there are aliens running our evolution, they are incompetent."

So true. Great line. Works for gods, demons, or whatever other magical imaginary being someone wants to put in there.

[ljm2002]

29. Doesn't matter, because it begs the question...

...i.e., either way life arose in the universe and that is the central mystery. I choose to believe that life is a fundamental property of the universe that arises under the right circumstances, and that it is downright silly of us to think that it only happened here on Earth. Whether life arose here, or somewhere else in the universe and was brought here, I don't see as all that compelling a question. We've already found organic precursors on comets, no reason that could not be a mechanism for spreading life around the universe; something like dandelion puffs only on a different scale.

[asdjrocky]

30. Tell me what is one inch beyond the end of the universe.

And remember, it's hit pass, hit pass. Not hit hit pass.

[Zix]

38. They dont hear this.

They haven't heard any useful definition of "Universe".

[comrade snarky]

58. That question

Is like standing at the exact North pole and asking which way is North.


Ooo... sorry, I may have fish lipped it there. Here use this pipe. :smoke:

[asdjrocky]

61. Good man.

You must have been a boy scout.

[comrade snarky]

106. Yep

I made it out of a coke can and an apple.

The apple is for flavor.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

34. Link?

:*

[TexasObserver]

36. No.

[ThoughtCriminal]

37. It would be longer ago than that

Our biological origins, and the Moon go back billions of years. The idea has been suggested by some notable science fiction and a few scientists. See "Directed Panspermia":

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

I would speculate that the hypothesis is at least testable - which sets it apart from purely religious ideas. Finding life outside the Earth with DNA common to terrestrial DNA would support, but not prove it.

[keep_it_real]

39. Did an intellgence put the digital code in the humane cells of DNA or did the cosmos just luck up on

The digital DNA code in the human cell?

[vadawg]

40. its like masturbating whilst wearing a sheepskin rug

a sad substitute for the real thing ...

[truebrit71]

185. For whom? You or the sheep?

:evilgrin:

[SidDithers]

41. Who's DAN, and why does he have my digital code?...nt

Sid

[vadawg]

43. DAN is the National Dyslexic Association of America, i think...

[keep_it_real]

44. I menat to say DNA

[SDuderstadt]

42. I don't know, but...

I hope you soon discover the DNA for coherence.

[Vickers]

45. I know a guy who works at a hospital, and he told me about this guy went to the emergency room

with a digital watch stuck in his behind.

Hope this helps.

[blondeatlast]

46. If you are talking about the Dan I know, he humanely planted lots of stuff

in lots of women but I don't think he was smart enough to do it your way.

We lasted just one date, fwiw.

[Obamanaut]

47. Are you saying that Dan seaded people? Humanely? nt

[blondeatlast]

52. Come to think of it, the dinner and wine were pretty cheap. Oddly enough,

my poor gramma needed a ride home from Bingo so I had to call things off early...

[A-Schwarzenegger]

48. Yes.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

49. If it's an intelligence that evoled in the cosmos, then it's the cosmos

If the cosmos lucked out or if it's an entity that evolved naturally as part of the cosmos, it's the same thing. Or are you talking about an intelligence that exists separate and apart from the cosmos? Intelligent design?

[Ohio Joe]

50. Sheesh... Do we really need two threads on this shit? - nt

[Odin2005]

51. No, next question?

[Zix]

53. Did the cosmos luck out on 2+2 being 4?

[Cirque du So-What]

54. God is quite the molecular biologist

Very hands-on kinda guy. Personally sculpted every strand of DNA for all living things - compulsive micro-manager, ya see! I think there's some bipolar stuff going on, though. If he wasn't fucking with Abraham's head - telling him to sacrifice his son and then stopping him just before he plunged the knife *PSYCH!* - he was punking Job every time he turned around. Kept stirring up shit between the Israelites and their neighbors too. This one time, He told them they were His 'chosen people,' then a coupla thousand years later, he let the Romans scatter them all over the place. With friends like that...

Anyway, God went from being this vengeful bronze-age terror to benevolent Sky Daddy in the Christians' New Testament. More bipolar stuff. And as far as we know, the last time he fucked around with DNA, He used his OWN spooge to artificially inseminate a Jewish virgin. They're still talking about THAT, boy howdy!

[pipi_k]

184. And in spite of all that, he still has time...

to pick sides in Holy Wars here on earth and help his "Faithful" win, give people all the material goods they beg him for, and watch sports on TV, listen to the prayers, and decide which team he wants to win each week.

God...the ultimate multi-tasker

[Edweird]

56. ”Have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, wow, really looked at it?”

[vadawg]

59. i love my hand, he is my best friend, we have been through so much together

and the happiest day of my life was when i could finally sleep without the boxing gloves on, a bliss....

[Homer Wells]

204. I Still miss that show! n/t

[walldude]

60. Well if this is some kind of alien experiment

they are failing miserably. :rofl:

[keep_it_real]

62. If human civilization last a million years on earth will we be considered

Gods at that time? Or just a million year hold human civilization on planet earth?

[vadawg]

63. sounds fucking painful, do we get anaesthetic......

[Warpy]

64. No kidding

I sure as hell don't want that kind of responsibility.

[blondeatlast]

71. Oh, suuuuure, leave the rest of us Gods to hold up your end, slacker. nt

[keep_it_real]

68. What do you want to do wind up like Michael Jackson?

[Lerkfish]

65. cultural longevity would make us Gods?

bizarre concept.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

66. How much time do I have to decide?

[Xipe Totec]

67. Seven and a half million years

And watch out for Vogons.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

76. I need 30 seconds more.

[Xipe Totec]

84. Not 42? n/t

[Obamanaut]

69. Do not operate heavy machinery. nt

[blondeatlast]

72. Or even the microwave... nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. I'm Already Considered A God And I'm Only 34!

:evilgrin:

[vadawg]

73. shit your dyslexia is showing again, i think you spelt dick wrong mate :)

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vadawg]

78. rofl so true

[keep_it_real]

81. Dude lay off the Jack Danels pot and crack

[Odin2005]

74. someone from 10,000 years ago would think we are gods.

[vadawg]

80. either that or big fat, slow hairless mammoths going by the mall clientelle

[Lisa0825]

77. Step away from the keyboard.....

You're trippin' me out.... :crazy:


:wtf:

[keep_it_real]

82. Trip baby trip, open and expand your mind

[Codeine]

143. You must have expanded it an awful lot

to fit in that much cheesy space-opera bullshit.

[GreenStormCloud]

79. Assuming we last through this century...

We will have to get a handle on living within the resources of the planet, and cleaning up the planet, or we are doomed. So let's assume that we do that, and reduce human population to 500 million. Assume that we still have a technological civilization.

Sometime in the next 1,000 years we will learn to selectively design our own genetic code. Likely by the end of this century, maybe by mid century.

By today's standard, everybody will be a genius. By their standards, we, of today, are almost all mentally retarded.

We will be able to turn off the aging genes, and engineer ourselves not to have natural death.

Children will become rare and approved only when there is an accidental death, and greatly cherished.

Computer technology will continue to advance. We will be able to directly link our minds to computers. Some of us will love being digital so much that we will upload ourselves and refuse to download. Those computer-people will journey to the rest of the galaxy.

Some of those who go to the nearer stars will return to tell the rest of us of their discoveries. Those who go to the far stars will never return. (I am assuming that light speed is a permanent barrier.) They will have selected a permanent voyage of discovery.

[Garbo 2004]

83. "Considered Gods" by whom? nt

[zippy890]

86. They came from Mars because Mars was becoming

uninhabitable - sometime around 500,000 years ago. Not many of them were able to make it here. They mixed with the hominids living here. Martians were the missing link.


thats why we must go to Mars and explore.

[cloudbase]

87. It's not only possible,

it's what really happened. I read that on the internet somewhere, so it must bloody well be true.

[Ozymanithrax]

91. Isn't it possible that life is an emergent property of natural law and, like Topsy, we just grow'd.

The difference between genesis and your theory is the terminology you use.

[WolverineDG]

93. This had all happened before....

some thought Battlestar Galactica was science fiction.....it was really history..... :P

The thought has crossed my mind from time to time, but if true, where are these advanced beings?

dg

[Warren Stupidity]

103. No.

[liberalmuse]

110. Sure it is.

Since none of us was there to see how it all began, I suppose your scenario makes as much sense as anything else. My worldview holds that it does appear that the planet was 'seeded'. By whom or what, I have no idea. Anyone who disses this outright is plain arrogant, because I will bet everything I have that they are as clueless as the rest of us about 'all of this'.

[Zix]

113. ..... ARROGANCE....?

You sit there typing up the first thing coming into your head and the people producing results from decades of actual testing and research that's gone into trying to establish what might have happened to bring life about on this planet - THEY'RE arrogant?

You think that actually trying to go and find things out is BAD?

[mvd]

111. Point number 2 is likely IMO

There may have been some alien involvement due to the history of the Ancients; it's at least interesting to think about. If they did, I think their project got out of control. :-)

[Tutankhamun]

112. Is it possible to get a headache from reading unedited, incomprehensible crud?

[philly_bob]

115. REC for sci-fi + Halloween. What artifacts could we find that would prove it? n/t

[KittyWampus]

211. See, now your question is the essence of an open mind. I applaud your willingness

to consider a position and then step back objectively.

[Enthusiast]

116. It was all a piece of

amazingly good fortune. But considering numbers of solar systems powered by a star similar to our own it has probably happened many times in the past.

I'm waiting for the day when intelligent life answers the radio signals we have been broadcasting for all these years. It's gonna happen, it's only a matter of time. Now won't that be a kick in the ass!

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. Damn that is what happens when I leave my fiction notes

on a place just anybody can get to...

:-)

For the record, all SCIENTIFIC evidence does point to life out there... that does not imply it is flying here.

[lapfog_1]

118. My only question for the intelligent design folks is

Why did "the creator(s)" bother with the millions of years of that age of dinosaurs before the age of mammals and then the age of primates? Just to put a bunch of carbon in the earth in the form of coal, gas, and oil just so humans could burn a lot of it at the industrial age? Why bother with all of the intermediate steps?

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ConcernedCanuk]

120. YUP - and they all watch us as one of their favorite sitcoms

.
.
.

I mean really . .

The way us humans behave is a bit of a joke,

but a sick one at that.

(sigh)

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

129. Starseed! Woohoo!

One of my favorite scenarios, for sure.

Please, oh alien forefathers, could you maybe speed up that evolutionary process just a bit for maybe 35% of the population so we can leave all this territorial nonsense behind and get down to some real fun? Thanks!

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. It'd be a lot easier to just create a giant computer, and simulate that universe.

Maybe that's exactly what they did.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

[Codeine]

141. Perhaps they could teach you to spell when they're finished. nt

[tjwash]

142. I dunno...but there are a lot of people on this thread that need a life seeded to them

Wow...there is some serious creepy loneliness and nothing to do that is normally only seen at star trek conventions here...but at least trekkies venture out of their house every so often.

[yella_dawg]

144. Nope.

If they had, we'd all be capable of spelling and grammar.

[Marr]

148. I think it's more probable that you're just stoned.

[uppityperson]

151. Simply chance is also possible. eom

[Fuzz]

152. Maybe, but I still think it's impossible to shove a piano up your nose.

[LostInAnomie]

153. Nope, God did it all 6000 years ago.

I don't know why people have to go around making shit up. Just stick to the Biblical facts!

[Bucky]

155. Best. Post. Ever.

Not this one, of course. This is just wanking off. But there is a best post ever. I believe it was the kudzu thread in the Lounge.

[AngryAmish]

156. No

Go touch yourself - with million year old technology.

[johnaries]

158. First they had to destroy existing life by hurling an asteroid into

the planet near the Yucatan. :evilgrin:

Actually, there are theories that very basic organic material originally came from space. It has been found in meteorites and Cassini even found some in Titan's atmosphere.

But it is more likely that life was seeded on Earth by a passing comet than by an ancient civilization.

[defendandprotect]

159. Or an alien civilization a billion years more advanced than we are ....

Yes -- the moon is .... 1 billion+ years older than the earth?

And perhaps even hollowed out?

Some may know -- but most of us don't . . .

[VOX]

160. *pfft* I dig the fact that your *pfft* DU handle is *pfft-pfft* "keep_it_real" *cough cough hack*...

Okay, I'm passing the bong back to you. :nuke:

[Hekate]

163. I think you've put your finger on the problem with the OP

:eyes:

[Rincewind]

161. No nt.

[comtec]

162. I see the un-rec-thought-police are in force

I like the idea to be honest.

Means we still probably evolved to this point, but earth was given a boost...

kind of will make everyone;s head explode if it could somehow be proven LOL

Which it can't. but it's a nice idea for a book

[Hekate]

164. I recommend the sci-fi section of your bookstore. In your incoherent way you've summarized the plot

... of innumerable science fiction novels.

Hekate

[Iggo]

165. Nope.

[old mark]

166. Rec, just because I hate the UnRec.

[Occam Bandage]

168. Yes, it's possible. I don't think it's likely, because it's significantly more complex

than the current mainstream hypotheses, while accounting for nothing new and not solving any problems; after all, that supercivilization would have to have come from somewhere.

[slackmaster]

169. Yes

Or not.

[NeedleCast]

170. I guess it's possible

I think it's pretty unlikely though.

[BolivarianHero]

171. It's theoretically possible...

And it's much more plausible than any literalist interpretation of Holy Scripture.

[dysfunctional press]

172. where do you get your weed...?

:hippie:

[area51]

173. Aliens

I definitely believe republicans are from another planet.

:silly: :bounce:

[Realityhack]

176. Well Let's see.

IS it Possible That a Million Old Alien Civilization Terriformed Earth,

Theoretically. However, it would appear that if they did so they must have intended to fool us into thinking it was naturally occurring given the evidence left behind to suggest that it was.

Seaded Her with live

Theoretically. Seeding a planet with life is the least difficult of the things you have suggested.

and put the moon in place so earth has a smooth ride through space?

WTF?? Why do you say that?

And through DNA created all the creatures of life on earth?

Um. You are no longer talking about seeding a planet with life and abandoning it. Now you are talking about actively engineering the development of every creature on earth past, present, and presumably future.
This is possible in the most theoretical of senses, but again (even more so) the 'aliens' would have to actively try to deceive us into thinking natural evolution was taking place.

Is it possible that there could be a intelligent life form in the cosmos that is MILLIONS of times more ADVANCED in science and MATHEMATICS then earthlings?

You need to define what you mean by 'millions of times more advanced'. More advanced, certainly. 'Millions of times more advanced'? Depends upon your definition. IMO we should accept the possibility of a ceiling on such knowledge which might preclude this possibility.

Could an intelligent people millions of years advanced in science and mathematics not only figure out how to transverse the cosmos but to terraform planets from giant gases to solid masses that support intelligent life?

It can not be ruled out. In much the same way as a teapot orbiting on the other side of the sun.

Is human existence on plant earth the product of an million years more older civilization that created humanity through through advanced knowledge of the human genome out the GENOME OF ALL LIVE IN THE COSMOS?

Now you are no longer asking for theoretical but rather for a firm did it happen that way. The answer is no. We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that this happened and as such there is abosolutely no reason to think it did.
Furthermore you have invented a new concept called the "GENOME OF ALL LIVE IN THE COSMOS". You have failed to define this in any way. Frankly I seriously doubt you even know what a genome is never mind have any clue as to what the deffintion of your own term might be.

Your idea appears to be a pathetic attempt to institute a poorly disguised 'god of the gaps'. It is 'possible' in the same way that it is 'possible' the universe blinked into existence 2 seconds ago fully formed or that we are dreaming butterflies. At best it will entertain a feeble imagination that has not previously considered the idea for a few minutes.
At root it is not in any way a scientific theory (technical or colloquial usage) it is a completely bankrupt concept making no testable predictions or contributing to knowledge in any way.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

178. That's just moving the goal posts.

You'd still need to explain how that previous intelligent life came from.

[Johonny]

186. nah it's just pointless "Chariot of the Gods" babble speak

Is it not possible...
Could it not explain...
no one ever considered...

It's neither interesting science or makes for a good book. Yet the loser made millions. Is it not possible some people will purchase anything?

[mason501]

180. It all has to do with thoughts!

What created the human thought? Inspiration? What gave Einstein the thought of E=MC2? What made you think of your theory? If you think of only good things, and do good things, maybe when you die, you will be rewarded by a different process of thought, in a different dimension, in a different awareness or understanding. Maybe in that understanding, you can do no harm. And then, in the end, as the beginning, your thoughts will become the same thing that created them. Just a thought!

[Ganja Ninja]

181. No it's not possible.

The Moon was created around 4.5 billion years ago likely from a planetary collision. That theory is based on the math. The moon is moving away from the earth at a set rate and they can extrapolate how far back in time to the point where the moon was formed give or take a half billion years.

[Toasterlad]

187. No.

[Desertrose]

190. Sure...why not?

How do we know? What do we know really.....

[ItNerd4life]

191. Didn't you see Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? We were all created

but they sure didn't seem to be more intelligent beings.

[Withywindle]

193. I'm afraid so.

but the "aliens" are not what you expect.

I will say no more. There are things man was not meant to know.


Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

[pipi_k]

194. I thought of something even better...

see, there's this evil guy named Kan, and he's been "away" for a while and he escapes to get revenge on another guy named Krik, whom he blames for all sorts of nasty things, and the crew of the starship Whattasurprise is trying like hell to keep Kan from getting hold of a powerful seeding/terraforming device, which leads to many deaths, one of them being the Commander of the starship Whattasurprise, Mr Sprocket, in a nu-cyu-lar accident, and then....

er...

never mind.





:7

[Echo In Light]

200. *

[evenso]

202. It's possible......but then who created the aliens?

[spin]

212. Perhaps they wonder the same thing....

perhaps "God" is what was before everything or anything.