reply to post by PerfectPerception
I do not think it is that much of a stretch to theorize and believe that some type of 'Intelligence' was behind the creation of DNA and our very own
Given that such an idea would go against everything we know about our biology I think its a big stretch, especially if it is going to be made without
the support of real scientific evidence of extraterrestrial intervention. Everything we've learned about our origins suggests we evolved naturally,
to go against that idea you'd better have some impressive evidence.
About your first link. Let's look at what evidence they've presented.
God is responsible for the spiritual entities within our bodies, and more likely, aliens are the most likely candidates for the geniuses behind
the amazing nanotech DNA which designs our life form physical bodies; there is no argument required.
We start with a few absurd and baseless assertions. Is this person advocating supernatural creation by a God, creation by aliens, or both? Why is this
person claiming that DNA is a form of nanotechnology when all evidence indicates that life and DNA came about naturally? Why does this person,
identified as Paul Schroeder, think that we don't need an argument to support his assertions? To claim that aliens are the answer and that every
shred of evidence about our own evolution is wrong is absurd without presenting argument and preferably evidence to support those assertions.
Our physical world is an anomaly, by virtue of the sheer numbers of many such noncorporeal worlds, by comparison.
Where is this persons evidence of non-corporeal beings? How would one even go about proving a non-corporeal living thing existed let alone one that
could qualify as a BEING?
"The coding regions of DNA," expostulates Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language"
(quoted by Strobel, p. 237, The Case for a Creator, 2004)
And what do you know, we've got our first quote mine. Not only is this taken out of context and borrowed from Stephen Meyer but it is a piece of
second hand borrowing. Paul Schroeder is taking it from a known Creationist and Christian apologist named Lee Strobel who certainly has never
advocated aliens. Many Creationist leaders such as Strobel are dishonest the way they use quotes from scientists (hence the term quote mining). What
we're seeing here is an analogy, DNA is analogous to a computer code or language.
Could evolution in itself have progressively come up with a nanotech system like this?
Every shred of credible scientific evidence to date would certainly suggest so. Unless you really think aliens were around 3.7 Billion years ago to
get life kick-started, but even then Evolution would have occurred anyway and is documented in all sorts of ways.
Our next quote mine is from Evolution: A theory in crisis. You can talk to any Evolutionary scientist you want. Evolution is not a theory in crisis,
any more than gravity and atomic theory are. Evolution has a solid scientific consensus backed by evidence much of which even the layman can
understand with a bit of education.
It strikes me as utterly dishonest for people advocating alien intervention to back up their claims with CHRISTIAN Creationist apologetics. So which
is it? God? Aliens? Jesus? Or will you take a look at the scientific evidence and leave out the absurd assertions unsupported by evidence? I'm not
even going to bother further critiquing this source as the next heading mentions Intelligent Design, a known religiously motivated movement. Of course
alien creation believers can co-opt the same fallacy ridden content peddled by Creationists if they so choose, but I wouldn't recommend it.
from the very beginning we were ultimately an experiment or some form of 'Creation' project or the possibility that along our primitive path
of "evolution" back in antiquity we were genetically tampered and altered over time to our present form.
While I suppose both of these are "possible" neither of them have any real evidence in support of them. Oh sure its fun to think that humanity or
some stage of life on Earth were helped out, whether it be by god(s) or alien forces but the evidence simply doesn't bear this idea out.
I think these theories are just as credible,believable and they deserve further study & inquiry from the scientific community.
I'm not sure if you've been living under a rock but science has been studying and discovering things about our origins for the last two hundred
years (and then some). We've learned an awful lot. Scientists aren't out there looking for evidence to support a bias, they're merely looking for
EVIDENCE. Thus far nothing we've learned about our evolution and origins have suggested extraterrestrial involvement. Scientists can't study the
idea of alien origins without some evidence to support it.
Now onto your second link. Let's take a look at the supposed scientists confirming these alien genes. We'll start with Dr. Michael Salla
In 1990 he received a MA degree in Philosophy from the University of Melbourne. In 1993, he received a PhD degree in Government from the
University of Queensland.
So a philosopher is continuing the work of Francis Crick and contacting aliens? The rest of the page is filled with talk of Billy Meier and others,
more quote mining and a lot of baseless assertions. I scoured it looking for the names of some other scientists supporting these ideas but I couldn't
Sumerian figurine looking strikingly similar to a "alien" Grey
It only looks like a grey because that's what you've been told it is. If you truly found this in an archeological dig would that really be your
first conclusion? Wouldn't it be more likely a reflection of Sumerian culture, or a type of Sumerian art? In order to think its a grey you have to
rob it of any historical and cultural context, not to mention stretching the imagination since a typical grey looks NOTHING like that statue.
Here are just a two examples of Hopi Indian petroglyphs depicting "star beings" : The Snake & Ant people-
Is there a reason why the Hopi people are disallowed to use their imaginations to make things up? Is there a reason why ancient astronaut proponents
rob any image that's a little odd or off to fit their preconceived conclusion without thinking of the obvious alternatives? In a thousand years will
there be quacks on the internet claiming superman comics prove superman?
So...What are your guys/gals ideas & theories pertaining to this subject?
Artwork robbed of its historical context is not evidence of alien intervention. DNA which could have occurred naturally is not evidence for alien
intervention. You know what would be evidence? Alien artifacts, such as a spacecraft, an alien body, things that could not be human. There are
mysteries in history, there are still some mysteries about our own origins and Evolution but those mysteries do not give us permission to leap to
conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence.
Please don't take this as a critique or criticism of you, it is primarily the leaders of this sort of pseudoscience I take issue with, not those who
are seduced by it. Honestly I cannot blame those who want to believe. However the more you want to believe a claim the MORE skeptical of it you should