It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Can Anyone Debunk this Theory?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by neformore

Life here began out there?

Why is it so hard to comprehend? The Solar System is just about five billion years old. The Universe about 15-20 billion. (According to present day conjecture. Could be ten times older. Could be infinitely old if you discount the so called 'Big Bang' Theory.)

Life therefore could've started elsewhere even before the Solar System was formed!!
And thus, advanced civilisations may have existed billions of years ago. Impossible?

So yes. Life probably began out there!!

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 11:17 AM
I think that life has been around for a really long time before “we” humans can about, whether or not they are like us, as in appearance and language and such, I don’t know, my guess probably not. I’m with mikesignh on this one. Our solar system has only been around for 5 billion years (uh ONLY 5 billion) and the universe has been estimated to be around for 15 billion years. That’s three times as long for all of you who have a math deficiency. According to this site.

Now then, the first “man” was around 2.2 million years ago. The earth was created roughly 4.5 billion years ago. It only took man 2.2 million years to evolve. Now do the math universe=15 billion years old. Earth=4.5 billion years old. Man=2.2 million years old. If your look at the universe that leaves the possibility to create 6818.18 evolved "intelligent " species. Can you still tell me that there isn’t life out there that is older that us?

[edit on 15-9-2006 by spaceman16]

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 04:36 PM
Our spy satellites can detect underground bases built by humans but can they detect underground civilizations built by people who can travel the universe?

Kind of sounds similar to the contact notes from billy meier. I've heard some stuff in my own experiences with the "voices in my head" that I've been hearing since around 1996 when I first started seeing ufo's. Things like, "5.5 to 6 billion years ago....(can't remember it all)...we knew that when beaches and sand formed others would come who would try to take the planet." And I've heard references to a war that occured hear upon the earth. They didn't say when or who they were at war with but said, ".....they were able to invade our minds but they were not able to defeat us with their technology....." I wonder if "us" is spelt with a capital U and a capital S?

[edit on 16-9-2006 by grasshopper]

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:59 PM

a man named Zecharia Sitchin has a theory that hes written books on, supposedly backed up by Sumerian tablet evidence, though heavily refuted..

in those tablets, he says it depicts a story of an alien race coming to earth and making us to be their slaves, then they left, leaving us to remain until they returned, because they could only access the planet when whatever heavenly body they were from was within a certain distance from Earth, ie; within a sphere of gravity.

they are called Anunnaki. and their planet is called Nibiru. Do google searches for these and you will find more crap than a septic tank on it.

but dont reply chewing me out, i said its heavily refuted, and im not saying its what I believe. but I will say he presents alot of interesting and somewhat believable scenarios.

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Byrd

You might want to read up on primate evolution on Good record of sequential fossils that show how primates evolved and when they evolved.

Says who? Darwinists? loool

Darwin knew that the onl way to verify the main tenets of the theory was to search the fossil record. And that search has continued since his day. How many paleontologists, geologists, excavators, construction workers, oil and water -well drillers, archeologists and anthropologists, students and amateur fossil hunters have been digging holes in the ground and discovering fossils from Darwin's day until today? Untold millions.

What evidence has the fossil record revealed concerning Darwin's transitional species? The late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transition between major groups are characteristically lacking.

There are plenty of fossils of ancient forms and plenty of newer ones. We find fossils of early and extinct primates, hominids, Neanderthals and Homos Sapiens but no fossils of the transition linking ape and man. "

And there is

Scientiests have dropped hints about this darwinian theory (which ridiculousy darwinians consider as a scientific fact) however. During a college lecture in 1967 the world renowed anthropologist Louis B. Leakey was asked about the missing link and he replied by saying: " There is no one link missing - there are hundreds f links missing..."

I remember few months back I've watched a documentary about anthropology and specifically about Eugene Dubois who found that human thighbone and the skullcap of an ape separated by a distance of 40 feet. And it was 1891. So we had Java man :p and even though many experts say that thighbone and skullcap are unrelated and shortly before his death when Dubois himself said the skullcap belonged to a large monkey and the thighbone to a man, still to this days this is used as a evidence of man's descendance from apes.

Or the case with famous Lucy. Anthropologists including physical anthropologist Charles Oxnard say clearly that Lucy is indistinguishable from a monkey or an extinct ape but still Lucy is used as evidence of the evolution.

There are tons of cases like that guys. Please enough with Darwin. As Richard Milton put it, "Darwin doesn't work here anymore."

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:48 AM
Mike, please don't take this as an attack, but the title of this thread is "can anyone debunk this theory?" I believe that this theory was proposed purely out of speculations, not saying that you didn't take pieces of it from the speculations of others, but no tangible, physical evidence has been produced to support this theory. That does not say that is in no way possible, but without physical evidence to back up the claims of your theory, it is also not provable. For example, take the case of John Karr (I think I'm spelling his name right), who claimed that he was person responsible for the rape and murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. Yes, he is a major perv and could possibly be capable of committing such a heinous act, but physical evidence showed that he was not the person who raped her. That and the several eyewitnesses who happened to see him in Alabama at the time of the rape and murder. In order for his story to be correct, he would have to at least matched the DNA at the crime scene. But your theory is asking us to judge it's merits without any tangible, physical evidence. While it would be pretty cool for it to be a factual account of life in our solar system, without evidence it is merely supposition and fantasy unless a person's faith that it is true alone is enough. In cases where faith is enough, no amount of "debunking" with evidence or not will change a believer's mind.

[edit on 9/17/2006 by PapaHomer]

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:48 AM
Great thread ,I have too had similar ideas and theories ,but unfortunately like everyone suggests without evidence its just a story, a good one but still a story.
Its unfortunate that we now live in a world were fact is often overshadowed by fiction, and disregarded as such. Hence why a forum like this exists in the first place, for people like us seeking answers to the questions that no one seems to have the answer too.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:15 PM
My thought on life in the universe are real simple. There are about 1 billion yellow dwarf stars like our sun in the galaxy of 100 billion stars total. The simple law of probability alone is enough rationale to figure there are other inhabitants in this galaxy.

As for the 2nd part on evolution, humans are the only species that are not specialized. Every other animal is and occupies a niche. Our evolution is without precident in the known fossil history. No species lept forward as fast as we have or even as relatively fast as we have. Many species existed millions of years and only slowly evolved. None evolved a brain like ours. None ever used tools besides perhaps hominid ancestors. Why are we so special and unique? I don't know. Lotsa mysteries.....

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:35 AM
Earlier “runetang” presented us with the name Zecharia Sitchin. No one said or did any research on this man so I thought I would. He turns out to have some pretty convincing arguments. Some are a little too farfetched for me but others aren’t.
Here’s a site about him and some of his beliefs.

The thing I liked about the site was the photo of the quarried rock. (Fig 5) It’s gigantic and this was suppose to have been quarried by ancients? Also the site talks about the lifting of giant stones and how it is impossible to do it even with modern technology. Crazy stuff. But any ways enough about him. Lets talk about the Anunnaki. Apparently the Sumerians aren’t the only ones to believe in such a deity. According to this site, I can’t confirm any truth of it, the Anunnaki appear in more than just the Sumerian culture.

Maybe “god” is simply an alien and people got over excited and wrote a book about their abilities.

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:16 PM
Nice job Mike! Very interesting read and great presentation. I think a lot of what you said is very possible. Particularly the stuff about us being created by someone from somewhere else.

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:17 PM
oh my god, really old post. I'm a douche, I'm sorry I'll look more closely at the date stamps next time.

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:43 PM
reply to post by mikesingh

Could be, but, here is another twist to the events you described.

For example, what if benevolent humans always existed on earth as well as warmonger beings from other planets and or stars. The other beings planet got hammered by asteroids and or another type of being who destroyed their planet causing them to seek refuge on earth.

Genesis (gene assist) occurs enabling them to look like humans, but, maintain their aggressive animalistic ways which they then used to conquer earth and dominant humans.

Oral history is debunked and only the written word remains which has been altered and or diliberate omissions made. The aliens set themselves up (their image) to be the chosen of God when they are really the thieves.

In order to explain the DNA strain and or the missing link they decide to give everyone an implant or serum to alter the existing human DNA to match that of the alien beings. In time, there would be no missing link and they would have full control.

Where we are now... The supreme ruler of humans decides enough is enough and decides once again to rid earth of this pestilence.

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Malynn
oh my god, really old post. I'm a douche, I'm sorry I'll look more closely at the date stamps next time.

Not hardly, Malynn -- It was a great thread, and deserved a good read again.

Nothing happens by accident. Thanks for bringing this back to "Recent Posts".

Regardless of all the detractors of the thread, who did their best to debunk the theory, I don't see anyone who actually disproved anything. Since nobody can say why we are here, or how unlikely that may be, I think the theory remains intact.

Does anyone want to add more? (Let's fight! No -- no -- not really!)

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:29 PM
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has an interesting thing to say about the size of the universe and its population.

It says space is really big! Mind-boggling big! You may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.

The Universe
Area: Infinite
Population: None

It is known that there are a infinite number of worlds in the universe. However, there are a finite number of worlds that are inhabited. A finite number divided by infinity is near to nothing and makes no odds. So if every planet in the universe has a population of zero, then the entire population of the universe must also be zero and any people you may meet from time to time are merely products of a deranged imagination.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by lostinspace]

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by lostinspace
So if every planet in the universe has a population of zero, then the entire population of the universe must also be zero and any people you may meet from time to time are merely products of a deranged imagination.

Good one! Like me you must be a mirage too!

[edit on 23-1-2008 by mikesingh]

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:17 PM
Scientists are so vain. They admit that the Universe is infinite and that there are a gazillion stars (which is obvious), but then they state with such stupid audacity that few if any can suport life.

Humans as they exist to day are an anomalie.
They are unsuited for life on this planet.
Without their technology they would perish.
They and their domestic animals are the only life forms on Earth that have genetic defects.

Earth is the only planet in the Solar System that has radiation belts.
Why is that?

Why do seemingly intelligent people dismiss ideas without investigating them? They refuse to look at the evidence. They seem to do this mostly on matters of which they know nothing.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by OhZone

I like the way you are making your points, but I am unclear as to what the point is.

Are you for the theory or against it? In other words, are you making the case that human life may have originated from some other planet? Or not?

I ask because, some of your points seem to indicate that you support the theory (radiation and genetics) whereas other points seem to indicate this is unlikely (such as abundance of life in the universe, implied in your first paragraph.)

I might just be stupid here. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more?

Thanks for the info.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:57 PM
It's an interesting theory, except for the fact that there is not one single piece of convincing evidence that proves there is life, much less advanced civilizations, anywhere but here. Yes, the universe is big. But bigness is no guarantee of life, since we have no idea how life comes about in the first place. So it could be common, or it could be so extremely improbable and unlikely that it only happened once. Here.

As for our rapid development as a species, we already have a perfectly good mechanism to account for that. The temperature extremes the Earth has undergone in its relatively recent history (10 million years or so). Rapidly changing environments have always been a catalyst for rapid evolutionary change, as it tends to kill off large percentages of the existing population, except for those with the lucky stuff to survive.

And even if we are somehow tangientially involved in some big interplanetary or intergalactic war, it only begs the question, "Where did the aliens originate?"

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:00 PM
I am suggesting that humans are from elsewhere in the Universe.
They are not native to this planet.
The patterns of life are universal, and life elsewhere cannot be much different than the differences from species to species and their subspecies on Earth. The general form of all animals is basically the same.
Currently we are exploring space. What are the chances among the gazillion galaxies in an infinite ageless universe that someone else did it first?

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 05:06 PM
Distances between stars WITHIN a galaxy are vast.

Comprehending those distances is hard.

But trying to understand the vast distances between galaxies is nearly impossible.

Not only are the galaxies are extremely far apart, they are also punctuated by vast empty areas. So...while INTRA-stellar space-faring might be rare, INTER-stellar space faring is a whole new ballgame. The energy requirements are almost incalculable.

The number of stars in the Universe is at least 10e21.

So even 1 in 100,000,000 stars having sentient beings is 10e12 - is an impossibly large number - and it represents a rare event. Still, it says little about space-faring ability.

If there were that many, and that represents it as a rare event, then we'd know it. We'd see evidence of galactic structures, Dyson Spheres and so forth. If there were ANY type III and above, we'd KNOW it. You can't hide the ability to harness the stellar output of a whole galaxy!

So by my calculations:
Type III and above - 0 - able to explore the whole Universe;
Type II - 0-10e9 - able to explore their local galaxy and nearby;
Type I and below - 10e9 or more (non-space-faring).

I'm being pretty generous. I don't doubt there might be billions of sentients, but there seems to be very, very few Type II which would be restricted to their own galaxies by energy concerns.

2 cents

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Badge01]

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in