Alien Origin Concept

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Time is not linear (it just seems that way, because we're dumb), and so anyone looking for a "beginning" or "origin" is already barking up the wrong tree. A beginning and end is an old Zoroastrian myth, and before somebody cooked up that story most cultures believed in a natural universe of endless cycles.

do you think time is like a giant snowglobe and we are the snow flakes?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Time is not linear (it just seems that way, because we're dumb), and so anyone looking for a "beginning" or "origin" is already barking up the wrong tree. A beginning and end is an old Zoroastrian myth, and before somebody cooked up that story most cultures believed in a natural universe of endless cycles.

do you think time is like a giant snowglobe and we are the snow flakes?

Haha, well wouldn't that mean that we would constantly have to do something to make time work? Like in a snow globe, the snowflakes stop after some time, so when will time stop then?

originally posted by: Vitrude

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Time is not linear (it just seems that way, because we're dumb), and so anyone looking for a "beginning" or "origin" is already barking up the wrong tree. A beginning and end is an old Zoroastrian myth, and before somebody cooked up that story most cultures believed in a natural universe of endless cycles.

do you think time is like a giant snowglobe and we are the snow flakes?

Haha, well wouldn't that mean that we would constantly have to do something to make time work? Like in a snow globe, the snowflakes stop after some time, so when will time stop then?

in a snowglobe that size (the size of the observable universe) one good shake would be felt for millenia to come. lets say the shaking of a big bang, for example... i dont know, someone said time wasnt linear and i was thinking "what isnt linear? the surface of a ball!" and went from there. im not an expert, i just pick up daddys old lab coat and play physicist sometimes.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
do you think time is like a giant snowglobe and we are the snow flakes?

I think this best sums it up. The universe continuously curves back in on itself and recycles itself on tiny, subatomic levels, and on a grander, universal levels, but also in multiple undiscovered dimensions. Like a milkshake being mixed in a blender, but if the milkshake consisted of billions of tiny little blenders also mixing milkshakes made of blenders, etc., etc. Everything constantly recycles through a singularity point. But it all happens so fast or slow or in dimensions we can't perceive that we get the illusion that time is linear. Feynman diagrams have no time "direction." We just don't have the perceptual ability to see the way space and time really work.

The "engine" driving it all? The tendency for energy and matter to "fall" (electromagnetism, gravity, etc.) into the "nothing" of non-physical dimensions.

a reply to: Blue Shift

that's kind of where I was going with it...except then you gotta ask whats outside of the torus. and I cant even speculate on that, I have no clue.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

There is nothing any biological text that I know of that said "we came out of nothing". If you can find a textbook that says that, please post it. Otherwise, you need to go back to fundamentals and understand some physics and chemistry.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

That's because you don't understand how science works. Science is not about "beliefs". It's about exploration and the data that's collected from that exploration. Science is pragmatic and doesn't go into research with a preconceived idea like a "god" exists and now we have to find it. If exploration finds a god, that's fine. But to date, there isn't even a hint of a god.
In the end, there's only the hard evidence. And that's how scientists formulate theories. There may be many theories, but that's a good thing because honest debate seeks the truth.
When you have evidence for a "god", then you're in the club. But without hard evidence, you're just another wannabe.

a reply to: Phantom423

Well abiogenesis basically says that, but that is for a different thread I have made many of them.


The dimensional time difference between those in the physical universe and those that are outside of it can be a hard concept to grasp, we see everything lineally. The movie Interstellar kind of showed how that could happen even within the physical universe.
The point that a divine being should have done something by now, he let things go on too long is invalid.
If that being had a universal mess on his hands, he could have snapped his fingers like the "Q" from Star Trek and fixed it instantly. But he wasn't going to take anybodies free choice away from them and he needed a long term solution.

He basically said, "this is a mess, but by the end of the week It will be cleaned up".
His week, not ours, and time is different in his dimension.

Double Post

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

Well abiogenesis basically says that, but that is for a different thread I have made many of them.

The dimensional time difference between those in the physical universe and those that are outside of it can be a hard concept to grasp, we see everything lineally. The movie Interstellar kind of showed how that could happen even within the physical universe.
The point that a divine being should have done something by now, he let things go on too long is invalid.
If that being had a universal mess on his hands, he could have snapped his fingers like the "Q" from Star Trek and fixed it instantly. But he wasn't going to take anybodies free choice away from them and he needed a long term solution.

He basically said, "this is a mess, but by the end of the week It will be cleaned up".
His week, not ours, and time is different in his dimension.

Passing off a presumption-laden hypothesis as a working theory. Disgraceful.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Well abiogenesis basically says that, but that is for a different thread I have made many of them.

No it doesn't say that. YOU say that. Abiogenesis is the study of how life could have come together from its basic components. It does not say anywhere that life came out of nothing. This argument is beyond debunked and it's only parroted by creationists that haven't done any research into the subject in the least and look to push a dishonest anti science agenda. What's even sillier is hearing it from somebody that believes god came from nothing with no evidence.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Well abiogenesis basically says that, but that is for a different thread I have made many of them.

No it doesn't say that. YOU say that. Abiogenesis is the study of how life could have come together from its basic components. It does not say anywhere that life came out of nothing. This argument is beyond debunked and it's only parroted by creationists that haven't done any research into the subject in the least and look to push a dishonest anti science agenda. What's even sillier is hearing it from somebody that believes god came from nothing with no evidence.

Theoretically, in order to God to exist, there would have to be an even further dimensional space beyond gods capacity to penetrate, wherein would reside his own creator. Ad infinitum. See, theology really doesn't answer any questions at all. Just gives you a comfortable resting place to forget about the questions.

a reply to: Barcs

This argument is beyond debunked and it's only parroted by creationists that haven't done any research into the subject in the least

Wrong, tons of research done, tons of posts read here at ATS, different conclusion reached, end of discussion because I won't waste key strokes of futility. You even know better Barcs, shame on you for pandering to the crowd with a statement like that.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Wrong, tons of research done, tons of posts read here at ATS, different conclusion reached, end of discussion because I won't waste key strokes of futility. You even know better Barcs, shame on you for pandering to the crowd with a statement like that.

Then post the research. Anybody can arbitrarily state anything as if it is fact, but words alone are not evidence. I've read quite a bit of your posts over the years and you have made tons of false claims based on ignorance of science. That isn't pandering, it's a fact, and you've even done it in this very thread. Abiogenesis DOES NOT STATE that anything ever came from nothing. That is also a fact.

Here is the basic definition:

Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms.

Is non living matter, nothing?

Sorry bud. You're wrong again. Nobody is talking about spontaneous generation, that hypothesis was debunked long ago. I predict that you'll disappear for a while after this post and hope we forget about it until you post a new thread repeating these same false claims about abiogenesis and evolution.

a reply to: Barcs

Is non living matter, nothing?

It's a phrase concept, most understand what I am saying, semantics make this a non-issue

So basically its entirely possibly aliens manipulated our DNA. Our brain power jumped significantly, out of nowhere evolutionarily speaking. Fossil records have unexplained gaps and also have been manipulated by man. Everything we seem to touch has some sort of lie in it. Whether it be the bible or fossil records.

We deny what doesn't fit in the little box. Just like the world being round was denied. The earth being the center of the universe was once held as truth. Until proof is obtained all theories are entertainable. Just some are more plausible than others. They have fossils of Giant skulls and bones are sitting in the backroom of museum shelves and even a Star Child skull exists which isn't a deformed skull as stated.

You have ancient sites all across the globe, built far beyond the capacity and standard hand tools and log quarrying of stones. The explanations just don't fit. Just look at the detail on some obelisks and say they didn't have machining. Everything was done too precisely for hundreds and thousands of slaves dragging blocks on mud ramps or logs and haphazardly slapping them down. We all know its completely logical to drag a 100 ton block up the side of the mountain just because its the most efficient way to build right.

Multiple written records not just the bible state a giant flood hit earth. Noah could have very will been on a ship, however he wasn't the only one. The fact that all our ancestory can be traced back only backs that theory. Otherwise humanity would even be more diverse by now. All through time before flight Native Americans, Aztecs, Mayans, China, Ancient Sumerians, Ancient India. Everyone of them says people came down and screwed with us. I'll think I'll go with the people who viewed the stars each and everyday and night over a bunch of keyboard killers in this day and age.

Good Lord...The ignorance shown here is astounding...

originally posted by: MrStyx
So basically its entirely possibly aliens manipulated our DNA.

No, it's not.

Our brain power jumped significantly, out of nowhere evolutionarily speaking.

Funny how evolution works.

Fossil records have unexplained gaps

...and also have been manipulated by man.

Prove it.

Everything we seem to touch has some sort of lie in it. Whether it be the bible or fossil records.

How does the fossil record "have some sort of lie in it"?

We deny what doesn't fit in the little box.

You might, but scientists don't.

They have fossils of Giant skulls and bones are sitting in the backroom of museum shelves

No, they don't.

and even a Star Child skull exists which isn't a deformed skull as stated.

Yes, it is, and it has been definitively proven.

You have ancient sites all across the globe, built far beyond the capacity and standard hand tools and log quarrying of stones.

There isn't a single ancient site that couldn't have been built using known tools and methods of the time of its' construction. Your ignorance is really starting to show.

The explanations just don't fit.

Actually, they fit perfectly.

Just look at the detail on some obelisks and say they didn't have machining.

They didn't have machining.

Everything was done too precisely for hundreds and thousands of slaves dragging blocks on mud ramps or logs and haphazardly slapping them down.

What site was purportedly built by "hundreds and thousands of slaves dragging blocks on mud ramps and haphazardly slapping them down"? Answer: None.

We all know its completely logical to drag a 100 ton block up the side of the mountain just because its the most efficient way to build right.

There are no ancient sites where 100 ton blocks were drug up the sides of any mountains.

Multiple written records not just the bible state a giant flood hit earth.

Perhaps. The only testable, factual record; the geologic record; conclusively shows that there has never been a global flood.

Noah could have very will been on a ship, however he wasn't the only one.

Speculating about myths is pointless.

The fact that all our ancestory can be traced back only backs that theory.

Ok, now I'm starting to want some if whatever it is you're smoking.

Otherwise humanity would even be more diverse by now.

What data do you base that on?

All through time before flight Native Americans, Aztecs, Mayans, China, Ancient Sumerians, Ancient India. Everyone of them says people came down and screwed with us.

Um, no, Ancient Aliens says that. The ancient cultures themselves say no such thing.

I'll think I'll go with the people who viewed the stars each and everyday and night over a bunch of keyboard killers in this day and age.

Funny, because you haven't yet. Instead you seem to "go with" what a bunch of quacks say those people said.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Now now lets play nice only shows you as ignorant. Here we have a guy who prays to the altar of science. He doesnt know himself he takes some guys word for it liek every other person

"No, it's not. "
You were not there you don't know period.
"Prove it."
Why do I need to prove the missing link? Its pretty coming knowledge its missing.
"How does the fossil record "have some sort of lie in it"? "
The fossil record has a lie because several "scientists" have been caught fusing and sculpting features to suit there own pursuits. Read more.

"What site was purportedly built by "hundreds and thousands of slaves dragging blocks on mud ramps and haphazardly slapping them down"? Answer: None."
Its a popular theory of how the pyramids were built. Mud ramps. Do you read anything of note at all?
"They didn't have machining."
Once again says you? Says who scientists. The same ones who have to continually change the date of the sphinx because erosion doesn't match the dates they wrote down?
"There are no ancient sites where 100 ton blocks were drug up the sides of any mountains. "
Machu Pichu, Sacsayhuamán. Do you study ancient sites at all?
"Perhaps. The only testable, factual record; the geologic record; conclusively shows that there has never been a global flood. "
False. There are several theories that have scientific evidence backing the claim. The issue here is you basically called something a fact when no one you know is or was alive at the time and science can find any evidence it wants Quick search There a scientist giving his theory to add to plenty of others what factual record do you have.

"What data do you base that on? "
On there own written records . Ancient text like the Mahabharata in India even have pictures and designs of the machines they saw. Columbus spotted a light coming out of the sea and flying along his ship. In his own written record. Benjamin Franklin was no quack “For I believe that Man is not the most perfect Being but One, rather that as there are many Degrees of Beings his Inferiors, so there are many Degrees of Beings superior to him.”

We can go link for link all day. I can always find something to back what I say just as you can doesn't make either correct. Which is the original point. People come on here with arrogance like they know something. You know nothing. You spurt out nonsense and then find a link to say see he says so too. Keyboard Killer

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

Is non living matter, nothing?

It's a phrase concept, most understand what I am saying, semantics make this a non-issue

A phrase concept? You are intentionally phrasing it wrong for shock value. Non-living matter is not nothing. Not by a long shot.

You are just using key creationist catch phrases with shock value:

You REALLY believe something came from NOTHING?????

It is a straw man. You phrased it like that on purpose because it sounds less likely than saying, "I don't believe living matter can arise from non living matter". The something from nothing argument is silly.

When discussing science, please use the right terminology, and avoid the false claims and folks like me will leave you alone.

originally posted by: MrStyx
Our brain power jumped significantly, out of nowhere evolutionarily speaking.

Sorry but this is not true. All you have to do is look at hominid skulls and you see the slow increase in cranial capacity over the past few million years. There was no sudden leap. I'm not saying AA hypothesis is wrong, it's quite interesting, but this point is completely wrong.