It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Aliens created Us?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Shows that Pastors wife is more ignorant than you thought!!


Indeed, I did not know that.
Thanx Stu...


Originally posted by iceofspades
You, my poor friend, are a shining example of why I despise religion and religious people.


YES!!!
That is exactly how I feel about it.

It's also why I haven't talked to my step-mother in almost three years...
Fanatics, all of you religious people




posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   
There is a god. Have faith. There is a devil. pray for him. There are aliens. Truth is out there.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
If there is a 'god' then why are there people with deformities? If I could create someone, I wouldn't make them messed up.There is also more proof that aliens exist than god, abductions, sightings and mysterious marks on abductees. Where's the proof of god, a book written like 4,000 years ago?



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by someguyy
If there is a 'god' then why are there people with deformities? If I could create someone, I wouldn't make them messed up.


I'm assuming you aren't talking about one of the smartest people on the planet.






So are you saying your narrowmindedness does not include intellegence?



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Not really, but still I'd rather be stupid than to be smart and paralized.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Hello someguyy.

First of all no one knows that god exists or dosent. That is what faith is all about. Secondly aliens exists as much as lucifer exists, by this I mean that for as much information which is out in this world there are also lies, and false truths.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by someguyy
Not really, but still I'd rather be stupid than to be smart and paralized.


I think you've achieved that goal.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Yay!! I did! it I did it!



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Hello everybody on this thread.

Im a new comer (just started today) and quite like a number of ure views.

At the mo Im in london and its very very late (about 1.52am) so there u go.

Oh about the god and alien thing

who cares (I do, somebodys got to).



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Umm a few things to add to the thread (or a few info fixes)

The Old Testament- was written by babylon scribes who worked in the kingdom temples, using old mesopotamian scripts, and some other scripts. The Old Testament was written to mostly document history and some future events

Mesopotamia was the first human civilization and *appeared out of nowhere* (scientists wonder how it happened). No records of Homo-Sapians existing before Mesopotamia seem to exist, which means Mesopotamia and Homo-Sapians *sprouted into being* at the same time(scientist "wonder" how it happened). Not only did Mesopotamia and Homo-Sapians spring up at the same time, Mesopotamia also sported schools, library's, society heirarchy, religion, medicine, and other practices
FYI: Mesopotamia became Babylon and is now Iraq

*however, the old testament is now much more concealed than it was when it was first made. the first old testament basically explained how we were created by aliens, why the aliens came, how DNA works, etc. etc., and before the dark ages that kind of stuff was common knowledge. The current old testament now however has been so coded and concealed that the meaning you get out of it is nowhere near what you would have gotten 3,000 years ago out of it*

Now when someone untrained reads the Old Testament, they get a sort of "fake history, neo-mind-controll" propaganda.

What happened to the Old Testament is what happened to almost all religious texts. It started out as history, but that text was later encoded by governments and mind controll text was added.

The New Testament- was mostly written by and finally 'published' by the romans to 1.) Controll the people and 2.) Conceal the history and future into code
The New Testament was mainly a mind controll device first, and a documentation of future events second (in order to understand what the New Testament was predicting and what it meant, you had to be trained. if you werent trained, reading the New Testament would have an even greater mind controlling effect than the old testament)


The Old Testament contained mostly history, this was distorted and concealed to contain encoded history + mind controll

The New Testament contained mostly mind controll when it was first created, thats why it didnt need to be currupted as much as the Old Testament (there wasn't much history in the New Testament, and most of the things that governments would want to add was allready inplace by publishing time)


____________________________________________________________

As for "omg wtf are you talking about, your saying that the scribes that wrote the testaments actually knew of future events and wrote them down? how is that possible?"

Yes it is possible to see into the future. *Magical Powers* do exist.
But I'll let you decide for yourself on whether thats true or not.

All the anti-christ stuff in the bible is becoming true right now even, and to most christians that makes them think that the mind-controll stuff is also true. But this is not the case

This is the effect it was meant to have.
As the predictions part comes true, the people will believe in the mind controll part (because the other *half* is true, it must all be true).

All a ruler would have to do is first make it seem like the predictions are coming true (thus making people believe the mind controll part). After that happens, you can manipulate the controlled public any way you wish as long as your smart and know how to do it.

Also, most Religious texts are almost identicle to the Bible in actual *meaning*(like the Karran, forget how to spell it).
Does this mean we worship the same god? Or does this mean we are falling for the same trap?

Anyway, I think I've said enough *bull#* for one post.

Anyone got comments?

EDIT: I can also answere a question if you got one

[edit on 5-11-2004 by aukaiman55]



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
hey guys i'm new here.....dont u think its highly improbable that aliens created us even to dig for their gold...coz when u think about it who would create a machine/slave thats gonna be all emotional and with ideas and a mind of its own...just a thought



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The aliens created us for more than mining their gold.

But they also didn't want us to be on welfare, everyones gotta work (except the king
)

[edit on 5-11-2004 by aukaiman55]



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Hi peeps Im still up an going.

Nice views 55 scine u know so much I ask this is jehovha the devil.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
aliens work smarter than that randy alot smarter.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Nope, Jehova is not the devil.

The Devil has two bible meanings that I know of (keyword: I)

1.) A figure that represents actions which you cannot do or you will be punished (not true)

2.) A state of mind achieved when one reverts back to his animal origins-instincts-desires-motives and no longer persues enlightenment(knowledge), life(happiness?), and order.

Ehh, I know #1 is fake but #2 is only some of the meaning of devil // hell



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
55 Thanks for the info. Very Helpful but,

All I got to say is u could be right or u could be wrong, we learn everyday (I know I do).

I know nowt.
I am nowt.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I believe in the alien answer. After reading this thread and some of the links, especially about that crsytal skull everything clicks even more in this theory than any other.

Also birdseyeview, why even come to this forum or site if you have such a narrow illogical view of looking at the world. I can't believe in this time and age of technology people like you still exist



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
1. We didnt evolve from Apes. We share a common ancestor.
2. We evolve, you cant expect us to have the same stance over millions of years, and look at us today, we still havent fully evolved a full up-right posture, not perfectly atleast, this causes a lot of backproblems.
3. I dont know why aliens would come here to mine Gold, im sure theres plenty of other planets and asteroids with a much better supply than Earth. And I cant imagine why they'd make living, breathing, concsious senitent beings. Assuming their technology was advanced enough (assuming space travel and all), it would be more efficient to make robots.

You can believe what you want, but the theory of evolution isnt going anywhere. It works, if it didnt work, then maybe we'd be wondering if aliens made us, but, the theory of evolution is tried and true, so aliens arent necessary.

[edit on 7-11-2004 by Alec Eiffel]



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Many of your statements are based on extremely bad science that has been presented by a number of frauds who are usually interested only in either making a buck or making a name for themselves.

First, no mitochondrial DNA test will actually allow you to trace our origins back to ANY accurate number. These theories and projections are little more than educated guesses. Every day we learn that what we THOUGHT was the truth yesterday... is wrong.

Second, for those of you who refer to the works of men like Sitchin... he is quite possibly one of the biggest jokes in the anthropological comminity that has ever lived. I only managed to make it through one of his books and he ignores so much archeological data that nothing he says can be trusted. He makes wild leaps and terrible translations that serve only to support his (poorly crafted) fiction. Read a few works from other anthropologists trained in the translation of cuneiform. Almost ALL other experts whole-heartedly disagree with Sitchin and his ilk. Plus, a number of his assumptions can be shot down by an average person with little to no training. I don't mean to be rude, but when arguing this subject... even the slightest mention of Sitchin and others like him will lose the respect of most real professionals. Many of you would like to think that most real anthropologists are closed minded and set in their old views, but most anthro professors that I've met have proven to be some of the most open minded and spiritual people on the planet. They just know what is plausible and what is garbage.

As for the idea of homo sapiens appearing alongside the mesopotamian civilizations... that's nonsense. We've been around for around 200,000 years in basically the same form we hold now. Modern homo sapiens (those identical to us) have been around for 50,000-100,000 years. The predates the Mesopotamian civs by tens of thousands of years.

As for the missing link... we can see evidence in many species going all the way back to dinosaurs that shows evolution often works in quite large bursts. The popular theory of the missing human link is that when the populations of our early ancestors (homo erectus) increased, their primary competition was no longer against the environment but against eachother. We stopped having to outsmart our environment and had to start outsmarting eachother (which is obviously more complicated). This may be one reason for the massive increase in cranial capacity. Our bi-pedal locomotion is specialized and no matter what you've been told... we are FAR more effecient at it than our distant ancestors. One reason that they may have had less wear on their bones is because the didn't walk with the same vertical posture. Also, they didn't live as long... Shorter life-spans = less overall damage on the bones. It's also safe to assume from other aspects of their anatomies (for example, length or arms, structure of the hips and shape and function of the feet and toes) that many of our ancestors didn't spend all of their time on the ground. As far as Homo Neanderthalensis is concerned... they were most likely a seperate species that shared a common ancestor with us (most likely Homo Erectus). They simply proved to be an unsuccessful species and died off.

Finally, why did we only recently develope civilization in the last 5,000 years? There simply isn't enough evidence to prove that we didn't try civilization before that. Almost nothing survives for more than a few thousand years (even plastics and metals) other than stone... and fossilized bone.... almost nothing. We can however prove that there most likely wasn't any really advanced civilization prior to 5,000 year ago. One thing that does survive longer than most other things is glass. If there had been an advanced civilization prior to what we see now, then there would be man-made glass everywhere... unless you assume that they missed that invention somehow. Another logical assuption can be drawn as to why we never reached the ability for real civilization until say 5000-6000 years ago is the fact that all civs need two things above all others.... fairly large population and cooperation. We had to increase in population and then put aside our differences long enough to cooperate on endeavors such as agriculture, social structure, engineering and war. Prior to Sumeria and Egypt amongst others, most humans lived in fairly small tribes and chiefdoms, far too small to accomplish those things which require an urban setup. As for those who think that we wandered through the forest until one day establishing great cities and empires... that's far from the truth as well. There's a fair amount of evidence that suggests that we slowly worked toward this. Once civilization was established, it made it far easier to build and improve upon. That's probably why it seemed to appear out of nowhere.

I am willing to accept that there's a possiblity that the missing link was caused to some extent by outside intervention... however there is far more evidence that proves that we are very "earthly" creatures. Some just choose to ignore that evidence.


[edit on 7-11-2004 by veritas93]



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join