Is this our planet?

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

And I was pointing out that myself and others where addressing the topic without ridiculing it.
I also asked why do you distinguish this theory from fiction if at all.

I'm not defining it myself, I'm using the accepted definition of the word.
And yes theories are generally based on facts, otherwise it's fiction.

If I was agreeing with your initial statement then why did you ask me to argue against it?

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

Ok, I was wrong in that sense.
I was using the word theory in relation to Conspiracy theories which are largely using the word theory incorrectly it would seem.
As Im said earlier, this topic isn't one that stands up to much scrutiny as you pointed out, although I think somewhere along the line you thought I was agreeing with it.

So now we agree on the definition of the idea of a theory and that this idea of humans not being from earth has nothing to support it, and that no one was dismissing it out of hand.

Can you see any difference between this idea and random made up fiction?

Guys, stop the bickering. It's getting difficult to read, and this is the last warning I'll give. If it continues, this thread will be closed.

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

So now we agree on the definition of the idea of a theory and that this idea of humans not being from earth has nothing to support it.

Can you see any difference between this idea and random made up fiction?

This has run it's course.
Lets call it a night shall we?

King Mob

nullzero wrote: »

This has run it's course.
Lets call it a night shall we?

So that's a "no" then?

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

So that's a "no" then?

Rightio, you've ignored both of my warnings to stop this bickering.

Thread closed, for now.

Thread open again.

King Mob, if you keep attempting to start a petty argument with nullzero, you'll be banned.

ScumLord

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

I dont think this is our planet! How come all other species dont seem to get the same ailments as we do? We cant stay in the sun or cold for too long,and e have had long enough to adapt to these environments..yet animals adapt alot quicker and live at ease in these conditions.

This is the most bizarre thing I've ever read, The human animal is easily one of the most adaptable animals on the planet, that has ever been on the planet. We're on every continent on the planet, we live in jungles, cities, on mountains, at sea. We have no specialisations, we can eat anything, walk, climb and swim fairly well. Other animals don't adapt nearly as easily that's why they're all going extinct, we're changing their environment and they can't adapt.

bonkey

espinolman wrote: »

Anything that causes pollution , just about everthing man does , man alters just about everthing and he can't leave anything as it is .

Essentially, what you appear to be saying is that because man, as a species, is unique, it cannot have originated here.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Torakx

its also interesting how our prefered enviornment conflicts with nearly every other lifeform.

King Mob

Torakx wrote: »

its also interesting how our prefered enviornment conflicts with nearly every other lifeform.

I was under the illusion that our preferred environment was temperate grasslands near to a water source.

What do you think it is?

DangerMouse27

Wow! just had a read through and il answer the questions in order...yes,no,maybe,six foot,blue eyes,probably,no and yes!
I dont know where i was indeed going with that but it threw up some interesting discussions in the previous pages.

My main point...is no we did not come from here.Can you deny that? No.This is maybe pseudo religion but existensialism at its basest level.What created the spark for human life and the process of evolution?If you cant point it out on this planet then maybe the spark didnt originate here.
Please dont give stupid answers like oxygen or the Sun..im asking about the first one of us.Was it random series of events or were we like that other poster said 'panseria theory' or something.

meglome

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

My main point...is no we did not come from here.Can you deny that? No.This is maybe pseudo religion but existensialism at its basest level.What created the spark for human life and the process of evolution?If you cant point it out on this planet then maybe the spark didnt originate here.
Please dont give stupid answers like oxygen or the Sun..im asking about the first one of us.Was it random series of events or were we like that other poster said 'panseria theory' or something.

There's a big difference between, for example, an asteroid collision helping the conditions for life and aliens arriving in spaceship to do it. The DNA of all living things on this planet is very similar, so similar that it wouldn't be a big step to say that all this life originated here. And given evolution is it difficult to believe over millions of years that pond scum became human beings?

DangerMouse27

Oh im saying nothing of aliens..far from it.Im more along the lines of something happened to make it easier for us.Its not too far reaching to suggest that the building blocks were on that asteroid..which makes me ask of our true origin...at its basest basest level.ie..where did we(the unkown article) hitch on to that asteroid


i say unknown article because i am unaware of what caused us to finally be us.

King Mob

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

Oh im saying nothing of aliens..far from it.Im more along the lines of something happened to make it easier for us.Its not too far reaching to suggest that the building blocks were on that asteroid..which makes me ask of our true origin...at its basest basest level.ie..where did we(the unkown article) hitch on to that asteroid


i say unknown article because i am unaware of what caused us to finally be us.

But what exactly leads you to believe there was an unknown article at all?

DangerMouse27

Your saying you know the spark for life?
The thing which caused us to be,thats the unknown article.

What do you think?

namloc1980

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

i say unknown article because i am unaware of what caused us to finally be us.

Evolution

indough

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

Your saying you know the spark for life?
The thing which caused us to be,thats the unknown article.

What do you think?

thats all good and well but why does space debris or any outside influence have to be involved at all?

King Mob

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

Your saying you know the spark for life?

No more than you are.

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

The thing which caused us to be,thats the unknown article.

What do you think?

And what do you mean caused us to be?

Where the first cell came from? Where the first animals came from?

Cause there's very good hypotheses that don't really need unknowns to explain where life came from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

tony 2 tone

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

Oh im saying nothing of aliens..far from it.Im more along the lines of something happened to make it easier for us.Its not too far reaching to suggest that the building blocks were on that asteroid..which makes me ask of our true origin...at its basest basest level.ie..where did we(the unkown article) hitch on to that asteroid

why does it have to be an external source? It's equally if not more plausible that the goo we came from formed from elements that were on earth all along. No aliens, no asteroids, just a series of random events that came to be perfect for life to form here.

bonkey

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

My main point...is no we did not come from here.Can you deny that? No.

By the same logic...
Yes, we did come from here. Can you deny that? No.

...then maybe the spark didnt originate here.

And maybe it did.

espinolman

bonkey wrote: »

Essentially, what you appear to be saying is that because man, as a species, is unique, it cannot have originated here.

Am I understanding that correctly?

No i don't think you understand . The problem with this thread is there is an assumption that man is a one life being .

I think it is a situation where the body is like a vehicle that you drive around as long as it is alive and when it dies get another one going and people could get born on earth who are from elsewhere in the universe .

indough

what evidence leads you to believe this?

bonkey

espinolman wrote: »

No i don't think you understand . The problem with this thread is there is an assumption that man is a one life being .

I think it is a situation where the body is like a vehicle that you drive around as long as it is alive and when it dies get another one going and people could get born on earth who are from elsewhere in the universe .

You're right. I don't understand. How does this tie in to our polluting tendencies, which you specifically highlighted as one of the things that made us unique?

As for the "assumption" of "one-lifeness"...I'd say that its the only position currently supported by the observable facts.

It may, of course, be incorrect...but there's virtually an infinite number of possibilities which one could choose from with not much (if anything) to support any one of them over the other...every flavour of religious or spiritual belief, the whole "reality is the Matrix" perspective(s)....the list is endless.

Diogenes

No.

We're just renting it.

I don't think we're going to see much of our security deposit back though lads.

DangerMouse27

Thanks King Mob...explains perfectly the brain fart i was having.

Bonkey..i think you just repeat opposites,surely King Mob should be a mod.

espinolman

bonkey wrote: »

You're right. I don't understand. How does this tie in to our polluting tendencies, which you specifically highlighted as one of the things that made us unique?

The body is the car and the spirit is the driver and some of the human spirits are from elsewhere in the universe and they are trying to create what they had elsewhere , here on earth , and obviously it is not working out very well because there is pollution and species going extinct because of what some people are trying to create here and they think they are supposed to have all this technology because they had it before and a lot more .

bonkey wrote: »

As for the "assumption" of "one-lifeness"...I'd say that its the only position currently supported by the observable facts.

I know it appears that biological organisms generate consciousness but that is not the way it is , is what the brain does is it pulls you out of unconsciousness , most people are asleep and is all a brain does is pull them out of the sleep temporarily .

DangerMouse27

DangerMouse27 wrote: »

Bonkey..i think you just repeat opposites,surely King Mob should be a mod.

Opinions on moderation and moderators are to be discussed in the Feedback and Proposals thread, not here.

RoboClam

espinolman wrote: »

I know it appears that biological organisms generate consciousness but that is not the way it is , is what the brain does is it pulls you out of unconsciousness , most people are asleep and is all a brain does is pull them out of the sleep temporarily .

You cannot just say this without anything to back it up. "Consciousness" is just a word that we use to classify our understanding of the world around us.

I guess I could talk about what we think and what really is, but would you be interested in what I have to say (as it would take me hours to really create a properly referenced post), or should I just state my opinion without reference?

If you care about what has been researched then let me know, if not I won't waste my time.

espinolman

RoboClam wrote: »

If you care about what has been researched then let me know, if not I won't waste my time.

It depends , if it is research carried out by government grants well then the research it is going to be authoritarian in nature and the results of research will probably be determined by vested interests .

However if the research is done by people who are free of authoritarian and vested control , well then i am interested .

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

It depends , if it is research carried out by government grants well then the research it is going to be authoritarian in nature and the results of research will probably be determined by vested interests .

However if the research is done by people who are free of authoritarian and vested control , well then i am interested .

So basically you reject all credible research before you even look at it.
Very open minded.

Seeing as how as all good science is probably partly funded by government grants (or at least can be linked back to the government just enough for you to ignore it) at what point do scientists get told about the conspiracy exactly?
Or are they all in on it since undergrad?

Penn

espinolman wrote: »

It depends , if it is research carried out by government grants well then the research it is going to be authoritarian in nature and the results of research will probably be determined by vested interests .

However if the research is done by people who are free of authoritarian and vested control , well then i am interested .

So all the scientists working in all the laboratories in the world which are funded by governments are lying? Or do they try to tell the truth, but then the government stops them, announces something completely different, then pay off the scientists? Or do the scientists do anything at all? Are they all lying to their families about where they really go?

And where do people "free of authoritarian and vested control" get the funding for their work? Surely their work has to be based on prior scientific knowledge, in which case, wouldn't that have been distorted by governments too? If they are qualified to undertake such research and for that research to be deemed possible, as King Mob said, surely their qualifications stem from what they learnt in college/university. Wouldn't everything they learn have been decided by people with vested interests?

uglyjohn

ok espinolman, i know its the conspiracy theories forum...but i'd really like you to provide even the slightest inkling where your conspiracy theory comes from....a coherent theory to be discussed would be fantastic because at the moment it seems like you are responding to random scentences without actually explaining anything about the theory you want to debate.

espinolman

uglyjohn wrote: »

ok espinolman, i know its the conspiracy theories forum...but i'd really like you to provide even the slightest inkling where your conspiracy theory comes from....a coherent theory to be discussed would be fantastic because at the moment it seems like you are responding to random scentences without actually explaining anything about the theory you want to debate.

Well it simple , from the OP :

Why do we sun burn?
Why do we get hay fever?
Why do we get frost bite?
Why do we get viruses and infections from our environment?

Now the way i see it , we don't get any of the above , the body gets them and we are not bodies , so the above quote from the OP is not logical to me because i am not a body and well i think the human body evolved on earth but the human spirit which is what we are is not native to earth .

RoboClam

espinolman wrote: »

Now the way i see it , we don't get any of the above , the body gets them and we are not bodies , so the above quote from the OP is not logical to me because i am not a body and well i think the human body evolved on earth but the human spirit which is what we are is not native to earth .

OK, so you are saying that our "spirit" is from another planet/dimension/universe? By what means did our spirit reach this planet and come to inhabit a body? If our spirit is just a form of energy, I'd assume that it would have to be associated with some type of force carrying boson. How could the information which defines who we are be carried in this manner?

How about the fact that damage to the brain impacts our perceptions of who we are. If our "spirit" can exist separately to our bodies then why can it be altered by brain trauma? If brain damage is sustained then you may not remember who you are, or how to take care of yourself in day to day life. It seems that our consciousness is intricately linked to our brain. If damage to the brain can change our perceptions then it is fair to say that if brain death occurs, this "spirit" cannot continue to exist. So when our body dies, our brain dies and thus our consciousness ends.

espinolman

RoboClam wrote: »

OK, so you are saying that our "spirit" is from another planet/dimension/universe? By what means did our spirit reach this planet and come to inhabit a body? If our spirit is just a form of energy, I'd assume that it would have to be associated with some type of force carrying boson. How could the information which defines who we are be carried in this manner? .

The physical universe is a creation , but a spirit is not a creation , a spirit creates and a spirit cannot be a creation , therefore a spirit could not be energy and a spirit is not information .

RoboClam wrote: »

How about the fact that damage to the brain impacts our perceptions of who we are. If our "spirit" can exist separately to our bodies then why can it be altered by brain trauma? If brain damage is sustained then you may not remember who you are, or how to take care of yourself in day to day life. It seems that our consciousness is intricately linked to our brain. If damage to the brain can change our perceptions then it is fair to say that if brain death occurs, this "spirit" cannot continue to exist. So when our body dies, our brain dies and thus our consciousness ends.

Yeah well ,its like i said the brain pulls you out of unconsciousness , so if the brain was damaged then what you are saying in the above could manifest itself , and our consciousness could end also but would come back with another body in another life .

indough

anything to back up all this spiritual stuff or is it just your opinion?

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

So basically you reject all credible research before you even look at it.
Very open minded.

I don't reject credible research and by the way i am not open minded .

King Mob wrote: »

Seeing as how as all good science is probably partly funded by government grants (or at least can be linked back to the government just enough for you to ignore it) at what point do scientists get told about the conspiracy exactly?

They probably don't get told about the conspiracy , the reason i am always finding out the truth is because i am close minded , skeptical and i don't believe anything unless i am absolutely certain it is true and there is no buts and ands about it .

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

So all the scientists working in all the laboratories in the world which are funded by governments are lying? Or do they try to tell the truth, but then the government stops them, announces something completely different, then pay off the scientists?

Well just look at the glabal warming/climate change scam thats been put over on the world , i would be untrusting and skeptical of anything which comes from authoritarians and governments , especialy the UN .

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

I don't reject credible research and by the way i am not open minded .

But you just said you'd reject any research if it was government funded.
Seems like a complete and baseless rejection to me any way.

So at what point do scientists get in on the global conspiracy?
PhD? Masters? Undergrad?

espinolman wrote: »

They probably don't get told about the conspiracy , the reason i am always finding out the truth is because i am close minded , skeptical and i don't believe anything unless i am absolutely certain it is true and there is no buts and ands about it .

So then since you are so sure about all this spiritual mumbo jumbo, maybe you can explain why you are so sure.

mysterious

RoboClam wrote: »

OK, so you are saying that our "spirit" is from another planet/dimension/universe? By what means did our spirit reach this planet and come to inhabit a body? If our spirit is just a form of energy, I'd assume that it would have to be associated with some type of force carrying boson. How could the information which defines who we are be carried in this manner?

How about the fact that damage to the brain impacts our perceptions of who we are. If our "spirit" can exist separately to our bodies then why can it be altered by brain trauma? If brain damage is sustained then you may not remember who you are, or how to take care of yourself in day to day life. It seems that our consciousness is intricately linked to our brain. If damage to the brain can change our perceptions then it is fair to say that if brain death occurs, this "spirit" cannot continue to exist. So when our body dies, our brain dies and thus our consciousness ends.

Not everything in this universe, is hardwood, metal, phyiscal and science!

The spirit is your higher self and the head persona of your being that always exists beyond the body.

The spirit has nothing to do with brain mass or brain damage. Our brain conciousness ends and it gose into review as your move into the spiritual planes thats exist beyond physical means. BTW we don't even use half of our brains. Society ensures our pineal glands are clogged too, which plays a vital role in accesssing and gaining awareness of the higher realms of knowing and existence. It's very real and has always been and thankfully many people are waking up to it, and not falling for societies indocrination of this deluded inbalanced world that we live in. Which ultimately keep us stuck in a physical dense awareness state of being where we are only barely conscious of the real world.

humanji

Espinolman, I think you're getting your terms mixed up. You said, "i am close minded , skeptical and i don't believe anything unless i am absolutely certain it is true,". If you're skeptical you're open-minded, as in open to alternative explanations. If you refused to believe that there could be any other explanation for something then you'd be closed-minded, that is closed to alternative explanations.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound pedantic, I just thought that that is what you might mean.

Anyways, folks can we tone down the agressiveness please? Try not to think that your objective is to change a persons opinions, but rather to learn about those opinions and not judge them.

espinolman

Maybe planet earth was colonised by homo-sapiens 35,000 years ago and the homo-sapiens exterminated homo-neanderthalensis .

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

Maybe planet earth was colonised by homo-sapiens 35,000 years ago and the homo-sapiens exterminated homo-neanderthalensis .

Nope, because we share a common ancestor with the Neanderthals about 600,000 years ago.
Either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis

squod

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, because we share a common ancestor with the Neanderthals about 600,000 years ago.
Either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis

I have to say that this is just assumption, truely many 'scientists' believe these assumptions. These beliefs are just assumptions all the same.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

I have to say that this is just assumption, truely many 'scientists' believe these assumptions. These beliefs are just assumptions all the same.

No, their basing these ideas on fossil evidence, genetic evidence and geological evidence.

Can you explain why you think these aren't our common ancestors with the Neanderthals?

squod

King Mob wrote: »

No, their basing these ideas on fossil evidence, genetic evidence and geological evidence.

Can you explain why you think these aren't our common ancestors with the Neanderthals?

Look you've even said it yourself. Putting two and two together and comming up with five isn't scientific. They could be our common ancestors, that is a fact. Could and possible do not eqauate to definately are. Assumptions based on possibilities is all that 'science' has given so far.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

Look you've even said it yourself. Putting two and two together and comming up with five isn't scientific. They could be our common ancestors, that is a fact. Could and possible do not eqauate to definately are.

It seems you have no idea how science actually works.

It isn't "assumptions" or guesses.
They are ideas and theories that stand up to tests and are supported by evidence.

Have you actually looked at any of the evidence that these two could be common ancestors before you completely dismissed science.?
Do you have a theory that is more supported and makes better sense of the facts?

squod wrote: »

Assumptions based on possibilities is all that 'science' has given so far.

Yes the computers and world wide communication network we are using to communicate runs on magic.

indough

there is no such thing as a definite, nowhere, never

so youre not asking for much really, only the impossible

squod

King Mob wrote: »

It seems you have no idea how science actually works.

It isn't "assumptions" or guesses.
They are ideas and theories that stand up to tests and are supported by evidence.

Have you actually looked at any of the evidence that these two could be common ancestors before you completely dismissed science.?
Do you have a theory that is more supported and makes better sense of the facts?

Yes the computers and world wide communication network we are using to communicate runs on magic.

Two birds, that look similar and are completely unrelated. The links you posted are filled with words like may, likely and possibly. Fair enough, there maybe a 0% chance you willl ever understand the terms I'm using . But they are facts, you've said so yourself. Some scientists are assuming that a couple of dead animals are related to us. But so far they are just assumptions, not fact. And for the record I haven't dismissed science, many scientists will tell you what I'm telling you.

Assumptions in doubt
Colin Groves, professor of biological anthropology at the ANU, has long argued that the linear model of evolution is far too simple.
"The idea of human evolution as a ladder, I think, is impossible to maintain anymore."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/09/2001083.htm?section=world

indough

but when the answer is not 'known', all possible answers do not have equal probability of being true, its impossible to ever 'know' the answer anyway as we were not here to witness it

for example if i come home and things are missing from my house i could consider various explanations, but something like 'my house has been burgled' is always going to be more realistic a scenario than 'aliens abducted my furniture' (i know its a ridiculous example before someone says it but thats the point)

similarly our understanding of evolution is an overwhelmingly more credible explanation than 'we originated from space dust' or however you want to word it, for the simple reasons it actually has evidence to support it and doesnt require any giant leaps of faith