Were Humans Created by Reptilians?

reply to post by rusethorcain


Something possibly existing does not magically make it likely to exist. You need evidence, of which there is none.

UFOlogists? Ha! The lack of critical thinking in that field is pathetic. So many people simply want to believe that they don't give a rat's ass about making sure they have any evidence. They treat witness reports like actual samples of alien spacecraft. They are a joke. Them talking about trajectories of unproven spacecraft is not evidence, no matter how much you want it to be.

Yes, I will point out the lack of objectivity in your thought process. For your own benefit.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
That and the rest of the evidence.

Soon you will return to show me the errors of my thoughts, naively unaware of the knowledge you will never change my mind
Please now move on to calling me names or debunk my ideas and otherwise lord your superior thought processes and flimsy evidence here in my face. You have made it to my ignore list!

Before anyone debunks can you provide evidence that is not manmade, man thought up, man created? I’m just not sure what there would be to debunk since everything that you may have is from man. Isn’t that alone kind of suspicious that maybe there isn’t really any true empirical data to all this?

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by rusethorcain
That and the rest of the evidence.

Soon you will return to show me the errors of my thoughts, naively unaware of the knowledge you will never change my mind
Please now move on to calling me names or debunk my ideas and otherwise lord your superior thought processes and flimsy evidence here in my face. You have made it to my ignore list!

Before anyone debunks can you provide evidence that is not manmade, man thought up, man created? I’m just not sure what there would be to debunk since everything that you may have is from man. Isn’t that alone kind of suspicious that maybe there isn’t really any true empirical data to all this?

Yes.
We watch nature.
We see what it does.
And we assume that it continues to do it.

To assume that life, or this biological form, stops completely is taking liberties not exercised or found up to now in the natural world.

Life finds a way. To assume that it didn't or hadn't is to jump to an unreasonable and far fetched conclusion, one not evidenced by very many past examples.

....and ditto

Never knew what those points were good for. Can I use them to buy more space on my ignore list? So worth it.



[edit on 9-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by rusethorcain


Wow. So you don't have any evidence, just the notion that "life continues". Even when we have evidence that life doesn't just continue, and that it is rather quite easy to destroy large swathes of it because life is bound by the same physical laws as the rest of the universe.

Of course life can stop completely. What do you think happens if all the sea was drained off into space (by some massive solar conflagration)? Would all the fish suddenly whip out wet-suits and tanks of water and start flopping around the sea floor, frantically reproducing offspring that can breathe air? Would the whales flop to their nearest underwater hidey-hole cave and get in their whale-mobiles, driving around looking for easy dinner?

Of course not. They'd die. Life is fragile. Very, very fragile. All it takes a slight push and a runaway chain reaction later, what was has ceased to be. It's not a Disney movie.

When biblical and other writing refer to snakes and serpents I sometimes wonder if they weren't talking about the snake shaped colored lights and florescent green ufos' that have been spotted in the skies the last couple of years. There was one filmed right here over Boca.
I remember chastising my boyfriend for sleeping through it. Get out there and stay alert I tell him. He doesn't even believe in UFO's so you can imagine what he thinks about the lizards.


PS To My Ignore List: This is not your fault. It is me.
You are all fine chaps only on ignore so I don't argue with you pointlessly.

reply to post by serbsta


I understood "Hell" to mean a pit or grave. "Sheol" I think was the original word.

In studying the text, hell did not come up till the new testament.

The idea of hell if you are bad is a good control mechanism. About as good as an electric fence.

Originally posted by rusethorcain



Yes.
We watch nature.
We see what it does.
And we assume that it continues to do it.

To assume that life, or this biological form, stops completely is taking liberties not exercised or found up to now in the natural world.

Life finds a way. To assume that it didn't or hadn't is to jump to an unreasonable and far fetched conclusion, one not evidenced by very many past examples.

I agree with you but can we possibly go beyond what you wrote above without true non-human empirical evidence to guide us in the right direction? You must agree that there are authors out there that just take a basic idea as you wrote and expand it in any old direction that their whims that them.

This though might make a good read is not good science. On many things we need to understand we really have only hunches and Hypotheses with little or no data that would be the type required to advance to a more factual theory.

Right now we have people going in 100s of directions with all this, and that is great for brain storming, but I would like to go in just one direction, the correct one.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


We are brainstorming. We are not going in one direction. This essentially IS brainstorming. Sorry but I was unaware this was a class you were conducting here. Now that I know of course, I will try not to draw outside the lines

reply to post by Sparkey76


I just watched it. He said looking for alien signatures in our DNA was "highly fanciful", and "science fiction".

So yeah, you kind of took it out of context.

reply to post by davesidious


No, I did not take it out of context, or kind of as you put.

He was saying, if an alien civilisation had blundered through the Solar system would they leave clues, the answer would probally be yes.

Maybe if they was using Nuclear technology, perhaps they would leave a Radioactive trace.

He Said they may have fiddled around with the biosphere and created micro organisms, or left a clue as DNA is a great place for storing Information.



lol, He also said we must not be fixated on looking for signs in the sky through the SETI Program, but perhaps they may have left a clue within our genomes, afterall our DNA has been been here for 3billion years.

Yes he did say the ideas are fanciful and science fiction but we must not be fixed just on looking in one spot.

So he was giving ideas, suggestions,an opinion, he didnt say it as a fact and I never took it out of context.

Now, Ideas is where you start turning Science fiction into Science fact, or at least test those ideas and either disprove or prove the theory, if we become fixated at a radio signal, And not testing these ideas, How will we ever find out?

It is a fact , Scientists have a very dark unknown area over the understandings of DNA, They dont know exactly the mechanics of it, they dont know exatcly how things like Amino acids turn to DNA and replicate itself.



So come on, full context of the discussion please, your just clutching at straws trying to discredit me for some reason.

Quoting myself from previous post

we may have to look at our DNA for signs of other life as the main way for looking for other life is weak, like radio signals.

Yeh, thats really taking it out of context isnt it?
The key word We May have to look.






[edit on 10-3-2010 by Sparkey76]

Hmmmz...

Wasn't it a serpent that tricked us into eating from the tree of life?
Thus creating men as we are today?

reply to post by Sparkey76


He made the comment then instantly dismissed it as fanciful science fiction. If you want to take that as the crux of his argument, then fine. It's not me you're hurting.

Science fiction is just that - fiction. There is no reason to believe aliens have done anything to our DNA. If they did, it would be the most wasteful endeavour ever, due to the changing nature of DNA. Like writing your name in the sand and expecting it to be there the next year.

reply to post by Sover3igN


If you believe a bronze-age farmers' manual is correct when it deciphers the origins of entire species, sure. Hint: it's not.

reply to post by davesidious


I aint trying to hurt anyone, just accepting the possibilty that it is possible

He did not dismiss it though did he?
He made a few points of the possibilty that it could be, thats hardly dismissing it, if he accepts its a possibilty.
Your just taking it out of context now.

He just said its science fiction, meaning its not fact because its not known about, not investigated, no science data on the subject.

Like Scientists do not know everthing about the workings of DNA and how it transformed from amino to self replicating DNA.

Neither of us can win this argument and POV because it cant be proved either way.



[edit on 10-3-2010 by Sparkey76]

reply to post by Sparkey76


Yes, he dismissed it when he said it was fanciful science fiction. Those words are not kind in a scientific context.

reply to post by davesidious


Well thats your opinion isnt it, not mine.

I am sure if others watch it, some will agree with you, some will agree with me.

Its not very Scientific if your not open to the possibilty and open to investigate.

Without being open to it, you would not even test the Theory would you?

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Sparkey76]

reply to post by Sparkey76


It's not a theory. It's barely a hypothesis. Looking in to it would not make sense, as what would we look for? The fact is, DNA changes frequently, and so any 'signature' could very well have been absolutely corrupted, or that a 'signature' has evolved accidentally - we'd currently not be able to tell the difference, rendering the whole endeavour pointless.

reply to post by davesidious


Well thats not what the guy in the sky at night says, he does not seem to think it does not make sense to not look into it.
Otherwise, why bother even mentioning it.

as what would we look for?

Well thats what Science is for isnt it?

It makes sense to test all possibilities to look for Alien Intelligent life including looking at possible recorded information within our DNA from an intelligent species.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by Sparkey76]

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

We are brainstorming. We are not going in one direction. This essentially IS brainstorming. Sorry but I was unaware this was a class you were conducting here. Now that I know of course, I will try not to draw outside the lines

Exactly so. That was the entire reasoning for starting this post in the first place. I read through the Bible(s) several of them, and there are a great deal of references in there about serpents and even dragons. And, I have read in other ancient writings and there are again serpents and dragons, In Every Culture. Whatever anyone may think, there was a time when this planet was ruled by Reptilian beings, who were at the time the highest form of life.
In the stories, every time the Reptiles were in power, they were the rulers of the planet. Perhaps the took DNA from the Dinosaurs and mixed it with theirs.....This would certainly explain modern birds, and the reptilian feeling we all have that something within us is not right. I can certainly feel my Anunnaki genes within me too, my sexual habits, coupled with my strange eating habits tell me that. My intelligence and mechanical knowledge I think come from Pleaidian genes. We are all mutts, save those who have inbred, and we all know who they are, right?

according to ancient man thousands of years before christianity a serpent god created us!

reply to post by Sparkey76


Really? You need me to explain this? He was being, as he even admitted, fanciful. They were discussing where to possibly look for signatures from ET intelligence. They went across the entire spectrum, from the current & extant (SETI), to science fiction (alien-tweaked DNA).

And no, 'Science' is not there to tell us what to look for. It is a methodology that tells us how to explain what we can see. It does not make sense to test all possibilities if said possibilities are impossible to test for, as I explained in my last post.