Scientific evidence that that supports the theory of alien life.

S&F thank you OP and great job , I have always wondered about the WOW signal ..ALso with all the rest of the Info you posted it does help build a case for there being more out there

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by -W1LL

 

Wait I'm slightly confused by your comment, for some reason you decided to compare Christianity with Buddhism. I don't understand what Christianity has got to do with Religion? The 2 things are completely different.

edit on 15-11-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

sorry for your confusion..

nowhere did i compare Buddhism to christianity I only stated Buddhism was the first religion and it truly has not failed...

you said the bible never failed you ... what bible are you speaking of? not sure where the confusion is but thats what i wrote.

I understand your confusion when you have yahweh jehovah christ which bible do think has not failed you...?

the bible is full of FAIL just google it.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by rickyrrr

 

Life and sentience are a little more complicated than mainstream science tries to make them seem. This may be a bit of a shock to some people, hearing that come from me, but I think we take the existence of life for granted. We think, just because it exists on Earth, that it must, then, exist elsewhere. But, of course, that demands the assumption that life can exist spontaneously. And, even given the existence of life, we also take for granted that life will develop sentience. Intelligence is not sentience. Cats are highly intelligent, but are they sentient? Troodons were intelligent, but were they sentient? And what are/were the chances of these animals developing sentience? Of the millions of species that exist and have ever existed on Earth, homo sapiens (sapiens) is the only one to develop sentience. We are unique, and we take it for granted.
In fact, by merely saying "develop sentience," we imply that sentience is something that can be naturally obtained. In fact, Scripturally, it can't. Sentience is a gift according to God's unique plan for mankind - and I have to stop myself before my preacher side breaks out into a sermon.

My point is, we can't take the existence of life for granted. Its existence might not be so "natural" as a lot of us like to think.

I have to disagree on your scripture definition of sentience. Cats being sentient.... I dunno, but dogs--- A definite yes. Troodons, might be related to the family tree of the Reptilian humanoids, but this evolution would have to have happened on another typical Earth type planet in our Universe. So I believe that the dinosaurs, all the way up to the elephants have sentient feelings.

Here's some quotes--- Source: Animal sentience --- Compassion in World Farming

"There is now evidence that many animals can learn new skills and some appear to show emotions similar to human empathy. They can also be reduced to a state resembling human depression by chronic stress or confinement in a cage.

This new understanding of the sentience of animals has huge implications for the way we treat them and the policies and laws that we adopt."




Cheers,

Erno86

reply to post by Erno86


Learning and emotion are not sentience - at least, not in the way I mean sentience. Sentience is subjective. It has self-awareness and free-will, and doesn't have to listen to instinct or reason. Animals are naturalistic. Humans are not, Scripturally. We have a natural basis, but we also have a God-given awareness not found in any other animal. Cats, dogs, dolphins, troodons (reptilian humanoids? seriously?)...they all know, instinctually, from where, and from Who, they originated. But, none of them have the subjectivity, self-awareness, and free-will necessary for sentience, and, as such, none of them have the ability to be deceived and so fall their God-given state as Man did.

Also, I might add, there's a difference between training and learning. Dogs are trained to do a task repetitively. Learning, on the other hand, requires self-awareness and the recognition that some knowledge or ability needs to be learned. Learning can be done (and, in fact, is often best done) by yourself. Training must be done by someone else.

reply to post by CLPrime


Any reason you avoided my reply?

reply to post by LightAssassin


Your post was focused more on Biblical sources and origins than on the existence of extraterrestrial life. I want to respect the topic of Misterlondon's thread, so, if you want to get into some Scriptural exegesis, you can message me.
Right now, I've got to go, but I'll be back in 2 hours. I'll be more than happy to discuss it then, if you want.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Thunda

 

Personal beliefs? Truth is absolute not relative, so if it's true for me then its true for the whole world. So you can hardly attack my faith on the basis of it being "personal" can you now? Otherwise your attacking yourself.

I've read the thread and I don't see any scientific evidence from the OP. Some dodgy signals that could be anything and some old pictures/cave drawings does not constitute for proof of alien life. How on earth can anyone make assumptions that "ALIENS" are from other planets? How about if they really come from another dimension altogether? No one even considers these things, and yet people on this website seem to have the audacity to call themselves "truth seekers".

How can someone be a truth seeker if they reject the bible because they are to pride to consider it may actually be true?

edit on 15-11-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

Dear sir,

Your so called "truth" might seem "absolute" too you, but not too me. Your constant tirade -- That aliens are really "demons" in nature sounds like voodoo Ufology too me.

Another dimension? Right now.... I feel like flushing "another dimension" theory right down the toilet.

I don't reject the bible, I support the freedom of all religions, unless it imposes on the rights and freedoms of people and certain animals, and the nature of the enviroment here on Earth or anywhere else.

Your "Gospel" sounds like you support the Spanish Inquisition of the past. Please.... don't try to lead your brethren down that dark path.

reply to post by CLPrime


Yet you are discussing off-topic replies with others?

Feel free to U2U me but I would prefer we do this dance in public. Free will is not sentience. Free will is a universal law.

This is a picture from a Naval base in Japan my friend took and posted on facebook and I found this.

reply to post by CLPrime



Yes.... seriously - I base my theory on the possible existence of Reptilian humanoids on the evolution of Earths creature's dating back to the Dinosaur Age.

Based on a typical Earth type planet in our Universe that is based on Carbon based life-forms. According to Earths history dinosaur's ruled our planet for millions of years until about 65 million years ago when a doomsday asteroid impacted our planet.

So the odds [at least a 50/50 chance,] are in favor of another typical Earth type planet of having the dinosaur's rule the planet the same way as our dinosaur's did.

Only.... what if a doomsday asteriod did not hit that planet/planets in the Age of the Dinosaur's? It is highly likely that some of these dinosaur's would have evolved into Reptilian humanoids.

So my hypothesis - Is that it is highly likely, that the first humanoid species to conquer interstellar travel, would be the Reptilian humanoid's. [at least a 50/50 chance]


Cheers,

Erno86

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by CLPrime

 

Yet you are discussing off-topic replies with others?

I'm not. We're discussing the emergence of sentience, which has a direct bearing on the existence of extraterrestrial life. The origins of the Bible, not so much.

I would prefer we do this dance in public.

I don't dance. And, actually, I would love to discuss it in public, as well. The problem with dancing in public, though, is that other people tend to want to cut in. But, if you wish....

reply to post by Erno86


Can't put a percentage on likelihood of dinosaurs evolving any further than they did in the over 200 million years they existed, and I say that for a couple of reasons. First it only took man a couple million years to evolve into a being capable of manipulating his environment for survival from a small lemur, instead of growing into more efficient eating machines as the dinosaurs evolution suggests. The large reptilian vegetarian dinosaurs were doomed from the start of their evolutionary process, of finding more efficient ways of consuming enough nourishment to sustain their greatest defense, which was size, which got bigger, and biologically impossible to sustain. This lends itself for no necessary reason for their brain capacity to grow or be exercised, all they had to do was move, see, smell, hear, and eat. When their environment changed they couldn't adapt, and if not killed by the weather, they died of starvation. The big giant headed two legged killing mouthed predator dinosaurs were killed off from smaller smarter predator dinosaurs that hunted in packs with ambushes exercising their brain capacity not overwhelmed by controlling a huge motor mobility. Those were in turn hunted by more cunning smaller mammalian creatures more able to adapt to environmental changes than reptilian killing machines with macro mouths and micro minds.

Hard to put things in such brevity and I'm not saying an asteroid didn't have a hand at extinguishing the dinosaurs but if life survived beyond it's clear they could adapt to the environmental changes in the aftermath, and mammals did.

Nice thread op, I love it when someone takes the time to put something like this together for us to enjoy.
That big ear signal certainly meant something, but who knows what?

reply to post by kevonicus


Its District 9!

reply to post by CLPrime


Well, you have my reply regarding the scriptures that you are quoting. I await your response. This all has to do with evidence (theological, not scientific) that supports the theory of alien life.

Of all the books, you're quoting Genesis to back up your scriptural beliefs?

reply to post by LightAssassin

I respect your belief then, and I respect the opinion regarding the scripture but I must point out only Earth is mentioned.

That could go two ways. Either only Earth is mentioned because the focus was on Earth and God saw no reason to mention other worlds, or only Earth is mentioned because Earth is the only world of its kind that exists. From this fact alone, we can't say which.

I also must point out the part where it states in Genesis 1:26 that God said 'Let us make man in our image and after our likeness'. This surely isn't referencing the holy trinity because you can trace these verses meanings back to Assyrian and Babylonian creation stories where we were made out of clay and a God was slayed to provide us spirit. We were then placed in a womb for 10 months and were born to do the work of the Annunaki.

I agree that it's not referencing the "holy trinity," because the trinity is a non-Scriptural doctrine. However, God is most certainly the unification of multiple personalities, similar to the way we are. Can you be described by a single adjective, or quality? Of course not. God's infinite nature only emphasizes his plurality. In Genesis, God is both singular and plural. This is perfectly legitimate.

The origins of the story, itself, I'll get into in a sec....

The origins of Genesis, which you quoted, are from Babylonian times. Even the Noah story is represented, almost precisely, in these older writings. Atra-hasis/Uptanishtim. They are no different.

My favourite teacher in high school was John MacKinnon. He and had many interesting conversations on physics, history, and every once in a while, religion. He had the same idea - that, because the extra-Biblical stories are dated earlier than the writing of the Pentateuch, they must have been its sources. But, there are two problems with that.
First, let's assume that Creation, in whatever form, never happened. Even if the Assyrian and Babylonian myths came before what we believe to be the date of the writing of Genesis, we have to realize that we are looking back at stories that were written millennia ago. We can't say for sure when Genesis was written, so it's only an assumption on our part that, for instance, Gilgamesh predates Noah. Where's our proof? Well...proof is impossible, because we are so far removed from the time in question.
Second, let's assume that Creation, in whatever form, did happen. Also, let's assume that Genesis was written after the Babylonian/Assyrian accounts. What gives us cause to assume that the Babylonian/Assyrian accounts were the source for Genesis? If the Creation happened just as Genesis describes, and if God inspired the writing of Genesis, then does that not make Genesis the truth, regardless of how much earlier the Babylonians and Assyrians wrote their account? And, if the Babylonian/Assyrian account is similar to the Genesis account, then what does that prove? Only that they were vaguely aware of the truth before God revealed it fully to Moses and inspired him to write Genesis.

"Tracing" Genesis back to Babylonian and Assyrian creation myths requires assumptions that no one alive today is justified in making. This is where faith comes in, that the Creator has, in fact, revealed the truth through his servant Moses.

This then also throws into doubt the entire lineage of Adam and Eve, which is already in doubt due to the error of both Seth and Cains' lineages having the same people.

How do you mean?

Cain -> Enoch -> Irad -> Mehujael -> Methushael -> Lamech -> Jabal
Seth -> Enosh -> Kenan -> Mehalalel -> Jared -> Enoch -> Methuselah -> Lamech -> Noah

As much as I respect scriptural belief I see flaws and also obvious interactions with entities that aren't necessarily benevolent or malevolent. I believe they act according to their needs.

Certainly, God acts according to needs, but those needs are entirely benevolent.

Ezekiel was practically tortured, with the requests made by Yahweh

Ezekiel 2:9-3:3

Lamentations? Really?

Lamentations were written on the scroll, and represented what God told Ezekiel to preach to the house of Israel. We read later in chapter 3, "The Spirit then lifted me up and took me away, and I went in bitterness and in the anger of my spirit, with the strong hand of the LORD upon me" (v.14). But, you'll notice, Ezekiel wasn't bitter and angry because of anything God had done... he was bitter and angry because of how the house of Israel - his people - were turning away and rejecting the God who brought them out of Egypt, led them through the desert, brought them into the land, empowered them in battle, and offered them salvation. Honestly, when I look around at the so-called "Church" today, I feel just about the same way.


[continued in next post...]

[...continued from previous post]

Keep in mind this LORD arrived on a

Ezekiel 1:4

that also had

Ezekiel 1:5-17

I've no idea what this is describing but it DOES NOT sound typical.

Should we be surprised that God came to Ezekiel in a form showing his power and glory in a way that Ezekiel could appreciate? The description is one of might and majesty, and Ezekiel describes it the best he could, but we know his descriptive ability was lacking. Regardless, Ezekiel's description will suffice. It does what it aimed to do - it gives us a grand depiction of God's entrance to call on the man who would become his prophet.

Originally posted by LightAssassin

Of all the books, you're quoting Genesis to back up your scriptural beliefs?

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16; NIV).

Great info! It takes guts, even on the anonymous internet to put yourself out there like that. However, if it wasn't for people like you, ATS would be a boring place, indeed. Critics have been around since the time of Roswell (which was real) and they will always pop their heads in. And it's a good thing too! They keep us honest...

However, I do have to admit after reading their ego and religion based rants 3 or 4 times, I just start skipping them. I know....I'm bad.

Bravo to you though, for your tenacity and grit. Star and Flag!

reply to post by CLPrime


I can't argue with blind belief. Thankyou for the discussion.

It's a tough one, but I can see you believe your interpretation, as I with mine.

It was a nice dance.

The universe is expanding and disintergrating. maybe some alien boy on a distant planet was playing with his ham radio? I mean, that is what you are saying isn;t it, that aliens use radio frequencies to communicate like us. Maybe it was a snippet of a TV program on Xertis