My stupid little alternate theory of origins

At the moment , we are using a victorian earth-centric idea to explain our origins, because up until the recently, that is the only model they could use, the only data that was available. As the science of astrobiology and astrochemistry develop , it may come to a time when those scientists start to gain information as to finally propose an alternative mechanism for abiogenesis based on greater understanding of cosmic/ stellar forces. They are already moving away from the original darwinian idea by suggesting life arrived by panspermia on the back of a comet.

But if there is a 'god', it would seem more likely that there was a god 'event', where the mechanism , the laws of nature.. the algorithms for creating life would be set at the creation of the universe. He wouldn't go around the planets adding a life here, a life there fixing things like a bad plumber. He'd create the mechanism for life centrally( aka nebula) and disperse that life by panspermia across the universe.

I'm not sure belief is the word i would use for this idea. Too many unknown parameters. It is just another 'maybe'. The only thing I really believe is we are not in the possession of nearly enough knowledge to be anywhere near certain of the mechanics of our origins.

There may come a day when we fire off our own dna pods into space to preserve our race. Should one of those pods reach a habital planet that civilization will also ask where they came from, they would probably end up with a darwinian model too and laugh at the idea they could have arrived by an alien pod.


Here is another useful website I should have added a few posts ago :

www.astrobiology.com...

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

sorry, it double posted .

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

This theory is very similar if not the same as mine. Very elaborate, and well thought out, I may add. The planet being seeded, and possibly an experiment, and also the timing with the dinosaurs extinction, etc. I began wondering about our origins as a child, and got the idea from a halloween episode of the Simpsons.

Have any of you seen the halloween episode when Lisa's school science experiment goes awry and she creates a mini civilization, which evolvs at an incredible rate (probably due to relative size). I was a kid when I saw that, and through years of wondering, reading, science, things learned at school, I began to form my own similar little theory. I didn't think the Reptilians or Illuminati had anything to do with it (never heard of either as a kid), but them being here observing is a good idea. I just figured that's what the reports of ET, UFO's, etc. were. Either the ones who planted life here, or possibly us in the future, or another version of us, but more advanced, whose planet was seeded at a similar time. Then I saw the movie "Mission to Mars" I'm sure a lot of you have seen it, pretty big movie. It was GREAT!!! They discover the earth was seeded by an ancient civilization on Mars. Anyway great post, and great theory. Keep Smokin!!

[edit on 16-11-2007 by deesul69]

I do ask myself this question Am I an Alien? Great read

To be honest it sure feels like it, As far as we have "evolved" we are definitely becoming alien to the way of life of our ancestor. You go out there and live to the fullest amazed by the complexity and beauty of life in this planet. But somehow a hole remains in your soul, an itch; I am not sure if we humans are descendents of an alien race, I really doubt it; just because I believe in Darwin's explanation. But, you know I do think that the way we live today is definitely alien to this planet. I like to believe this has been the process of our own making (not some engraved sequence or the product of an Illuminati-Alien duo).
I have been brainwashed enough to see the world as my playground, and my fellow humans as a brotherhood. I wait for the hole in my soul to be filled with the assurance that together we can answer any question, reach any star or visit the end of the universe.
Today someone say’s there are parts in our cells that are irreducible complex, Really ? I mean, that is the beauty of Darwin's explanation, just because you see the end products don’t dare to make an assumption of its complexity. This is why Darwin’s Theory is called that way, mutations are verifiable they happen every second, what is usually challenged is that the complexity of the whole is such that individual mutations would not have come up with the final product, Darwin tries to explain that it could be a gradual process, I believe him, although I think "will" could have something to do with it . The fact that science has taken us as far as it has should be proof enough to convert non believers to the ways of accepting our limited perception of reality and moreover understand that “experiments” are one of the few ways to in simple terms: create a new reality.

We may very well be the product of an experiment; I mean the entire universe, but IMO; we only think this because that is how we are taught we can control reality. The Ancients believed in gods being everywhere, a god for each mystery, attributing the god control over what at the time was uncontrollable, untamable, out of reach or irreducibly complex. the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations, Is just bogus, our understanding of chance mutations is in its infancy, since we cannot yet create experiments to recreate evolution. I hope some answers will come in my lifetime; we are around the corner as AI is being developed it will perhaps answer many questions on how systems evolve by themselves without external direction.

We should all strive to be kings of our own kingdoms and god of our own universe.

reply to post by LoKito


Interesting take on things. Thanks for contributing to the thread, and for the compliment.

I personally don't think that all the dinosaurs were wiped out... They probably evolved into something more practical, Being a giant does have its disadvanatages.

reply to post by Chowzor


The only problem I have with that view is lack of evidence. I mean think about it, we have tons and tons of fossils of dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures and creatures from periods between then and now. So shouldnt we have a visual record of this evolution?

*Icon_xof, as I am in High School, my 3rd block is just about to end, I will be responding the the remaining verse arguments following the end of the school day. Thus, I ask that you refrain from responding to this post until it has been completed

Gospel Contradictions:

1) How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.

Matthew 1:17

17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

Matthew 1:2

2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,

This is to establish the first of many fallacies within that foolish website

2) Is Paul lying? In Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn’t Paul guilty of deception?

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

6) Just what did Jesus instruct them to take? (Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.

7) When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? (Matthew 11:2-3) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the messiah. (Luke 7:18-22) While imprisoned. John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus to inquire if Jesus was the Messiah. (John 1 :29-34,36) John already knew Jesus was the Messiah.

8) Who made the request? (Matthew 20:20-21) Their mother requested that James and John, Zebedee’s children, should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom. (Mark 10:35-37) James and John, Zebedee’s children, requested that they should sit beside Jesus in his Kingdom.

9) What animals were brought to Jesus? (Matthew 21:2-7) two of the disciples brought Jesus an ass and a colt from the village of Bethphage. (Mark 11:2-7) They brought him only a colt.

10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging.

Originally posted by Icon_xof
source (please visit, this site is awesome)
And thats just 10 of the 42 examples on the source page.

I have not yet said what is about to follow, but I see myself repeating this in the future. Never trust a website which argues one side of an issue that carries the largest dichotomy in the world. You and you alone must check the facts, this is an unreliable and erroneous-information spewing website.

Originally posted by Icon_xof
When will you christians learn that you cannot argue your case with the bible. Its just a book, and a pretty poorly written one if I do say so myself!

You need to approach this issue without prejudice, your misconceptions are clouding your eyes. Regardless of religion, The Bible remains one of the best if not the best literature work in existence.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by Zizek]

[edit on 13-12-2007 by Zizek]

reply to post by Icon_xof

Really good starting article, and some very nice follow up comments!

I wanted to point out that this theory is really the "Panspermia" theory of origins of life, often overlooked in the evolution / intelligent design debate, which is unfortunate because I think their is some obvious validity to this theory. (This theory was referenced once in the thread already, by Girbil, but I think it is worth flagging.)

There is a super article on Panspermia in Wikipedia, available here. I read both the thread and the wiki article, and this thread definitely poses some new arguments and twists for that theory.

I think the strongest argument for Panspermia is as follows: given the complexity and precision of DNA, it is not statistically possible that it could have evolved in the very limited space and time that evolution proposes.

It is funny, but Panspermia was famously suggested as a possible origin of life by none other that Francis Crick. ( See "Directed Panspermia", Icarus 19: 341-348)

Some people choose to disregard the above fact. After all -- what gives Francis Crick his authority -- OTHER THAN HE DISCOVERED DNA!?

Great work folks!

What if they came from Mars? What if Mars at one time was like Earth and our sun was much bigger at the time. As the sun shrunk so did the temperature on the Planet Mars. The only way for them to survive the colder temperatures would be to go underground closer to the core of the planet. Over time this species would evolve eyes that could see in the dark. Large eyes.

The sun might spit out planets that are formed in magnetic vacuoles. This magnetic tumbler would gather the needed materials and gravity would compress them. Is our sun fluctuating? Is it growing then shrinking eventually falling in on itself? Would this explain the ice ages?

Would all this explain moon bases on the other side? Sort of like the movie, "The Truman Show"? More questions then answers for sure? Thanks for this thread because it's imagination that really gets us somewhere.

Sorry to intrude with this but, as a member of this site it is my duty to put in and reflect on anything here. I think this is a good theory and it is well written but I have my doubts. I commend you on your quest for knowledge and hope you continue with such rigor that you have previously.

My evidence against your theory.

Scientists have been doing research for years on genes and DNA. They have spent a long time decoding them and have found that we share atleast 1% of our DNA with every living creature on this planet. Heck we share 13% of our DNA with cabbage. Im not putting you down, im just asking you to explain this.

13% of a cabbage is nothing , we are 60 % Banana [apparantly]

www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk...

Who knows, maybe we were created out of a kind of dna lego set , if the 60% for a banana is true thou , in evolution terms .. i find it hard to fathom the dissimilarity of the natural selection of a banana evoluton to ours to bring about such a close proximity .





[edit on 26-12-2007 by Gun Totin Gerbil]