"Cave men".....

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:54 am

tholden wrote:
Sparky wrote:Occam says, "God Did It.".... :D


Ultimately (for the question of how humans arose on Ganymede), that's the right answer. The only other possibility would be evolution starting from inert materials, which is known to be a bunch of BS....

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Remember that there are a good many atheists on science forums. For them everything happened by mistake or chance even though there is an intelligence and design behind all of physics. But that is all "mistake."
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby Spektralscavenger » Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:44 pm

If we fly to an inhabited planet, would we be able to digest the native food? Are the hamburgers of green men tasty? :lol: If aliens come to Earth, would they be able to digest Earth food? My answer is 99 cases out of 100 no, eat alien food is like eat paper.


The idea of a Being no one has ever seen manipulating everything at whim poses more questions than answers. Like a robot of the artificial intelligence film said "only the orgas believe in things they have no evidence of".
Spektralscavenger
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:54 pm

Spektralscavenger wrote:The idea of a Being no one has ever seen manipulating everything at whim poses more questions than answers. Like a robot of the artificial intelligence film said "only the orgas believe in things they have no evidence of".


"a Being ....... manipulating everything at whim" is not at all what is believed. You must not have any idea about what people believe in order for you to say that. God is not believed to be a being sitting up there "manipulating everything at a whim."
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby tholden » Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:00 pm

Spektralscavenger wrote:If we fly to an inhabited planet, would we be able to digest the native food? Are the hamburgers of green men tasty? :lol: If aliens come to Earth, would they be able to digest Earth food? My answer is 99 cases out of 100 no, eat alien food is like eat paper.


You'd be wrong on that one. Cosmos in Collision poses a new kind of problem for evolutionists and that has to do with how an evolutionist would view science fiction. Such an evolutionist would normally believe that any living world he might find outside of our own would have to be totally different and alien.

C in C however amounts to major evidence that our own system originated in two disconnected parts, and that the living worlds in both of those parts were based on the same RNA/DNA information scheme, and that the advanced creatures of both systems were entirely similar (bilaterally symmetric, fur, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, hearts, lungs, four limbs etc. etc.).

That indicates a very high probability that any living world you were to ever find, no matter how far out, wold be based on the same DNA/RNA system, and feature the same kinds of creatures which live and/or have lived here.

"Alien food" would probably be perfectly nourishing.
tholden
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:09 am

tholden wrote:
Spektralscavenger wrote:If we fly to an inhabited planet, would we be able to digest the native food? Are the hamburgers of green men tasty? :lol: If aliens come to Earth, would they be able to digest Earth food? My answer is 99 cases out of 100 no, eat alien food is like eat paper.


You'd be wrong on that one. Cosmos in Collision poses a new kind of problem for evolutionists and that has to do with how an evolutionist would view science fiction. Such an evolutionist would normally believe that any living world he might find outside of our own would have to be totally different and alien.

C in C however amounts to major evidence that our own system originated in two disconnected parts, and that the living worlds in both of those parts were based on the same RNA/DNA information scheme, and that the advanced creatures of both systems were entirely similar (bilaterally symmetric, fur, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, hearts, lungs, four limbs etc. etc.).

That indicates a very high probability that any living world you were to ever find, no matter how far out, wold be based on the same DNA/RNA system, and feature the same kinds of creatures which live and/or have lived here.

"Alien food" would probably be perfectly nourishing.


+1

I tend to agree, generally, with this view.

Evolutionists are very rigid and fail to take into account the myriad methods that nature uses, duplicates, throughout the entire cosmos--not just on the Earth.

Yet look at the Earth. It has an overabundance of life and life forms. The Earth has some of the strangest variations of life I've ever seen (which I can only see). And new species are discovered with regularity.

Therefore, life is abundant in formation and type. It has manifested on Earth in so many forms that a list would not be long enough to tally it up. Certainly, too, the "higher orders" of life (animals and humans), are in great abundance.

Nature has used the basic shape and underpinning for life for probably tens of millions of years on this planet. It has used spinal columns and bones as well--for millions and millions of years.
The point being: what works is repeated over and over again for periods of time so long that it is not humanly comprehensible.

Likewise with celestial objects. Nature repeats the same things over millions of light years of distance, and over billions of aeons. What works is repeated over and over again. It is what gives the Universe definition and consistency.

Therefore: why would extra-terrestrial life, no matter where, be so different than what is seen on the Earth? Nature reuses and repeats the same processes across the ENTIRE Universe. Life on another world, no matter what it is, may very well be a variation on a theme already known and seen here. Why would Nature repeat the same structures, processes, and phenomena--across the entire known and visible Universe--but not do that with life?

But so-called "evolutionists" entirely disregard this type of thinking. They do not apply the proven abundance of factual observations that anyone can do--that Nature varies a theme every day--a theme that was established long long ago, beyond the scope and time of humanity.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby tholden » Tue Dec 31, 2013 6:44 am

The thing which I believe you would never find, is the scene from StarWars in which you see creatures whose morphologies are limited only by the writers' imaginations sitting around in a cafe, or the situation in Avatar in which natives are breathing a gas which is poisonous to humans.

Cosmos in Collision also involves a realization which may be difficult for some in the Thunderbolts crowd to get their heads around... That is, that any humans you might ever find, are highly likely to be living on bright worlds: either worlds like ours is now in orbit within the habitable zone of a main sequence star, or on moons of some gas giant or dwarf star in a similarly close orbit around a main sequence star as was the case of Ganymede.

Any inhabited world which you might ever find orbiting a brown dwarf star as the Earth originally did, will most likely be inhabited by hominids and not humans. Again, the cultural value of such encounters would be questionable...
tholden
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby Sparky » Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:38 am

"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:45 am



Human remains were mixed in with Neanderthals at this one location. Where is the "wooops" part?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby Spektralscavenger » Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:47 pm

tholden wrote:
Sparky wrote:Occam says, "God Did It.".... :D


Ultimately (for the question of how humans arose on Ganymede), that's the right answer. The only other possibility would be evolution starting from inert materials, which is known to be a bunch of BS....

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Lord Kelvin, Fred Hoyle and others reckoned that life can only emerge from life, therefore, life has existed since ever: our genealogical tree stretches back ad infinitum. I don´t rule out that but I favor biogenesis from "inert" matter. If a planet forms tomorrow I don´t think God goes there to cast His spells and abracadabra, I think life might emerge through chemical self-organization or arrive from space.
Spektralscavenger
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby Spektralscavenger » Tue Dec 31, 2013 3:09 pm

viscount aero wrote:
tholden wrote:
Spektralscavenger wrote:If we fly to an inhabited planet, would we be able to digest the native food? Are the hamburgers of green men tasty? :lol: If aliens come to Earth, would they be able to digest Earth food? My answer is 99 cases out of 100 no, eat alien food is like eat paper.


You'd be wrong on that one. Cosmos in Collision poses a new kind of problem for evolutionists and that has to do with how an evolutionist would view science fiction. Such an evolutionist would normally believe that any living world he might find outside of our own would have to be totally different and alien.

C in C however amounts to major evidence that our own system originated in two disconnected parts, and that the living worlds in both of those parts were based on the same RNA/DNA information scheme, and that the advanced creatures of both systems were entirely similar (bilaterally symmetric, fur, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, hearts, lungs, four limbs etc. etc.).

That indicates a very high probability that any living world you were to ever find, no matter how far out, wold be based on the same DNA/RNA system, and feature the same kinds of creatures which live and/or have lived here.

"Alien food" would probably be perfectly nourishing.


+1

I tend to agree, generally, with this view.

Evolutionists are very rigid and fail to take into account the myriad methods that nature uses, duplicates, throughout the entire cosmos--not just on the Earth.

Yet look at the Earth. It has an overabundance of life and life forms. The Earth has some of the strangest variations of life I've ever seen (which I can only see). And new species are discovered with regularity.

Therefore, life is abundant in formation and type. It has manifested on Earth in so many forms that a list would not be long enough to tally it up. Certainly, too, the "higher orders" of life (animals and humans), are in great abundance.

Nature has used the basic shape and underpinning for life for probably tens of millions of years on this planet. It has used spinal columns and bones as well--for millions and millions of years.
The point being: what works is repeated over and over again for periods of time so long that it is not humanly comprehensible.

Likewise with celestial objects. Nature repeats the same things over millions of light years of distance, and over billions of aeons. What works is repeated over and over again. It is what gives the Universe definition and consistency.

Therefore: why would extra-terrestrial life, no matter where, be so different than what is seen on the Earth? Nature reuses and repeats the same processes across the ENTIRE Universe. Life on another world, no matter what it is, may very well be a variation on a theme already known and seen here. Why would Nature repeat the same structures, processes, and phenomena--across the entire known and visible Universe--but not do that with life?

But so-called "evolutionists" entirely disregard this type of thinking. They do not apply the proven abundance of factual observations that anyone can do--that Nature varies a theme every day--a theme that was established long long ago, beyond the scope and time of humanity.


Very rigid for thinking that extraterrestial life could be different, although not necessarily? :shock: In my book "very rigid" is think that any ET has to be a copy of Earth life.

I can understand anatomical match because there aren´t infinite morphologies and most of them are non sensical in terms of engineering but, great similarity down to the molecular level? If 2 authors who have never met write a novel, what are the odds of them writting the same novel (details variation allowed)? And that´s on the same planet. What´s the mechanism that guarantees the same basic molecules and metabolic paths on any planet? It´s not that we can´t imagine for instance other amino acids. The safe bet is life on other world would be what suits that world regardless Earth.
Spektralscavenger
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:01 pm

Spektralscavenger wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
tholden wrote:
Spektralscavenger wrote:If we fly to an inhabited planet, would we be able to digest the native food? Are the hamburgers of green men tasty? :lol: If aliens come to Earth, would they be able to digest Earth food? My answer is 99 cases out of 100 no, eat alien food is like eat paper.


You'd be wrong on that one. Cosmos in Collision poses a new kind of problem for evolutionists and that has to do with how an evolutionist would view science fiction. Such an evolutionist would normally believe that any living world he might find outside of our own would have to be totally different and alien.

C in C however amounts to major evidence that our own system originated in two disconnected parts, and that the living worlds in both of those parts were based on the same RNA/DNA information scheme, and that the advanced creatures of both systems were entirely similar (bilaterally symmetric, fur, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, hearts, lungs, four limbs etc. etc.).

That indicates a very high probability that any living world you were to ever find, no matter how far out, wold be based on the same DNA/RNA system, and feature the same kinds of creatures which live and/or have lived here.

"Alien food" would probably be perfectly nourishing.


+1

I tend to agree, generally, with this view.

Evolutionists are very rigid and fail to take into account the myriad methods that nature uses, duplicates, throughout the entire cosmos--not just on the Earth.

Yet look at the Earth. It has an overabundance of life and life forms. The Earth has some of the strangest variations of life I've ever seen (which I can only see). And new species are discovered with regularity.

Therefore, life is abundant in formation and type. It has manifested on Earth in so many forms that a list would not be long enough to tally it up. Certainly, too, the "higher orders" of life (animals and humans), are in great abundance.

Nature has used the basic shape and underpinning for life for probably tens of millions of years on this planet. It has used spinal columns and bones as well--for millions and millions of years.
The point being: what works is repeated over and over again for periods of time so long that it is not humanly comprehensible.

Likewise with celestial objects. Nature repeats the same things over millions of light years of distance, and over billions of aeons. What works is repeated over and over again. It is what gives the Universe definition and consistency.

Therefore: why would extra-terrestrial life, no matter where, be so different than what is seen on the Earth? Nature reuses and repeats the same processes across the ENTIRE Universe. Life on another world, no matter what it is, may very well be a variation on a theme already known and seen here. Why would Nature repeat the same structures, processes, and phenomena--across the entire known and visible Universe--but not do that with life?

But so-called "evolutionists" entirely disregard this type of thinking. They do not apply the proven abundance of factual observations that anyone can do--that Nature varies a theme every day--a theme that was established long long ago, beyond the scope and time of humanity.


Very rigid for thinking that extraterrestial life could be different, although not necessarily? :shock: In my book "very rigid" is think that any ET has to be a copy of Earth life.

I can understand anatomical match because there aren´t infinite morphologies and most of them are non sensical in terms of engineering but, great similarity down to the molecular level? If 2 authors who have never met write a novel, what are the odds of them writting the same novel (details variation allowed)? And that´s on the same planet. What´s the mechanism that guarantees the same basic molecules and metabolic paths on any planet? It´s not that we can´t imagine for instance other amino acids. The safe bet is life on other world would be what suits that world regardless Earth.


I don't think we're really communicating. So maybe I need to clarify my position. You seem to think that I am extremely polarized in my beliefs about cosmic life. Of course all ET life doesn't "NEED" to be an exact copy Earth life. I wasn't ever implying that. ET may not resemble Earth life at all. That is actually the norm of thinking--to believe that somehow ET is so bizarrely different than Earth life that we cannot comprehend it. I was suggesting that view is rigid and probably false.

To that, there is a great likelihood that ET life is very similar to what we see displayed on Earth in all of its millions of forms. Why would ET life have to be ENTIRELY alien to what we see on Earth? Answer: It's not. It's probably very similar. Especially if the life thrives in water. Water-based life will indeed have the same underpinnings for that life. Moreover, if we do not observe life on Earth to thrive in, for example, cyanide or ammonia environments, then the chances are great that such life forms will not be found on other planets with cyanide or ammonia atmospheres.

Many scientists, to add, will magically accept the existence of ET "bacteria" but never ET life like human forms or animals.For some reason modern science cannot look seriously at ET life that is humanoid. If you suggest that there is ET life of humanoid shape then you are a conspiracy theorist. Only "bacteria" are allowed to exist elsewhere. Yet that is Earth-like. Scientists will accept ET bacteria, in the form of Earth bacteria, but not plants or animals. Isn't that quite curious and ridiculous?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:32 am

viscount aero wrote:


Human remains were mixed in with Neanderthals at this one location. Where is the "wooops" part?


Didn't the scientists report mixing of dna, using the tooth as evidence? :?

Quick to reach a conclusion is a wooops. ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby viscount aero » Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:30 am

Sparky wrote:
viscount aero wrote:


Human remains were mixed in with Neanderthals at this one location. Where is the "wooops" part?


Didn't the scientists report mixing of dna, using the tooth as evidence? :?

Quick to reach a conclusion is a wooops. ;)

Yes you're right :geek:
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby tholden » Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:44 pm

viscount aero wrote:
To that, there is a great likelihood that ET life is very similar to what we see displayed on Earth in all of its millions of forms. Why would ET life have to be ENTIRELY alien to what we see on Earth? Answer: It's not. It's probably very similar. Especially if the life thrives in water. Water-based life will indeed have the same underpinnings for that life. Moreover, if we do not observe life on Earth to thrive in, for example, cyanide or ammonia environments, then the chances are great that such life forms will not be found on other planets with cyanide or ammonia atmospheres.

Many scientists, to add, will magically accept the existence of ET "bacteria" but never ET life like human forms or animals.For some reason modern science cannot look seriously at ET life that is humanoid. If you suggest that there is ET life of humanoid shape then you are a conspiracy theorist. Only "bacteria" are allowed to exist elsewhere. Yet that is Earth-like. Scientists will accept ET bacteria, in the form of Earth bacteria, but not plants or animals. Isn't that quite curious and ridiculous?


You're venturing towards a tabu subject here, i.e. evidence of bigger and better things than bacteria within our system in ancient times. For that sort of thing, or so I've been told, there is the forum section of www.cosmosincollision.com. Feel free to register and join in.
tholden
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: "Cave men".....

Unread postby viscount aero » Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:58 pm

tholden wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
To that, there is a great likelihood that ET life is very similar to what we see displayed on Earth in all of its millions of forms. Why would ET life have to be ENTIRELY alien to what we see on Earth? Answer: It's not. It's probably very similar. Especially if the life thrives in water. Water-based life will indeed have the same underpinnings for that life. Moreover, if we do not observe life on Earth to thrive in, for example, cyanide or ammonia environments, then the chances are great that such life forms will not be found on other planets with cyanide or ammonia atmospheres.

Many scientists, to add, will magically accept the existence of ET "bacteria" but never ET life like human forms or animals.For some reason modern science cannot look seriously at ET life that is humanoid. If you suggest that there is ET life of humanoid shape then you are a conspiracy theorist. Only "bacteria" are allowed to exist elsewhere. Yet that is Earth-like. Scientists will accept ET bacteria, in the form of Earth bacteria, but not plants or animals. Isn't that quite curious and ridiculous?


You're venturing towards a tabu subject here, i.e. evidence of bigger and better things than bacteria within our system in ancient times. For that sort of thing, or so I've been told, there is the forum section of http://www.cosmosincollision.com. Feel free to register and join in.


To add, so-called evolutionists insist, rigidly, that human form today is the most advanced it has ever been, including technology. Any suggestion that advanced human/humanoid civilizations pre-existed today's modern man is strictly unallowed. In other words, there is no such thing as a civilization before our own that was sophisticated and advanced with technology that is beyond our grasp. Yet evidence abounds for it, ie, the giant megalithic structures on Earth that cannot be made today with any technology that we have.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest