Complex Life May Have Started on Earth Much Earlier Than We Thought

a reply to: visitedbythem

I didn't ask you what some clown in a video said. I asked you what you think it is. Are you that inarticulate that you can't even give your own opinion on the matter?

I'll ask again. How old do you think the earth is? How old does your daddy think the earth is?

a reply to: Ohanka

I told you I wouldn't get a straight answer.

reply to: chr0naut

Ok, strictly speaking, you are absolutely right. My statement lacked specificity. But angels and demons are held to be divine, non-corporeal constructs. They are not of the same physical existence as humans. Which, I believe, does not count as an alien species. Otherwise the validity of the Abraham's religions is immediately negated.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's always paragraphs of nonsense in response to a single sentence question.

a reply to: Ohanka

The crazed religious extremist is always incapable of answering clearly and like most insane people they probably think they are making perfect sense.

When is this "complex life" deal gonna start? or at least intelligent life?



All kidding aside..cool OP, i'm sure there is lots to be discovered in this regard.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
Problem with carbon dating is its accuracy starts failing after 10,000 years.... so carbon dating is very inaccurate.

100,000 years is very generous...anything beyond is nothing more than an educated guess/theory...

a reply to: gortex

Who said anything about carbon dating?

originally posted by: pfishy

reply to: chr0naut

Ok, strictly speaking, you are absolutely right. My statement lacked specificity. But angels and demons are held to be divine, non-corporeal constructs. They are not of the same physical existence as humans. Which, I believe, does not count as an alien species. Otherwise the validity of the Abraham's religions is immediately negated.

I don't think there is any instance in the Bible where angels were described in non-physical terms, like being a ghost, or a spirit.

In Genesis, the fallen angels copulated with human women, who bore them children.

The devil is described as a mortal, and a man, and is attributed with physical actions.

Angels are also attributed with physical actions and appearing entirely human (only the cherubim, of which there are only four, are described as having wings. There are several instances in the Bible where angels pass for men, such as when they meet Abraham, or go to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and rescue Lot and his household).

Although there are accounts of demons, who had no bodies of their own, possessing people and animals. So, perhaps there are several different forms involved?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Ohanka

The crazed religious extremist is always incapable of answering clearly and like most insane people they probably think they are making perfect sense.

Of course there are religious people who are insane. As there are irreligious people who are insane. Some of the most dangerous insane people in history have been anti-religion (Mao, Hitler, Stalin).

There are also some sane and very rational people who have been religious, like Isaac Newton, Florence Nightingale, Werner Heisenberg, Charles Babbage, Lord William Kelvin, Blaise Pascal, Bernhard Riemann, Leonhard Euler, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Humphry Davy, Arthur Eddington, James Clark Maxwell, Robert Oppenheimer, Carl Sagan, Michael Faraday, and George Mendel - all extremely rational, and all highly religious.

a reply to: chr0naut

My vocabulary seems to be missing the mark recently. Yes, angels are described as physical beings. As were demons/devils. But they were of a different nature than humans.
When I say Extraterrestrials in this context, I am speaking specifically of a species from another planet. The elohim et al were of higher planes of existence, according to the literature. Not from a different star system.
And while many may argue that they could have been aliens, just as biologically and genetically bound as we are, I don't think that is a possibility. It would have been explained to humanity by God that they were. Also, God never mentions having a second, third, or ten thousandth family (seperate world populated with His spark of creation) besides us. Which, as I see it, limits the possible explanations to 3 main choices.

1) There are NO other inhabited planets in the entire universe.

2) There ARE aliens, but none of the life forms in the Universe are the product of an omnipotent supernatural entity.

3) There ARE aliens, every inhabited planet is the result of direct and continuing actions by an omnipotent supernatural architect, and the primacy of mankind in the hierarchy of Divine Love and Importance, as explained by God, is absolutely spurious.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: chr0naut

My vocabulary seems to be missing the mark recently. Yes, angels are described as physical beings. As were demons/devils. But they were of a different nature than humans.
When I say Extraterrestrials in this context, I am speaking specifically of a species from another planet. The elohim et al were of higher planes of existence, according to the literature. Not from a different star system.
And while many may argue that they could have been aliens, just as biologically and genetically bound as we are, I don't think that is a possibility. It would have been explained to humanity by God that they were. Also, God never mentions having a second, third, or ten thousandth family (seperate world populated with His spark of creation) besides us. Which, as I see it, limits the possible explanations to 3 main choices.

1) There are NO other inhabited planets in the entire universe.

2) There ARE aliens, but none of the life forms in the Universe are the product of an omnipotent supernatural entity.

3) There ARE aliens, every inhabited planet is the result of direct and continuing actions by an omnipotent supernatural architect, and the primacy of mankind in the hierarchy of Divine Love and Importance, as explained by God, is absolutely spurious.

Your assumptions are fairly limited and do not account for things like cosmic time scales and the ultimate fate of the physical universe. Entropy negates points 1 and 2, and in them, existence itself is pointless, because it will all end for no net gain, and point 3 does not rationally follow, in that, just because there are other intelligences, that the primacy of the human situation in the grand scheme of things is negated in any way. For instance, the existence of people in other countries does not diminish the office of the President of the USA, or having siblings does not diminish the love given by the parents.

so, I would like to add some other options (and there may be many more, this isn't exhaustive):

4) The universe as it is, is fated to end in entropic heat-death unless there are other forces beyond current human level intelligence and capability to extend or create new physical universes. To do this will require many intelligent and extremely powerful species working as one. The subsequent unfolding multiverse could then be part of a continuum of existences spanning multiple timelines. This would mean that God's plan would not be to just elevate man to a peak of development and just stop there, but to incrementally elevate as much as can be elevated to its pinnacle, and that as each species reaches its peak, it then must shepherd the species below it towards the goal. When super-intelligent species reach critical mass in each universe, they have the capability firstly to deferentially collapse and expand their universe so as to extend its suitability of existence for super-intelligent species. Then eventually those species would gain the ability to calve off new universes and to move between them as necessary. This does not mean that those super-intelligent species would become gods, because there is only the one Supreme God who had all this in mind from the outset, and who was always able to create universes and is atemporal, omniscient, and omnipotent. Able to create eternities from nothing but their own person/s.

5) Beings such as described in point 4 would also have the capability to manipulate time (being as it is, a property of space) and so could reach back and influence and guide their own development, too. i.e: once the bootstrap process is initiated, the future path of the multiversal continuum is assured. And so there is a compounding process of probability going on, drawing from other possible options and reinforcing to make favorable ones inevitable.

a reply to: chr0naut

I actually completely agree with you on this point. I was merely contradicting a Creationist perspective on the issue.

so they found some bugs in an old rock. imagine that. science was wrong, again.

was it the oldest rock ever found?

what's the big deal?

oh, what if i found my birth certificate and it said i was born a year before i thought?

this thread is like what the definition of is, is.

no one said 6000 yrs except 1 dude that did some twisted genealogy on assumptions, just like real scientists do.


i'll leave this for anyone interested in the passage of time . don't forget, on the 7th day, He rested.

originally posted by: sarahvital
so they found some bugs in an old rock. imagine that. science was wrong, again.

That’s not how it works. They draw theories or whatever from the observable evidence.

When they have new evidence they update the theories with their new understandings. These themselves are challenged when there is new observable evidence. Thus our knowledge of the universe grows.

Science that is not “wrong”, I.E. never challenged, is not science at all.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: chr0naut

I actually completely agree with you on this point. I was merely contradicting a Creationist perspective on the issue.

Cheers.

I think that from both sides of the argument, there are many who don't even look for a bigger picture. Clearly, they haven't quite grasped the concept of intelligence beyond their own... and the consequences of its existence.

Where we stand in the universe, there is clear evidence that reductionist principles will only lead to fairly limited and therefore inapplicable philosophies. There is incredible implicate order, variety, and complexity happening in various pockets of spacetime. Reductive reasoning and physics always leads to limited and invariant outcomes. That there are so many varieties of things in every aspect of our observation means that the same chemical, and physical forces are producing a multitude of different outcomes, it isn't like mixing parts A and B always produces mixture C, and this variety, in an entropy driven, and mechanistically governed universe is inexplicable by means other than an intelligent director with an agenda to create such complex outcomes.

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: sarahvital
so they found some bugs in an old rock. imagine that. science was wrong, again.

That’s not how it works. They draw theories or whatever from the observable evidence.

When they have new evidence they update the theories with their new understandings. These themselves are challenged when there is new observable evidence. Thus our knowledge of the universe grows.

Science that is not “wrong”, I.E. never challenged, is not science at all.

yeah so what's the point off Nobel prizes?, peer reviews? science is just someone's opinion/speculation.
especially in this field, it seems. like the wheel chair guy who invented time.

sorry, are we talking just about life on the earth or anywhere?

we haven't turned over enough rocks or talked with anything from another planet to know anything yet.
hell, we have people that think men can get knocked up!
and women can be potus, people can't vote because of their color.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: visitedbythem

The ultimate appeal to authority, 'My Daddy said so...'.

Nah she's right though. It is actually mind-blowing the vast speculation they make for radiometric dating. Besides carbon-dating, there is no radiometric dating method where you can accurately estimate the initial concentration of an isotopic sample. They literally assume the initial concentration is 100-0... It's speculation, not science. There's never a 100% pure sample of anything found in nature... yet they make the vast speculation that radiometric dating samples are an exception, with no empirical basis for it whatsoever. It's so dumb.

a reply to: cooperton

Since they couldn't answer or tell us what daddy's answer was maybe you can step up and tell us how old the earth is.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: cooperton

Since they couldn't answer or tell us what daddy's answer was maybe you can step up and tell us how old the earth is.

It's hard to get a clear answer from radiometric dating. Without knowing the initial concentration it could be either at the highest end and as old as they say, or it could be as young as having formed yesterday. Obviously both extremes are silly, but it's somewhere in the middle so there's no way of knowing for sure off these methods.

Historical records consistently say we were descended from extra-dimensional beings, referred to as God or gods. We have since fallen from this state of grandeur.

The Sumerians claim it has been about 241,000 years old since the "kingship descended from heaven",
Egyptian records show they believed it was about 40,000 years since the "reign of the gods"
Hebrews tend to be more pragmatic with their record keeping, and they suppose it's around 6000-some years old since the first man was created from heaven.
The Greeks have various accounts, some say only 4,500 years old, whereas others say it never didn't exist.
Babylonian supposes anywhere from 200,000-400,000 year old record.
Zoroastrian history claims it is about 9600 years old.

Given the quickness with which mud can turn into rock, radioactive carbon found in dinosaur bones, ancestral depictions of dinosaurs, human footprints in the same strata as dinosaurs, countless OOPARTS. and so on, I believe the conventional timeline is way off.