alien creation

@xris,

"His said his evidence, published in Cambridge University's International Journal of Astrobiology, showed humans, and all life on Earth, came from aliens brought to the earth by comets hitting the planet."

It was God who sent that comet.

2 Replies

@josh0335,

Was it a clay meteor? umm..sorry comet.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;124654 wrote:

Was it a clay meteor? umm..sorry comet.

:Cara_2:. The point I was making is that a new scientific discovery would make no difference to religious beliefs regarding creation. Science doesn't deal with metaphysics.

1 Reply

@josh0335,

josh0335;124658 wrote:

:Cara_2:. The point I was making is that a new scientific discovery would make no difference to religious beliefs regarding creation. Science doesn't deal with metaphysics.

I think you are realist but many fundamentalists will disagree with you. I personally cant see a problem with the creation by a god and how he engineered life, this recent theory should not contradict scriptures. Is there not a meteor in mecca that is supposed to have brought life to earth? Sorry about my ignorance, but is it not the black stone that pilgrims circle?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;124664 wrote:

I think you are realist but many fundamentalists will disagree with you. I personally cant see a problem with the creation by a god and how he engineered life, this recent theory should not contradict scriptures. Is there not a meteor in mecca that is supposed to have brought life to earth? Sorry about my ignorance, but is it not the black stone that pilgrims circle?

Erm, not brought life to Earth but it is said that it is from the heavens. This could mean outer space, or it could possibly mean paradise. Muslims circle the Kabah rather than the stone. Meaning if the stone was ever removed, they would still circle the Kabah, not where the stone is removed to.

I think fundamentalists would probably be even less bothered by scientific discoveries. Remember, there are still young earthers around despite the ample evidence to show otherwise. I doubt they lose any sleep over it either. A fundamentalist can ignore science by claiming it is a scheme of the devil, or something to that effect. So although I agree with you that fundamentalists may disagree with me, and claim that such scientific discoveries are contrary to the 'truth', the end effect is the same.

It is interesting what science can do to one's faith. I'm of the opinion that if science leads you away from God, you probably didn't get God in the first place. I can only speak for myself, but science has strengthened my belief.

1 Reply

@josh0335,

I'm not sure which is more likely: that life began on earth or that life began somewhere else and then was transported to earth by a comet. Neither explains how life began. Maybe Occam's razor should be applied but one would have to consider all the evidence first.

The Telegraph article sited in the OP is 2010 and states "new evidence" but failed to provide any details. Panspermia.org has a little more detail on these findings. I don't know enough about molecular biology or intersteller dust to say whether these guys are hacks or not but it is interesting skimming.

Analysis of Interstellar Dust and Selected Resources. by Brig Klyce

And again, it still would not explain how life began only how life didn't begin on Earth.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;124626 wrote:

All humans are 'aliens from outer space', scientist claims - Telegraph Just seen this report I wondered if it had any consequences for the scientists who say creating life in test tube is possible and if the faithful would ever conceive it possible that god did not create life on earth. Either way we need to reconsider our thoughts on the subject. Im not sure if it should be scientific or the religious forum that contemplates this subject?

What exactly would you like to contemplate? Why would it change what scientists think about creating life in test tubes (how is this even relevant)? And the faithful, like josh noted, are still going to believe God created life. So what if it didn't begin on Earth?

Even scientifically, this information doesn't change much in regards to humans. Humans still developed on Earth. Our consciousness and everything that defines us developed on Earth. The mere fact that the microbes which wound up "multiplying and constructing" us were not from Earth, does not mean we're not from Earth. Microbes are our ancestry? Haha. The whole emphasis on us being aliens is just for publicity; they're using a hollywood word to induce excitement! Woooo, we're ALIENS! Sounds a bit creepy too, doesn't it?

What is interesting is that this may be evidence that we're wrong that Earth is the only planet which houses life. I wonder if they can trace back where the comets came from.

0 Replies

@xris,

The "panspermia" theory of life on earth being the result of "seeding" from some astronomical occurrence, perhaps a collision or meteor hit, or even the intentional act of an "alien" race, has a respectable following. While some "panspermia theorists" take the idea and run on out to left field, not all fall under the umbrella of "lunatic fringe".

From an anthropological and cultural viewpoint, we cannot deny that modern human behavior and human civilization happened in "leaps", WITHOUT the expected archaeological transition layers, at least none discovered yet after over 100 years of digging.

For example, the "leap of agriculture", going quickly from hunter/gatherers to growing and processing cereal grains, using irrigation and other advanced agricultural techniques, is as puzzling as the later "leap of civilization" or "urban revolution" with high civilization including its architecture and social structure, writing, math, trade routes and records, "the arts and skills of civilization".

To me, the most unexplainable (by known natural processes) of all is those pesky early Bablylonian cuneiform math tablets -- the extant ones dating back to about 2000 BC, but per expert analysis, reflective of older originals. Using their sexagesimal (base-60) system, these tablets contain cubes and squares and their roots, which we've found accurate to approximately seven decimal points, quadratic algebraic equations (which were not rediscovered in our own base-10 system until The Enlightenment), even a table of secant squares. The stagnation and decay in ancient Mesopotamian knowledge apparently began around 2000 to 1800 BC; there was little left to salvage by the time the Greeks arrived.

As "lunatic fringe" as it sounds, I don't see how we can escape at least considering the possibility of some type of sentient NON homo sapiens sapiens affecting our history, perhaps even going back to elementary "seeding" of "life" on this planet. And how about that cambrian explosion?!

As for the nature of this "intervention" or "interference", I haven't the foggiest idea. As long as the archaeology, anthropology and paleontology records are silent, we have no beginning point other than the first recorded history, from ancient Sumeria and Egypt, which doesn't, at least overtly, provide the answers we seek. As a person not prone to speculate from silence, I have no theory.

rebecca

1 Reply

@xris,

melonkali wrote:

As a person not prone to speculate from silence, I have no theory.

And that's admirable, I think. I wish more were like you!

0 Replies

@melonkali,

melonkali;124711 wrote:

While some "panspermia theorists" take the idea and run on out to left field, not all fall under the umbrella of "lunatic fringe".

From an anthropological and cultural viewpoint, we cannot deny that modern human behavior and human civilization happened in "leaps", WITHOUT the expected archaeological transition layers, at least none discovered yet after over 100 years of digging.

We are in the middle of one of those leaps in technology right now. I don't know how comparable it is with the agricultural revolution but it seems as important. Granted some believe that much of our present technology was reverse engineered from Roswell. Maybe leaps just happen when the conditions are right. Change isn't steady and gradual. There are nonlinearities, strange attractors to history and anthropology - you know butterfly wings that cause hurricanes. Point being: the catalyst for these sudden leaps need not come from outside the system.

1 Reply

@josh0335,

josh0335;124646 wrote:

"His said his evidence, published in Cambridge University's International Journal of Astrobiology, showed humans, and all life on Earth, came from aliens brought to the earth by comets hitting the planet."

It was God who sent that comet.

:rolleyes:The "MO" of "The One" has never included the act of leaving physical evidence of the committed act.

1 Reply

@No0ne,

It could change scientists view that life could be replicated. They have believed that certain conditions on Earth gave rise to basic life, that by its code developed from a simple form into more and more complexity. If this new idea is correct we must ask how complex was this life when it arrived and where did this life originate from originally. Originality gives us more problems that we ever imagined, by this acceptance we are saying it might not generate spontaneously. With all the complexities nature encountered here on earth why did not generate spontaneously , it also begs the question was it engineered.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

It could change scientists view that life could be replicated

Why? That's another matter entirely.

Quote:

They have believed that certain conditions on Earth gave rise to basic life, that by its code developed from a simple form into more and more complexity

Life still became more complex on Earth, regardless if the microbes originated on Earth. They're not denying that.

Quote:

Originality gives us more problems that we ever imagined, by this acceptance we are saying it might not generate spontaneously

I don't think we're saying that at all. Theories on the origins of life can be applied to any atmosphere capable of housing life. Life could have just originated spontaneously somewhere else.

Quote:

With all the complexities nature encountered here on earth why did not generate spontaneously , it also begs the question was it engineered.

Nothing here begs that question. No need to get all metaphysical. All the scientist is saying is that life didn't originate on Earth. Fascinating, yes, but nothing points to any of this engineering nonsense.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Its always been the claim that life was created spontaneously here on earth. Billions of years, if it did not create after all this time and with all the forces at work , when would it? What circumstances exist in a comet that have not been recreated here on Earth? Im not claiming it was engineered but it cant be denied.

Earth appears only the medium to grow planted life not the ability.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

Its always been the claim that life was created spontaneously here on earth.

So what? Scientists, like anyone, can be wrong. Maybe life actually started elsewhere. And this "always" hasn't been that long, mate. We've really only reached the tip of the iceberg science-wise.

Quote:

Billions of years, if it did not create after all this time and with all the forces at work , when would it?

Again, they're not denying that life evolved on Earth. It did.

Quote:

What circumstances exist in a comet that have not been recreated here on Earth?

I don't know, but I thought this was interesting. Found this on the Wiki for Comet:

"Many scientists believe that comets bombarding the young Earth (about 4 billion years ago) brought the vast quantities of water that now fill the Earth's oceans, or at least a significant proportion of it"

Perhaps life existed in the water, and was transferred to Earth?

Quote:

Im not claiming it was engineered but it cant be denied.

It can't be denied because there's no evidence to even deny. That's the beauty of metaphysical speculation - it's unfalsifiable! It can't be denied that pink unicorns created life either, can it?

Quote:

Earth appears only the medium to grow planted life not the ability.

That's right, there may be other places life exist.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;124930 wrote:

So what? Scientists, like anyone, can be wrong. Maybe life actually started elsewhere. And this "always" hasn't been that long, mate. We've really only reached the tip of the iceberg science-wise.

Again, they're not denying that life evolved on Earth. It did.

I don't know, but I thought this was interesting. Found this on the Wiki for Comet:

"Many scientists believe that comets bombarding the young Earth (about 4 billion years ago) brought the vast quantities of water that now fill the Earth's oceans, or at least a significant proportion of it"

Perhaps life existed in the water, and was transferred to Earth?

It can't be denied because there's no evidence to even deny. That's the beauty of metaphysical speculation - it's unfalsifiable! It can't be denied that pink unicorns created life either, can it?

That's right, there may be other places life exist.

Dont be so defensive, please. Im not denying that life evolved here but at what stage had this developed before it arrived? Im not even saying there right, Its questions new that we need to ask. I'm not describing this engineer but a pink unicorn appears less likely than inventive force of nature. We know very little about our planet and its conception but the more we discover the more strange incidental events appear that have led to this ability to sustain and develop life.

0 Replies

@Deckard,

Deckard;124717 wrote:

We are in the middle of one of those leaps in technology right now. I don't know how comparable it is with the agricultural revolution but it seems as important. Granted some believe that much of our present technology was reverse engineered from Roswell. Maybe leaps just happen when the conditions are right. Change isn't steady and gradual. There are nonlinearities, strange attractors to history and anthropology - you know butterfly wings that cause hurricanes. Point being: the catalyst for these sudden leaps need not come from outside the system.

I agree with some of your analysis, and appreciate your interest. Still, I can't get past those pesky ancient cuneiform math tablets... real, extant, sitting in protected in glass cases in universities and museums... dating back to at least 1800 BC, and from which cuneiform analysts can reliably date the originals back to an even earlier period (because of differences in Babylonian, Akkadian and Sumerian languages and the changes in those languages during different time periods and in particular geographic regions, etc, etc, although all were written in cuneiform script).

Sexagesimal quadratic equations in 2000 BC, or earlier, when we did not re-discover quadratic equations in our decimal system until The Enlightenment? Square and cube roots? A table which appears to represent a sequence of sexagesimal secant squares? (the secant squares interpretation is still contested by some, but it remains the most accepted explanation thus far, I believe)

Analysts of ancient math seem in agreement that this sexagesimal math, as used in ancient Mesopotamia, could only have been initially formulated with great complexity and sophistication, but afterward was translatable into tables and/or simpler formulas (often involving fractions and reciprocals) which human scribes could use. However, some of the actual math tables found could not have been derived from the simpler formulas and equations used by Mesopotamian scribes.

The above represents my best understanding of this perplexing subject. Perhaps I've misunderstood something, but I believe, overall, it is fair. I have examined analyses of the tablets from different perspectives, and not relied solely on Otto Neugebauer or analyses based on his work, although his work remains the standard scholarly accepted interpretation.

Where did this math come from? These tablets are a real and glaring anomaly per any cultural evolution theory I'm aware of.

"Ancient astronaut" theories would not seem to correlate with the standard accepted interpretation of ancient astronomy, although interpretations in that area are almost ALL hotly contested, it seems, and do attract the lunatic fringe, at least more so than the math does.

Anyone else's ideas, information, analyses, etc, are most welcomed by me. I'm stuck and have no idea where to look next.

rebecca

0 Replies

@xris,

Prof Chandra Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle published a book decades ago about this idea, called The Intelligent Universe. I bought it in about 1986. Beautiful book and a lovely idea. I love the idea of 'panspermia' - comets are kind of cosmic sperm cells, and earths are eggs.

Wonder who the parents are, then?:bigsmile:

1 Reply

alien creation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know