It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it possible that the Atlanteans came from a planet in our own solar system?

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sonata
Theoriticly yes but if they were that advanced they must have left by now. Maybe they discovered wormholes and moved to Europa.


Why leave? The survivors just had to move continents.

Essan,

I have never read VonDaniken's books but I did see some documentaries of his beliefs. He was way out there in saying that he found a landing pad for aliens. But it was him who supposedly found artifacts of airplanes? Was that ever found to be faked, or where the artifacts not really dating to the Egyptian period? I never did follow up on that.. after the landing pad theory I kind of lost interest. Anyone with some info on that I would appreciate your time in sharing it.




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
I have never read VonDaniken's books but I did see some documentaries of his beliefs. He was way out there in saying that he found a landing pad for aliens. But it was him who supposedly found artifacts of airplanes? Was that ever found to be faked, or where the artifacts not really dating to the Egyptian period? I never did follow up on that.. after the landing pad theory I kind of lost interest. Anyone with some info on that I would appreciate your time in sharing it.


Stari,

Information on the "Egyptian airplane" or "Pharoah's airplane" or "Pharoah's glider" can be found here at ATS in one of the several "Out of Place Artifacts (OOPArts)" threads. Or, you could just visit Larry Orcutt's wonderful "Catchpenny Mysteries of Ancient Egypt" website. There's all kinds of eye-openers there.

Harte



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Is it possible that the Atlanteans came from a planet in our own solar system?


Sorry in advance for the sarcasm. I know from reading alot of this post, it has been a serious discussion, and a productive one as well.

But, i would like to inject a little humorous logic, if i may....

Alanteans were here on Earth, right?

Earth is a planet in our own solar system, right?

I think you know where i was going with this one.

In all seriousness, this is a nice thread.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Thanks Harte for the link. I didn't know about the wooden ones. I was talking about the ones made out of gold.

I did a search and found a link that tells about it. It wasn't egypt it was South America.

Here is a link.



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
Thanks Harte for the link. I didn't know about the wooden ones. I was talking about the ones made out of gold.

I did a search and found a link that tells about it. It wasn't egypt it was South America.


Stari,

You are very welcome. I thought that maybe it was the gold "airplanes" from Columbia that you werre thinking of, but with all the beliefs in ancient flying machines "floating" (pun intended) around out there these days, I didn't want to assume.

Anyway, there is a thread on these Columbian artifacts, which are really just depictions of several different creatures, mostly birds, insects and (of all things) flying fish, right here at ATS.

Here's the link

Enjoy.

Harte



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

The first comment was “How come we cannot travel between planets now if they could back then?” My answer to that is, can you build a car?
Nope, but someone who actually traveled would have mantained and kept that "ship". Do you know how to build a car, nope, you know how to keep it running, yes.
If they were as advanced as to travel from planet to planet, you'll have to assume as well they were more advanced than us precently, which would mean they'd have the means to save their knowledge...now where is it? Unexistent...


If this planet under goes the same kind of massive catastrophe’s that it has already gone through 10,000 years ago when the last ice age ended
You do know that the whole world doesn't freeze right? And it doesn't happen overnight, "Day after Tomorrow" not happening.

and the new one began then if only half of the population died
That half of the population must have sat on their bum waiting for the ice to come I guess...

during the many catastrophes that occurred and among the half that died where all the people that knew how to do brain surgery
You know as well knowledge is not passed on from mouth to mouth. All the people who know how to make brain surgery die...to bad, guess we'll have to train some new ones at college? Do all colleges die as well? Computers? Books hide? Unlikely...

and build cars then that knowledge could be lost forever..
Nope...presently everywhere around the world there are colleges, libraries and places this skills can and are learned every year...don't worry

Well until it was reinvented again perhaps many thousands of years from now.
Well...science would not necessarily go down the same path, but again, don't worry, there's loads of knowledge around the world


Why do I believe Atlantis really existed? Because there is way too much familiar things all over the world on different continents,
Mmm...how about Easter Island, there's nothing like them around the world, are they from Venus?


Mars is not a viable place for humans to live now. That is why the Atlanteans left.
And they left how? Maybe Enterprise came for them? Or did they loose their ships in the way?? That technology would not be lost...unless they got robbed in the way by the Venusians from Easter Island...that would explain it...


I remember once a long time ago during my many years of research reading a scientists paper on what life would be like in the end of Earths life.
Don't think so , even if whe nuke ourselves to the ground, many species would survive and evolve, without us in a few thousand years. See, nukes would focus on cities, not every single inch of earth, and there would be very large areas untouched.

I wish I could remember his name, he said the only life that would be left here on Earth would be small insects
No plants? Wonder how would they survive...nope, much more than that would survive us, we are but a flash in the world's evolutionary history.

That is exactly what you find on Mars.
How many bugs did you see when you were in Mars, if you don't mind asking?

My regards to the men in black btw...



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Well, fellows, i contact to this site after a long time periode on vacations and my eyes fell straight ahead to this thread which i find it fascinating. Since i need some time to investigate everywhere on network for more info (even books)... let's say i wonna illuminate you a little about the matter of Atlantis, notably those who never took up before related topics... so i suggest you a 5-tome work with the title "Gi, o planitis ton Ellinon" (Earth, Planet of the Greeks) by Dimosthenis Liakopoulos. if my memory doesnt mistakes me you can find unimaginable documents of around the planet about ancient tecnology, even about that question... the atlantis one. To be honest i have watch these 5 book-volume in a TV programme promoting timely books... i dont know if it is translated in English 'couse i dont know... even friends of me at a chat has asked about it but i didnt find an English edition for them... if anyone find samething related please let me know,thanks for your attention!


As far as my searches on network this man has been strongly accused many times (although i did it on the past, as well) for his rediculous speeches/theories/book publishing but no matter what they say against him... he shuts the mouth of all (even mine)

i am sorry for the too much bla bla, but if you are interested have a look at this book-fivelogy...



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
Thanks Harte for the link. I didn't know about the wooden ones. I was talking about the ones made out of gold.

I did a search and found a link that tells about it. It wasn't egypt it was South America.


Central America, actually, and I've seen them several times.

What's happening here is that they're showing one of a group of pendants -- the one that just happens to look most like a modern plane. When you see a whole collection of 30 -50 of them it becomes very obvious that these are not planes but are instead pendants of birds. The bird theme occurs frequently among the groups of tribes in that area, because birds are said to be the guardians that guide a soul to the heavens when someone dies AND because they're shamanic helpers.

So there's actually hundreds of representations of birds in that same style.

When you're shown just ONE pendant (and a highly selected one), it's not appropriate as a researcher to jump to a conclusion. A good researcher asks "is this the only one? If it is, where and how was it found? If it isn't, what do the others look like?"

This keeps you, the investigator, from being a victim of carefully selected evidence by someone who wants you to love and adopt and worship their very wrong theory.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Byrd, can you share what you know about the flying machines which are described in the Vedas? I only have the information that others have shared and I have no first hand knowledge of these 'vimanas'? I heard they are metallic, make a whirring noise while flying, and were only used by the nobles of the time. The common folk could not afford them.
It was also said that the engines contained mercury.
What do you know?



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
If they were as advanced as to travel from planet to planet, you'll have to assume as well they were more advanced than us precently, which would mean they'd have the means to save their knowledge...now where is it? Unexistent


We have no way of knowing what made them leave Mars, other than something spectacularly huge made it so that the planet Mars could not longer sustain beings.

Yes this is just a hypothesis but what if they landed here on Earth by crashing. There are other reason that could explain the lack of a ship being found now. When they landed here I doubt they had any kind of shelter from the weather. Life here on a strange Planet with strange animals had to be hard. I know that if any kind of natural disaster where to happen here on Earth today and it wiped out almost all life on this planet and anyone having to survive and start off right from scratch would use any means that they could to survive. Wouldn't you?


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
You do know that the whole world doesn't freeze right? And it doesn't happen overnight, "Day after Tomorrow" not happening.


Ok, well there are some scientists out there that believe in the snowball earth. You can read more about that here: www.psu.edu... . This is old news, whether it is true or not is a different story. I have not fully researched this subject.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Mmm...how about Easter Island, there's nothing like them around the world, are they from Venus?


That sounds like a good subject for you to research since you brought it up.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
And they left how? Maybe Enterprise came for them? Or did they loose their ships in the way?? That technology would not be lost...unless they got robbed in the way by the Venusians from Easter Island...that would explain it...


Do you have any kind of knowledge on this subject? Or do you just click around this board and post what ever?


Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
quote: I remember once a long time ago during my many years of research reading a scientists paper on what life would be like in the end of Earths life.

Don't think so , even if whe nuke ourselves to the ground, many species would survive and evolve, without us in a few thousand years. See, nukes would focus on cities, not every single inch of earth, and there would be very large areas untouched.


I guess this answered my previous question. These scientists where talking about the end of the Earths life, not humanities.


Originally posted by Great conspirator
As far as my searches on network this man has been strongly accused many times (although i did it on the past, as well) for his rediculous speeches/theories/book publishing but no matter what they say against him... he shuts the mouth of all (even mine)


There are alot of people who just cannot bring themselves to believe that there is a possiblity of an intelligent civilization that lived a long long time ago.


Originally posted by Byrd
When you see a whole collection of 30 -50 of them it becomes very obvious that these are not planes but are instead pendants of birds.


Thanks Byrd, like I said before I never really did any research into that, but now knowing that there are more then just 2 out there it makes it more interesting. Do you have a link to show all of them?







[edit on 9/11/2006 by Stari]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
We have no way of knowing what made them leave Mars, other than something spectacularly huge made it so that the planet Mars could not longer sustain beings.
Ok Ok...firstly, scientists say at best, there were microbes in Mars...but that's about it, there is no proof whatsoever that people ever lived in Mars. Firstly, the atmospheric pressure is quite different.

Second, liquid water cannot exist in Mars today. It is not known how long ago water existed in Mars surface, or why the atmosphere thinned. So it's a BIG asumption to think that life evolved to the level it did here, in order to evolve people...

Third, there is proof of our evolution in this planet, lots of fossils from our ancestors, to think we evolved in a planet with different atmosphere and gravity, and simply adapted to conditions here is simply not right. Simply there is no proof that our body evolved to different conditions other than Earth's.


Yes this is just a hypothesis but what if they landed here on Earth by crashing.
So assuming they did exist as you say...well...if they had the means to liftoff, they must have had the means to land, not just crash land.

There are other reason that could explain the lack of a ship being found now. When they landed here I doubt they had any kind of shelter from the weather.
Well...if they were advanced to build a ship, they must have had the knowledge to build a house. They wouldn't just be in the wild, living under a tree.

Life here on a strange Planet with strange animals had to be hard.
Hard for a caveman, not for a space explorer.

I know that if any kind of natural disaster where to happen here on Earth today and it wiped out almost all life on this planet and anyone having to survive and start off right from scratch would use any means that they could to survive. Wouldn't you?
Well other than a big fat meteorite, and a total nuclear war, I see it hard for humanity to be wiped out. The humans have proven so far to be the most adaptable form of life on earth. And even if we were wiped out, wiping out all all life would be quite hard. There had been mass extinctions before, and yet life survived...


Ok, well there are some scientists out there that believe in the snowball earth. You can read more about that here: www.psu.edu... . This is old news, whether it is true or not is a different story. I have not fully researched this subject.
Well...snowball theory, before, during, and after was life. Not that catastrophic after all...second, earth was tilted differently, and still in that theory, areas remained unfrozen...



That sounds like a good subject for you to research since you brought it up.
Well, not much to research, I mean, there is also people that believe that aliens helped the Eastern Island people build the Moai, but the Rapa Nui are well documented and their history known, no need to further research into that...


Originally posted by Stari
I guess this answered my previous question. These scientists where talking about the end of the Earths life, not humanities.
Well...maybe you'd like to share the paper talking about the extinction of all life in earth...



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
scientists say at best, there were microbes in Mars...but that's about it, there is no proof whatsoever that people ever lived in Mars. Firstly, the atmospheric pressure is quite different.


I agree with that, people did not live in Mars, but rather on the surface. And this is only my theory, I am only guessing just like you are only guessing that life never existed on Mars. As for the atmospheric pressure, who is to say that the beings that lived there, if there ever where beings that lived there, couldn't breath that kind of air?


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Second, liquid water cannot exist in Mars today.


Well we do not know for sure what is inside Mars. We have not looked under Mars surface yet. Here is a website that you can follow and hopefully one day if nothing goes wrong NASA will be able to tell us what is under Mars surface.

But as far as ever having oceans flowing on the surface of Mars.
Here is a recent article


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
So it's a BIG asumption to think that life evolved to the level it did here, in order to evolve people


First off who said anything about evolving? Or about people coming to be on Mars. Who is to say they didn't come from another planet when that one went sour grapes on them? We just don't really know, and most likely we wont ever know how they came to be.

I am hoping one day when people actually end up going to Mars and starts digging around, hopefully, we will know then if civilized people ever lived there. I don't know if that would even be a feasible event though because we are talking at least 100,000 years if not more. What could really sustain that kind of time and weather erosion?


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Third, there is proof of our evolution in this planet, lots of fossils from our ancestors, to think we evolved in a planet with different atmosphere and gravity, and simply adapted to conditions here is simply not right.


Ok, here we go, I hate talking about evolution to people. I hope this doesn't open up a can of worms, but with that being said. Evolution is only a theory. There are so many holes in that theory that we cannot say for sure that is how modern humans came to be. Or at least the only means of how humanity came to be.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
So assuming they did exist as you say...well...if they had the means to liftoff, they must have had the means to land, not just crash land.


This is true, so let's assume they did land ok, without harm. After landing how would they live? Don't forget that Earth went through alot of turmoil through out it's history. Volcanoes exploding and Earthquakes, flooding and this is only naming a few natural disasters that could have happend. I didn't even go into global warming, famine and ice ages. How would they get through all of that?

Look at the other planets in our solar system, none of them have the capability to harbor life, so why would they need their ship now? Now would mean survival, later they could rebuild another ship. So it is possible that they dismantled their ship to use the componants to survive here on a strange planet, their new home?

Of course this is just a theory, I have no proof to back up my words. I just take what is known and I extrapolate a hypothesis. Isn't that what Darwin did?


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well...maybe you'd like to share the paper talking about the extinction of all life in earth...


Ok, I thought I was clear but I will try to be clearer for you. As much as we all would love to believe that this planet and all of the other planets including our sun would last for ever and ever, it will not. One day our sun will die and so will the rest of the planets in this solar system. But don't worry Ioseb, it will be a long long time before that happens. And life here on this planet will be long gone, either dead or on another planet.

Maybe this link will help you to understand what I am talking about



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I like the discussions here


Did the Atlanteans come from another planet in our solar system?

Cacey: "200,000 BCE: Entrance of extraterrestrial-like spiritual entities to Earth plane, forming original Atlantis. [364-4] Entities are "much rather of the nature of thought-forms" that could "push out of themselves… in the way and manner as the amoeba" [364-3] The entities in question are hyper-dimensional or non-physical beings."

From "Convergence": The entrance of extraterrestrial – type spiritual beings to the Earth is cited in the Cayce readings as being some 200,000 years ago. It is quite interesting to note that modern genetic researchers have concluded that the human DNA can be traced back to a single Eve who lived some 200,000 years ago. This fact is referenced most completely in Zecharia Sitchin's book, Genesis Revisited. The work of Richard Hoagland and others regarding the possible extraterrestrial ruins on Mars, which we will explore in later chapters, also points towards the time of 200,000 years ago.

This was perhaps the most recent time that Mars could have endured a cataclysmic asteroid collision that led to its destruction. There is overwhelming evidence that Mars was very similar to Earth at one point in its past, with fertile oceans, blue skies, clouds and rain. The evidence, from researchers such as astrophysicist Thomas Van Flandern, is very strong in suggesting that a colossal explosion caused by an asteroid was responsible for the demise of Mars. Another resource for this data is found in Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval's The Mars Mystery. Interestingly, the most recent "Mars Meteorite" being examined in Europe as having possible evidence for bacterial life also traces back to 200,000 years ago.

----

The "thought forms" of Cacey indicates "consciousness" in general, or "energy personality essences" as it is referred to by Seth. As such (without a physical, 3D form) any (multidimensional) enviroment is a 'livable' environment.

'Humans' imho are incarnated thought forms of various 'origins', and as such we may have been 'Atlantean', living anywhere in our 'past', Mars, Venus, Maldek, etc.

Nescio

[edit on 13/9/2006 by Nescio]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stari
I agree with that, people did not live in Mars, but rather on the surface.
Glad to see you have a sense of humor as well..
on the surface of Mar? Maybe some proof of that? Or how did they first arrived to Mars? (since we humans evolved in Earth and Earth alone).


And this is only my theory, I am only guessing just like you are only guessing that life never existed on Mars.
Actually I’m not guessing, as of now there is no proof whatsoever that life existed in Mars. There is only proof that once upon a time liquid water did exist in the surface, but as of when it did and why it dissapeared it remains a mystery.

As for the atmospheric pressure, who is to say that the beings that lived there, if there ever where beings that lived there, couldn't breath that kind of air?
Problem is, Mars atmosphere pressure is almost a hundred times less than ours, and if your “atlanteans” lived in Mars and they came to Earth, they wouldn’t have been able to breath. Second the chemistry of Mar’s atmosphere is composed of 95% CO2 while Earth’s is 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen…still not able to breath. Third, Mars magnetosphere failed almost 4 billion years ago, allowing the Solar Wind to strip the atmosphere to what it is now. So unless this atlanteans evolved 4 billion years ago…they couldn’t have possible existed in Mars… what could have existed or maybe even today are Microbes, but that still has to be explored


Well we do not know for sure what is inside Mars. We have not looked under Mars surface yet. Here is a website that you can follow and hopefully one day if nothing goes wrong NASA will be able to tell us what is under Mars surface.
Well, it’s true, we don’t know what it’s inside Mars, yet even if water did exist inside it, it would still prove the Atlanteans don’t exist, since with a water source they wouldn’t just have banished…that is if they ever did exist…



But as far as ever having oceans flowing on the surface of Mars.
Here is a recent article
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough? I said, water cannot exist in the surface of Mars today and when water probably exist was far before 100,000 years, or that’s why I understand…


First off who said anything about evolving? Or about people coming to be on Mars. Who is to say they didn't come from another planet when that one went sour grapes on them? We just don't really know, and most likely we wont ever know how they came to be.
Evolving? Well…that’s the proof that we did not come from any other planet, system, galaxy…bla bla. Three letters…DNA…and about other planets…some proof other than myths that humanity is not from Earth??







Ok, here we go, I hate talking about evolution to people. I hope this doesn't open up a can of worms, but with that being said. Evolution is only a theory. There are so many holes in that theory that we cannot say for sure that is how modern humans came to be. Or at least the only means of how humanity came to be.
Well, it’s pretty clear to me how humanity came to be, and I know enough about evolution, but it’s not my intention to try to debunk your beliefs on that, I you want to believe we appeared out of a seed, or god’s hand, it’s ok…



This is true, so let's assume they did land ok, without harm. After landing how would they live? Don't forget that Earth went through alot of turmoil through out it's history. Volcanoes exploding and Earthquakes, flooding and this is only naming a few natural disasters that could have happend. I didn't even go into global warming, famine and ice ages. How would they get through all of that?
Well…let’s see, they land, they escape from “disaster” (all this assuming they did exist as you claim). They bring what would be needed to survive obviously, like mining equipment…they start digging up from the earth the ore they need, they a foundry, they cut down trees…they rebuild themselves…yet they didn’t do any of this? Unlikely…
And about Earth turmoil…do keep in mind that in Humanity’s early history Earth wasn’t just a lovely place to live, and nevertheless we thrived and endured hardships, your space explorers would do just fine if a handful of cavemen and hunters did…


Look at the other planets in our solar system, none of them have the capability to harbor life, so why would they need their ship now? Now would mean survival, later they could rebuild another ship. So it is possible that they dismantled their ship to use the componants to survive here on a strange planet, their new home?
Come on…they were space explorers…they had everything to survive here, they must have brought with them machinery and knowledge, they would have been back in their fight in a hundred years or less…Survival…
it’s not like they landed in Jurassic park or something, they would have means to survive if they were advanced at all, which they would be if they had a spaceship…still wondering what happened to it…


Of course this is just a theory, I have no proof to back up my words. I just take what is known and I extrapolate a hypothesis. Isn't that what Darwin did?
Mmm…Darwin lived in what epoch? And his theory is backed up by how many sciences? And yours? I see…


Ok, I thought I was clear but I will try to be clearer for you. As much as we all would love to believe that this planet and all of the other planets including our sun would last for ever and ever, it will not. One day our sun will die and so will the rest of the planets in this solar system. But don't worry Ioseb, it will be a long long time before that happens. And life here on this planet will be long gone, either dead or on another planet.


That paper…well I no need to even read your link, but thanks for it anyway. Yes the Sun isn’t forever, it has limited amount of “fuel” and as it starts to eat it up it will likely inflate into one big fat red star and then go kabum…
I worry not for this
for all I know, humanity will likely not exist, or be already exported around the galaxy, whichever comes first….but talking in human terms, and due to the short span of life we have in comparison to the world, I think the world will be quite fine for a while, with or without us…



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nescio
'Humans' imho are incarnated thought forms of various 'origins', and as such we may have been 'Atlantean', living anywhere in our 'past', Mars, Venus, Maldek, etc.


Hi Nescio, It is really good to have someone who also thinks there is a possibility of Atlanteans and them living and coming to Earth from Mars.

I never studied Edgar Cayce, but I do now that he prophesied that the Bimini Road would be found in the 60's, and it was. I also know that he was right more than he was wrong. If that is not true then please someone correct me with source links.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
on the surface of Mar? Maybe some proof of that? Or how did they first arrived to Mars? (since we humans evolved in Earth and Earth alone).


I am assuming that you are asking me to prove that intelligent life existed on the surface of Mars at one time in the past? If this is what you are asking for then I would like to direct you to www.enterprisemission.com... . Although I do not agree with some of his theories I have to admit that he has the most extensive online research of the structures found on the surface of Mars.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Mars magnetosphere failed almost 4 billion years ago, allowing the Solar Wind to strip the atmosphere to what it is now.


Do you have a source link that proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt that this timeline you are saying is true?


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
I said, water cannot exist in the surface of Mars today and when water probably exist was far before 100,000 years, or that’s why I understand


Right, I do not deny this. No one knows exactly the time frame that Mars oceans dried up.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Evolving? Well…that’s the proof that we did not come from any other planet, system, galaxy…bla bla.


Well some people do not believe in evolving from monkeys. I happen to be one of them. So to say that humans evolved here on Earth and there is proof that we did not come from another planet is wrong. There is no 100 % proof that humans evolved. There are holes in the so called evolutionary tree. Why are there holes? Because that is not how we came to be here on this planet.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
And about Earth turmoil…do keep in mind that in Humanity’s early history Earth wasn’t just a lovely place to live, and nevertheless we thrived and endured hardships, your space explorers would do just fine if a handful of cavemen and hunters did


Exactly, caveman did ok because they had to move to caves to get out of the way of the turbulant Earths fury. And I would think if it took caves to keep them safe then what would it take for Atlanteans to stay safe? Disassembling ships to make shelters? Hunt for food and or making gardens so that they can eat only to have a hurricane come along and wipe out their crops? Progression of their civilization would have happend slowly. But this is only my opinion.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Come on…they were space explorers…they had everything to survive here, they must have brought with them machinery and knowledge


How do you know that they had everything to survive here? At least I am not the only one who is making assumptions here. Maybe they did not have a good enough warning that Mars was going to under go changes, like maybe a asteroid hit the planet with out warning. And before you say that couldn't be possible with people with such advance knowledge of flying in space. Today there are asteroids flying around in space and half of them we do not even see until they are past Earth. And we are people who flew to the moon and back many many times.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Darwin lived in what epoch? And his theory is backed up by how many sciences?


Darwin took bones from different species that resembles modern humans and said that we evolved into what we are now and the original species was a monkey. That is not science that is a bad theory. A theory with a lot of holes.


Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
humanity will likely not exist, or be already exported around the galaxy, whichever comes first


You say this but you cannot believe in the possibility that humanity came from another planet?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Evolving? Well…that’s the proof that we did not come from any other planet, system, galaxy…bla bla.


Well some people do not believe in evolving from monkeys. I happen to be one of them. So to say that humans evolved here on Earth and there is proof that we did not come from another planet is wrong. There is no 100 % proof that humans evolved. There are holes in the so called evolutionary tree. Why are there holes? Because that is not how we came to be here on this planet.

Just because some people believe that we "evolved from monkeys" doesn't mean that Darwin believed that nor does it mean that such a silly statement is a valid summarization of current scientific theory on the evolution of our species.

Regarding proof, there is no proof of anything at all, anywhere, ever in the entire physical realm. There is only evidence. Evidence which either supports, or does not support, some particular theory or other. Hence, there are these "holes" in every single theory ever proposed by anyone, including every new earther, every creationist, every exogenesist, every biologist, every physicist and every person that ever lived.

Even Decarte's "Cogito, ergo sum" is faulty. Google solipsism.



Originally posted by Stari

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Darwin lived in what epoch? And his theory is backed up by how many sciences?


Darwin took bones from different species that resembles modern humans and said that we evolved into what we are now and the original species was a monkey. That is not science that is a bad theory. A theory with a lot of holes.

No evolutionary biologist, Darwin included, has ever stated that humans evolved from monkeys. I suspect you know this already Stari, you've read it several times on this board if you've spent any time at all here.
The has never been any scientist that stated that the "original species was a monkey." But I don't blame you for constructing this straw man, since the actual theory, while it can be argued against, is much much more difficult to refute than your "monkey origin" one.

I think that another way to make the point that Ioseb_Jugashvili is trying to make is to point out that we share over half our genetic heritage with our planet's trees for God's sake.
Almost 80% of the genes of the lowly www.microscopy-uk.org.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Sea Squirt can be found in the human genome. Sea squirts!

There's plenty of evidence[ that humans come from here, and absolutely no evidence that they come, via the Atlanteans (for whom, BTW, there is precious little evidence) from some other planet, Mars or not.

Of course, in the end, that doesn't prove anything. But since I already said that there is no proving anything in the physical world, then that result should not be surprising, should it?

So, you are free to believe anything you want, but you'll have to pardon some of us for wanting some (variable - depending on the hypothesis) quantities of evidence to weigh when we decide on what and what not to believe.

Harte



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
this is the last common ancestral species between monkey and ape (27 to 17 million years ago)
en.wikipedia.org...(genus)
its called Proconsul
sounds either like a car or like a roman politician doesn't it

this is the last common ancestor between ape and man (12 to 9 million years ago)
en.wikipedia.org...
if you creationists and true believers can actually read scientific information then you should really be able to comprehend what Darwinism is really saying before you attempt to refute it. because you are in saying "we did not evolve from monkeys" showing that you really haven't got all your paddles in the water because nobody on earth ever actually claimed that. this is what Harte is telling you by calling it a straw man argument
it is actually claimed that we evolved from Apes and that
Apes and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor
as such we at no time evolved from monkeys as they are cousins of ours on the evolutionary tree
and not ancestors
we did evolve from tree shrews as well apparently but that was much much earlier

tune in next week for why leaving the trees was a bad idea and what went wrong with bipedalism


[edit on 24-9-2006 by Marduk]

[edit on 24-9-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
there are these "holes" in every single theory ever proposed by anyone


I agree, even my theories have holes in them.


Originally posted by Harte
The has never been any scientist that stated that the "original species was a monkey."


Ok then an ape.


And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.


www.talkorigins.org...

And isn't it true that apes and monkeys are part of the same mammal family? They are just different breeds of monkey. Also isn't it true that monkeys or apes have a different number of (I believe they are) Chromozones from humans? Please correct me if I am wrong. But if I am right wouldn't that mean that monkeys or apes is a different species than humans?


Originally posted by Harte
I think that another way to make the point that Ioseb_Jugashvili is trying to make is to point out that we share over half our genetic heritage with our planet's trees for God's sake.
Almost 80% of the genes of the lowly Sea Squirt can be found in the human genome. Sea squirts!


Well let's think about that one.


I have before remarked in speaking of the allotments of the gods, that they distributed the whole earth into portions differing in extent, and made for themselves temples and instituted sacrifices. And Poseidon, receiving for his lot the island of Atlantis, begat children by a mortal woman, and settled them in a part of the island, which I will describe. Looking towards the sea, but in the centre of the whole island, there was a plain which is said to have been the fairest of all plains and very fertile. Near the plain again, and also in the centre of the island at a distance of about fifty stadia, there was a mountain not very high on any side.


classics.mit.edu...

My point is that Poseidon begat children by a mortal woman. Maybe that would explain the 80% genes of a Sea Squirt. But then again Mars did once have a very large ocean. Who is to say that the 80% of genes from a Sea Squirt did not come from Mars oceans? Does your source link say that this 80% Sea Squirt could only have come from Sea Squirts from Earth? I bet it doesn't.


Originally posted by Harte
There's plenty of evidence[ that humans come from here, and absolutely no evidence that they come, via the Atlanteans (for whom, BTW, there is precious little evidence) from some other planet, Mars or not.


There is no evidence, there are theories based on archeological findings. That is it. Same as there are theories that intelligent beings lived on Mars at one time or another based on findings from NASA's rovers and satellites.


Originally posted by Harte
Of course, in the end, that doesn't prove anything. But since I already said that there is no proving anything in the physical world, then that result should not be surprising, should it?


I can definately agree with you on this sentence Harte.


Originally posted by Harte
So, you are free to believe anything you want, but you'll have to pardon some of us for wanting some (variable - depending on the hypothesis) quantities of evidence to weigh when we decide on what and what not to believe.


I can pardon you folks as long as you pardon me as well for needing the same from you guys. I require source links as well when some one posts remarks against what I believe.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Hi Marduk, Sorry for not commenting on your post but you posted while I was typing my reply to Harte.

I will say just one more thing about evolution then we should probably save the rest of evolution discussions for the proper evolution threads. Considering that supposed evolution took place millions and millions of years in the making and Atlanteans were only in the making for hundreds of thousands of years.

I did put my 2 cents worth on one of those threads about evolution and then I found myself finding that evolution could have some part in our history of coming to be. In other words, I do not claim to know anything about genetics. How can a chromozone in a monkey or ape split all by itself? It's not like the mammals had labs setup and took their blood, split the chromozone and created a new species. So if someone has a simple explaination on how this chromozone could have split then I am more than willing to listen and take it into consideration.

Meanwhile here is my theory on how it happend:

I believe that a species of monkey or ape and another species of mammal mated and a new species came to be, thus the chromozone split. Yes it's called hybridisation. Now while putting my 2 cents in on the other thread I realised that it could be possible for evolution to also be a part of our history, but to be able to fill in the blanks you would also have to believe in hybridisation. At least for now.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
How do chromosones split part 1


So if someone has a simple explaination on how this chromozone could have split then I am more than willing to listen and take it into consideration.


Knowledge of tertiary chromatin structure in mammalian interphase chromosomes is largely derived from artificial tandem arrays. In these model systems, light microscope images reveal fibers or beaded fibers after high-density targeting of transactivators to insertional domains spanning several megabases. These images of fibers have lent support to chromonema fiber models of tertiary structure. To assess the relevance of these studies to natural mammalian chromatin, we identified two different ∼400-kb regions on human chromosomes 6 and 22 and then examined light microscope images of interphase tertiary chromatin structure when the regions were transcriptionally active and inactive. When transcriptionally active, these natural chromosomal regions elongated, yielding images characterized by a series of adjacent puncta or “beads”, referred to hereafter as beaded images. These elongated structures required transcription for their maintenance. Thus, despite marked differences in the density and the mode of transactivation, the natural and artificial systems showed similarities, suggesting that beaded images are generic features of transcriptionally active tertiary chromatin. We show here, however, that these images do not necessarily favor chromonema fiber models but can also be explained by a radial-loop model or even a simple nucleosome affinity, random-chain model. Thus, light microscope images of tertiary structure cannot distinguish among competing models, although they do impose key constraints: chromatin must be clustered to yield beaded images and then packaged within each cluster to enable decondensation into adjacent clusters.

Chromatin structure can be classified hierarchically (44). Primary structure refers to the organization of DNA on nucleosomes, for example, the 10-nm fiber. Secondary structures arise from interactions between nucleosomes, for example, the 30-nm fiber. Tertiary structures are formed by interactions between secondary structures, and quaternary structures are formed by interactions between tertiary structures. Thus, tertiary and quaternary structures can involve the organized compaction of the chromatin fiber over domains of hundreds of kilobases (16). Here we use the term “tertiary structure ” to refer generally to all higher-order chromatin structures beyond the level of the 30-nm fiber.

A knowledge of this tertiary structure and the molecules involved in regulating it will be critical for a complete understanding of the molecular processes involving DNA, including replication, repair, and transcription (26). Only the primary structure of chromatin packaging and, to some extent, the secondary structure are now known with certainty (5). However, these levels of packaging account for only a fraction of the compaction required to fit the cellular content of DNA into a nucleus (15). Thus, there is much to be learned about higher levels of chromatin packaging. A critical first step is to define the higher-order structures in a natural mammalian interphase chromosome. To date, most knowledge has come instead from several model systems that may or may not be representative of natural interphase chromatin.

Extracted metaphase chromosomes reveal a series of DNA loops attached to a protein scaffold (28). These observations have led to a radial-loop, protein scaffold model for metaphase chromosomes that has been extrapolated to interphase chromatin (14, 24, 27). Some meiotic chromosomes, namely, oocyte lampbrush chromosomes, also exhibit DNA loop structures (33). During interphase, the only direct structural evidence for DNA loops comes from the interpretation of electron microscope images of the Balbiani ring genes in polytene chromosome puffs of the fly Chironomus (1, 20). At present, it is not certain whether these model systems, namely, mitotic, meiotic, and polytene chromosomes, are representative of normal interphase chromatin and, if so, whether the structures observed after extraction and fixation are genuine.

To address these concerns, tandem array systems have been constructed and then visualized during interphase in living mammalian cells. The tandem arrays are based on green fluorescent protein (GFP)-tagged proteins that bind to a repeated series of target sites that can be transactivated (17, 23, 25, 30, 39, 40, 47). The resultant light microscope images of tertiary chromatin have been interpreted as fibers that elongate in response to transactivation. These interpretations support a chromonema fiber model in which progressive folding of nucleosomal DNA generates a series of thicker fibers: first, secondary structures, corresponding to fibers 30 nm thick; second, tertiary structures, corresponding to fibers 60 to 80 nm thick; and third, quaternary structures, corresponding to fibers 100 to 130 nm thick (4). Rather than a scaffold to provide structural support, it is thought that chromonema fibers are held together by fiber-fiber interactions, which could be regulated by different histone variants or tail modifications (16).

Tandem array systems, however, are also subject to questions about their general applicability to natural chromatin structure, since they are artificial. The arrays are composed of very densely packed head-to-tail repeats that recruit strong activating factors to very high densities along at least several megabases of chromatin. In contrast, natural chromosomes are often characterized by large intergenic regions and promoters that are typically much weaker than targeting the potent VP16 activation domain (32) used in lac operator arrays (40) or the binding of the glucocorticoid receptor to its cognate promoter, the mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV) promoter, used in MMTV tandem arrays (23). Therefore, it is not known to what extent these systems are relevant to natural chromatin.



[edit on 24-9-2006 by Marduk]




top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join