Human race seeded?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 11:11 AM
The human race was seeded. Think about it. What other things do we know of that spread and harm the environment. Meaning the environment developed without us. It was not meant for us.

The zebra muscle, a clam, was carried to America by the settlers. It spread and now are found most everywhere. Human race did the same thing.

Intelligent life is a disease of the cosmos.

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 11:17 AM
your argument makes no sense, the proof bares no relation to your initial statement that we were seaded. Do you intend to continue posting banal flights of fancy with no evidence to back up or justify your contentions or will this be the last time?

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 11:34 AM
If, as you believe, we originated elsewhere, why are we so similar to all other life here?

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:01 PM
To the first poster, what makes no sense? I explained, we spread and damage things. People do not follow the laws of nature.

To the second poster, we are slightly similar in appearance, but our habits show differently. A race theoretically(sp?) could evolve the same as another in a different region. So why not a different, but older planet. What if it was near the same as Earth? What would happen then?

This will not be my last post, so don't go verbally attacking people for their opinions Lupe.

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:26 PM
Well, there is pretty good evidence that charts our evolution from the get go...(not including the so-called missing link, of which many periodic examples have been found). So, it's hard to argue that we were "seeded". However, it is always intriguing in how we relate to our world, and have the ability to make things, change our environment, etc. even when other highly intelligent creatures never did (i.e. you don't see dolphins building underwater condos). So, instead of "seeded", the better word might be "altered".

posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 04:49 PM
Touche' Gazrok

But how were we altered? By who or what? A cosmic radiation? A reaction similar to how life was created? The Greys themselves? If so why?

Makes you think...

posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 10:53 AM

Originally posted by joehayner

People do not follow the laws of nature.

And what are these so-called laws of nature ?

posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 11:07 AM
The basic law of nature is that, things must develop an equilibrium with the environment. All things must be balanced. The populations must be maintained, no overpopulating, no underpopulating.

Wouldn't you say we are overpopulated?

Things in their natural environment will not overpopulate to an extream. Dandilions were not even in the United States before the Settlers came, now they are most everywhere, The same goes for zebra muscles.

It's common sense. We must be in the wrong environment. We could not have developed on earth.

Now we are the only intelligent life we can compair to, but if others are like us, that means intelligent life must be a mistake.

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 07:37 AM
You take the phrase "jumping to conclusions" to a whole new level. We are overpopulated for many reasons, one being the fact that for the most part the members our species don't have to kill each other to survive. In industrialized countries, people earn money with which to buy the goods they need to survive. They also utilize modern medical technology to prolong thier life span. That technology may not exist in third world countries, where overpopulation is often the result of increased reproduction to try to bring more money into the family. There may be a reletively high death rate, but there is an even higher birth rate in most third world countries.

It is our intellignece and desires that lead us to overpopulate. We are able to override the instinct to maintain a symbiotic relationship with our environment, whereas other species lack the intelligence to act on anything other than instinct. At one time the ancestors of modern humans coexisted with the environment, but as they gained intelligence they developed an apathetic attitude toward the environment. That doesn't mean that they we were "seeded" from space, it just means that we developed negative attitudes toward the environemnt as we developed into a civilization.

Your statements are not common sense, they are wild conclusions based on incredibly flawed logic. I'm not saying that everything I've said here is a fact, but my opinions are rooted what I believe to be sound logic.

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 11:00 AM
Good point shadow...

But, I believe all the things you listed are a result of the seeding.

The intelligent life its self is the result of it.

Have any other creatures on earth developed this attitude toward the environment?
Do you know why?
It is because, they, are the natural inhabitors of their environment.

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 11:48 AM
Or, alternatively, it could be because none of the other creatures on earth is sentient?

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 12:26 PM
Genetics presents a very simple argument against seeding.

If we were seeded, then WHY are 98% of our genes the same ones as found in the great apes? Why are so many of our genes the same ones found in living organisms from plants to animals? 50% of our genes are the same ones found in bananna plants, you know.

Something totally alien wouldn't be even that compatable.

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 01:50 PM
How can you tell?

What if somthing on a similar planet to Earth evolved.

Wouldn't it be remarkably similar to all the things on Earth? Why not?

Same planet, same evolution line, same species.

Hey, it could happen...

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 05:20 PM
A virus is similar to humans. I'm sure you remember this speach from the matrix. A virus overpopulates and uses all the resources of one area and moves on to a different area only to destroy that too. Kind of like what humans do. Are viruses from another planet? *cough* IDK what you would say about that one but i think they're from right here on earth.

Also, viruses are not intelligent. Unless they have very very tiny brains not the case. So maybe it's not our intelligence that is what makes us overpopulate and destroy, but our stupidity.

But, if I'm remembering correctly from biology class, viruses are also not living organisms. Where that statement can go I'm not sure.

I'm not going to say that your idea is stupid or false for sure, but it's just not probable and I don't feel the same.

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 05:34 PM
A virus when it gets into an area that is not its natural environment will spread, anywhere where there is somthing to support its life.
Same goes for humans.

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 05:41 PM
So tell me what exactly is a virus's "natural environment"? Does that mean someone or something "planted" it into a human blood stream or body?

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 05:59 PM
Don't be dense or sarcastic to me. A virus has no natural environment. That's why it spreads where ever it can, and does damage.

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by joehayner
A virus when it gets into an area that is not its natural environment will spread

I'm not being dense or sarcastic, just asking questions about what you yourself said.

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 06:13 PM
You asked if it was planted by another entity. Most occor naturally(not being planted), meaning you catch them from being around other people with them.

This is just a thought I had. I have no real proof to back it up, but it was somthing I noticed. That does not mean I believe it.

Just thought I'd post it to see what others would think about it.

posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 11:06 PM
Actually, Joe, viruses don't move into just anything or any organism. They're parasitic and have specific hosts. This is why cats don't get polio or the flu and why humans don't get distemper or feline leukemia (unlike human leukemia, feline leukemia is caused by a virus.)

Bacteria are also very specific and require certain conditions for them to survive. Different species require different things, which is why we find bacteria living in boiling-hot springs that can't live in the soil and soil-living bacteria that can't survive in the ocean.

new topics
top topics
<<   2 >>

log in