Did a Distant Solar System Send Life to Earth? (TIME magazine)

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by bluestreak53

 

This thread might interest you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Aliens?? Credit goes to predator0187

That's Mother-Earth's "egg" waiting for the panspermia "pan-sperms" to fertilize it

Today its this theory. Tomorrow it will be another. Until then all we can do is speculate and believe the poindexters and type away on forums and blogs

Who says NASA cannot be sending life to Mars and let it develop there? Suddenly from being afraid to contaminate the planet, they may decide to settle it with life.

However, I say move on to Venus or Jupiter, good luck with the lav/cyclons. Mars has already been contaminated with the failure to have the probe sterile.

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
The only thing crazier than "directed panspermia" is panspermia itself! I mean, the 23rd human chromosome is twisted. Whatever that means, both atheist scientists and creationist scientists agree that some outside force had to twist that DNA strand. That rules out evolution, and panspermia. As for directed panspermia, it would take too much energy for a new species to travel so far to create a new species by twisting it's DNA. It just doesn't add up.

What are you talking about? All DNA is twisted. Your post doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

DNA

Our DNA could not have been evolved. I am making the argument that God made our DNA. I don't know a lot about DNA and chromosomes, but I have heard and read enough arguments from people smarter than me and all scientists understand that our DNA had to be created by an outside force.

Another thread disc the verry same thing!

ATS thread

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
..the 23rd human chromosome is twisted. Whatever that means, both atheist scientists and creationist scientists agree that some outside force had to twist that DNA strand. That rules out evolution...

A few questions:

First, could you please explain what you mean by the 23rd chromosome being twisted? I don't know what you mean by this, because the physical structure of the 23rd chromosome (both the "XX" and the "XY" versions) is not that much different than the other 22.

Secondly (and assuming you can show me that the 23rd chromosome is a uniquely twisted chromosome to begin with), can you please show me the research that was done that has convinced science that an alleged twisted 23rd chromosome CANNOT be natural and had to be twisted by some "outside force"?

I would think that if science in general is totally convinced that the 23rd chromosome has a structure that is NOT possible in nature, and a structure that HAD to be created by some mysterious "outside force", then that would be really, really, really, really big news -- and I had never heard about it.

I mean, if science as a whole believed this to be true, then there would be reason for them to go on studying the theory of evolution as the natural way humans came to be human -- yet they do go on.

Thirdly, the fact that even you say "whatever that means" leads me to believe that even you don't understand this yourself, and are simply repeating something you've read before. Can you please direct me to this information that made you believe what you are saying?

edit on 9/27/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

I meant to say "fused" and not "twisted." I can't remember where I heard the argument, but I know it is impossible for these chromosomes to fuse via evolution. I will find the source and hook you up. PM me in the future if I forget. You rekindled my interest in this argument. It is one I studied a long time ago.

Link 1

Link 2

Also, there have been many lies by omission within the science community. Suppressed information includes remnants of the Nephilim (proving the Bible as truthful), pictures of the moon not being one color, etc. Even radio active carbon dating has it's flaws considering the fact that it is based on the idea that there were never any sudden changes in the earth. Well, the Bible states there was a flood, we know this to be true from sea shells showing up on the highest mountain tops, yet "scientists" refuse to take this into account when using radio active carbon dating as evidence to their beliefs.

If you want I can prove to you evolution is a farce. I can make a new thread if you want. I will look for that source you asked for, might take me forever to find, but it will show up sooner or later.

Peace.

Dude you even just admitted you dont have a clue what youre talking about. Could not evolve? Really? But even you said you dont have a clue. Prove that god exists kthx

So if there was a flood how did an olive tree survive the flood?

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
Well, the Bible states there was a flood, we know this to be true from sea shells showing up on the highest mountain tops, yet "scientists" refuse to take this into account when using radio active carbon dating as evidence to their beliefs.

There are not "seashells" on mountaintops, but rather FOSSILS of shells. Fossils take millions of years to form, which was WELL before the bible says Noah's flood was (and well before there ware any humans on Earth at all).

The reason shells could be found on mountains (and other high elevations) is because the hundreds of millions of years ago, those mountains were not mountains, but rather they were a sea floor. Over time, shifting land masses squeezed together, pushing that sea floor up to form a mountain.

By the way, there is no evidence showing a global flood during the time humans lived on earth. There are theories (proposed by some, disputed by others) that indicate that the Black Sea area may have had a sudden and massive deluge of water from the Mediterranean breaching the Bosporus.

If this deluge did occur, it would have seemed like a global flood for the people living in the area, and may have given rise to the bible story, but would be tiny by global standards.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

Right.

If (as some say) it is possible that life started elsewhere (started spontaneously on another planet) and found its way here, then it is also possible that life on Earth simply started spontaneously on Earth.

I think that is more likely. It would take many millions of years for a fertile rock from another star system to hit the earth.

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
Also, there have been many lies by omission within the science community. Suppressed information includes remnants of the Nephilim (proving the Bible as truthful),

So what are the Nephilim "remnants"? Dinosaur fossils? Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal man remains? (earlier evolved forms of humanoids.)

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
pictures of the moon not being one color,

Uh, what does THAT prove?

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
etc. Even radio active carbon dating has it's flaws considering the fact that it is based on the idea that there were never any sudden changes in the earth. Well, the Bible states there was a flood, we know this to be true from sea shells showing up on the highest mountain tops, yet "scientists" refuse to take this into account when using radio active carbon dating as evidence to their beliefs.

The reason why fossils of seashells appear on the tops of mountains, is those deposits were formed in seas or oceans, hundreds of millions of years ago, and the mountains were formed by the action of plate tectonics.

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
If you want I can prove to you evolution is a farce. I can make a new thread if you want. I will look for that source you asked for, might take me forever to find, but it will show up sooner or later.

You should take your "creationist theory" to a religious forum to discuss with people who are interested in the theories and religious beliefs of primitive civilizations - as those ideas are folk tales told around the campfires by primitive desert goat herders, thousands of years ago.

The Panspermia theory has been around for a good while, however, I always look at this as the perfect Occam's Razor candidate.

Due to our position in the evolutionary chain of our planet - IE billions of years out from the genesis of life on Earth, it's pretty hard to determine if not downright impossible (at least currently) to ascertain exactly how it started. Whether from abiogenesis or panspermia.

We know it's possible for the basics of life to survive trips through space, so we know panspermia can happen, but is it how we got our start? If it is, then we would have to first find where the life on Earth came from to be able to even begin to test it. Even then, at this point, we'd have to do more tests to figure out the chicken and the egg scenario that would result than we would to find the kinship. (whether our life came from there or theirs came from here).

So yadda yadda yadda...Occam's Razor indicates that it's the simplest answer...life here started here

Originally posted by Dashdragon
So yadda yadda yadda...Occam's Razor indicates that it's the simplest answer...life here started here

Actually, I think you would have to know the probabilities to even take a stab at an answer.
There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that "life starting here" is in any way a simpler answer, than life starting somewhere else (probably countless locations) and migrating to many other locations.

Until our science actually has a way of calculating all the probabilities, we have no way of even determining which option is even more likely - let alone determine which one actually happened.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
Well, the Bible states there was a flood, we know this to be true from sea shells showing up on the highest mountain tops, yet "scientists" refuse to take this into account when using radio active carbon dating as evidence to their beliefs.

There are not "seashells" on mountaintops, but rather FOSSILS of shells. Fossils take millions of years to form, which was WELL before the bible says Noah's flood was (and well before there ware any humans on Earth at all).

Fossils do NOT take millions of years to create. You seem interested enough to watch this video. The argument is extremely complex and shocking, but it is all valid based on grounds / facts.

"Young Age of the Earth" movie link.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
Well, the Bible states there was a flood, we know this to be true from sea shells showing up on the highest mountain tops, yet "scientists" refuse to take this into account when using radio active carbon dating as evidence to their beliefs.

If this deluge did occur, it would have seemed like a global flood for the people living in the area, and may have given rise to the bible story, but would be tiny by global standards.

This sounds like pure conjecture. You may not like the Bible, but it is a source, and it is profound for many reasons, mainly that the people that wrote the books were tortured to death for not refuting their visions from God.

Originally posted by bluestreak53
So what are the Nephilim "remnants"? Dinosaur fossils? Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal man remains? (earlier evolved forms of humanoids.)

Nephilim giants

They are half human, half angel. Their spirits come from their immortal fathers which took up human wives. It was these freaks that caused God to send the flood, but only after they destroyed all of Gods creation. Noah was the last perfect man, in that his DNA had not been mutated. Once the Nephilim perished, their spirits (now called demons) and those of their fathers (the fallen angels) were bound to the earth and are still here. They like to hurt God by making humans, His greatest creation, think that we do not have a creator. They have been accomplishing this for thousands of years by pretending to be spirits of deceased loved ones, aliens, ancestors, etc.

Originally posted by bluestreak53
Uh, what does THAT prove?

That what you know about the moon is all BS, and that the moon landing never happened, and that there is suppressed information being withheld by these almighty "scientists."

Originally posted by bluestreak53
The reason why fossils of seashells appear on the tops of mountains, is those deposits were formed in seas or oceans, hundreds of millions of years ago, and the mountains were formed by the action of plate tectonics.

See my evolution movie link in the reply I posted above.

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief

You should take your "creationist theory" to a religious forum to discuss with people who are interested in the theories and religious beliefs of primitive civilizations - as those ideas are folk tales told around the campfires by primitive desert goat herders, thousands of years ago.

If it's so primitive, why do you ask all these questions? You must be interested.

Watch that evolution movie, took me forever to find it for you guys.

Peace.

Originally posted by phroziac
Dude you even just admitted you dont have a clue what youre talking about. Could not evolve? Really? But even you said you dont have a clue.

Why do you take my words out of context? The statement is pretty clear, human DNA could not have come from the atheistic theory known as evolution. Does that make sense to you? As for my personal expertise on the subject, that isn't really what is relevant either. I'm being honest in that I don't know the whole argument, but am passing on the information for those who are interested in it and want to know more about it.

Originally posted by phroziac
Prove that god exists kthx

Read the Bible.

Originally posted by phroziac
So if there was a flood how did an olive tree survive the flood?

An ounce of truth can destroy a million lies. I don't know how a tree survived the flood, and I don't really care either. I don't let something so insignificant overrule the hard evidence I know of, such as being able to use technology to see and hear these deceptive spirits.

reply to post by SuspendedBelief


DNA was created to evolve

everyone wins!

reply to post by phroziac


I don't believe in the biblical version of the flood yet a seed could well float until it found a place to sprout. With or without an arc.

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief

Originally posted by bluestreak53
So what are the Nephilim "remnants"? Dinosaur fossils? Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal man remains? (earlier evolved forms of humanoids.)

Nephilim giants

They are half human, half angel. Their spirits come from their immortal fathers which took up human wives. It was these freaks that caused God to send the flood, but only after they destroyed all of Gods creation. Noah was the last perfect man, in that his DNA had not been mutated. Once the Nephilim perished, their spirits (now called demons) and those of their fathers (the fallen angels) were bound to the earth and are still here. They like to hurt God by making humans, His greatest creation, think that we do not have a creator. They have been accomplishing this for thousands of years by pretending to be spirits of deceased loved ones, aliens, ancestors, etc.

A fairy tale. A myth, no more valid than belief in the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny.
Another example of believing in the impossible. You cannot breed with another animal unless you are the same (or a very, very closely related) species.

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief

Originally posted by bluestreak53
Uh, what does THAT prove?

That what you know about the moon is all BS,

Are you psychic? How would you know what I know about the moon?

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
and that the moon landing never happened, and that there is suppressed information being withheld by these almighty "scientists."

Crackpot conspiracy theory.
I prefer the testimony of scientists to crackpot religious zealots.

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
Watch that evolution movie, took me forever to find it for you guys.

Why would I bother watching creationist BS? Its not science, its biblical fantasy.