Are humans created to be the perfect food source for a carnivorous alien race?

Originally posted by DazDaKing
reply to post by SQUEALER

 

Following on from my last reply...

Now in regards to your theory of us being eaten when we die – FAIR PLAY DUDE! If that’s the case, there’s nothing we can do and it’s part of our higher purpose. BUT, it’s different to what you’re saying. They can eat me all they want after I die,

But when you die, you're just taking off your clothes.

Right now, you identify yourself, with the suit you're wearing.

That suit, is not living. It's made up of dead material. When you come out of your suit, it falls to the ground lifeless, and decays back into the dust of the ground.

And although you might be fine with them eating you after you die, some aliens don't wait until old age does you in. They want food now, that means they have to kill you first.

Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

-- Deuteronomy 14:21

The good aliens are the ones that only eat humans that die naturally. But, the bad aliens don't wait for death.

Jesus said, "Fortunate is the man who knows where the brigands will enter, so that he may get up, muster his domain, and arm himself before they invade."

-- The Gospel of Thomas # 103

Therefore I say, if the owner of a house knows that the thief is coming, he will begin his vigil before he comes and will not let him dig through into his house of his domain to carry away his goods. You, then, be on your guard against the world. Arm yourselves with great strength lest the robbers find a way to come to you, for the difficulty which you expect will (surely) materialize. Let there be among you a man of understanding.

-- The Gospel of Thomas # 21

Before you let the aliens sift you like wheat, and carry away your memories, your consciousness, and your life energy, guard yourself against their invasion.

because at that point I will probably have absolutely no idea what the # is going on, and would have accepted my death on the Earth, on which all that I ever cared about, loved, cherished or experienced would be left behind, and it would be my turn to provide these higher beings my gift in return – being my memories, thoughts/whatever.

Fair enough, you can sacrifice yourself for the greater good of the universal life.

That is NOT the same though as these beings DIRECTLY entering our experience in this current time and THEN feeding on us.

True. That's the bad aliens.

In the same sense, when we feed on animals like a chicken, that chicken hasn’t got a friggin’ Scooby what’s going on – just like we will be in our post-death state, but when you match the levels of experience, that’s where you can’t just look at it as we’re all food.

Right. We're not parasites. We don't suck on the living. Oh wait, some humans do suck on the living, they suck the financial wealth out of them. But, at least they don't suck the blood.

The key here is that this theory you present depends on multiple levels of existence,

Yeah...according to the writings of those who claim to know, there are 8 levels. It's not infinite.

Originally posted by SQUEALER
I'm talking about "proof". You're giving me "theory" and "belief". A poor substitute for proof.

Scientific theories are based on verifiable facts. Nice try. The process of evolution is observable and measurable in humans. How do you explain that? It's not just a guess, they are based on experiments and data.

Those engineers don't measure "time" the same way we do. It might seem a long time to us. But, in their time, it's a relatively short period.

If 1 day == 1000 years, then 1 million years our time, is 1,000,000 / 1,000 = 1,000 days = 1,000 / 360 = 2. 8 years their time. And that 3 years, in our perspective of time, is about the time it takes our automobile engineers to come up with a radically new variation of design for the cars on the road today.

And if my aunt had a beard, she'd be my uncle. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest any engineers ever created humans and the comparison to car engineers isn't grounded in reality even slightly. You falsely say that evolution has no evidence and then believe this stuff blindly with no evidence at all?

And human DNA was not assembled by aliens? And you know this, how?

I don't know this, and neither do you. Evidence is required if you are suggesting that is the case. Evolution has evidence, your guess does not.

Even scientists understand that their theories are just theories, models of the worldly phenomena, that they construct in their imaginations, in order to predict the changes in outputs when they modify the inputs.

The typical "it's just a theory" dismissal. Yeah, it's all just scientists guessing.

It has nothing do with imagination. Theories don't become theories until the experiments can be verified. If not they would be hypotheses. Educate yourself and learn the difference. It's never too late.

But, you are taking scientific theory as some kind of absolute truth, self-evident, and inviolate.

No I'm not. Theories are based on facts, but they contain hypotheses as well for experiments they are currently working on. Nothing is absolute truth. Nothing. The process of evolution, however, is a verifiable fact.

And yet, we are already tinkering with the DNA of organisms today.

What are you going to call the new organisms we create? How will you fit them back into your "evolution" scheme?

Red Herring. Speculation about future organisms created by scientists is not proof of anything nor does it have anything to do with the validity of evolution.

Will you continue to deny that scientists have the power to make intelligent design choices to alter DNA? Are the scientists thoughts just random ideas, and is that how you will recover this religion called evolution?

religion called evolution??? Wow I guess all those facts and experiments were just made up on the spot, eh? How long have you been living under a rock? Let me guess, no education for you, only homeschooling? You need a biology 101 class. It seems like you don't have a clue about any of it.. Yet you are convinced it's just made up with no evidence.

There are "gaps" in the fossil record. If you believe in evolution, you'd have to keep searching for the missing links, because they must exist somewhere. But, if you believe in design, those gaps need never be filled, they are simply jumps in the designer's blueprints.

You really expect us to find every single creature to ever live in earth's history? Of course there are "gaps". Fossilization is a rare process, we're lucky to have what we do. Why do you dismiss proven science only to believe a complete guess? I'm just wondering why your standards are set so low for creationism, yet for scientific theories your standards of proof are impossible to meet. It's hypocrisy. If you have evidence that evolution is wrong, or for another alternative theory to explain the diversity of life on earth, then lets have it. If humans were a 7 million year experiment, then where is the evidence of their labs? Where is the evidence of the engineers or their technology?

Originally posted by Slugworth
The relevance, with regard to evolution, is that other animals have made no discernable intellectual progress during their evolution. The point is not that they haven't progressed as far as we have intellectually, but that they have made no intellectual progress whatsoever. As far as we can observe humans stand alone on the planet in our ability to increase our collective knowledge over time.

No intellectual progress whatsoever??? That's flat out false. You are suggesting that in the dinosaur era, creatures were just as intelligent? Sorry, not true. Most dinosaurs had tiny brains. Chimps, Dolphins, Elephants and others have made intellectual progress since evolving from their ancestors. Humans are the smartest creatures on the planet. OF COURSE, their intellectual capability and development will be better than the others. If you are expecting a chimp to whip out a book and start teaching nuclear physics, then you are barking up the wrong tree. You clearly don't understand evolution. It's not about making creatures better or more complex. It's about them passing down traits that help them survive. Nothing is guaranteed. Different traits help different creatures, in different ways. I thought I already explained that. Our best developed feature is the brain. For a cheetah, it's the ability to run fast. Evolution isn't going to magically make all creatures smarter, just because we consider that trait, desirable.

A Chimp may be able pass knowledge directly from one generation to the next, but they have no ability to record an abstract of their knowledge for consideration several generations after their death. A chimp may have the most profound philosophical thoughts, but he cannot record them for his distant offspring to consider and build upon. They can teach by direct demonstration only, and perhaps channels of simple communication imperceivable to us. The chimp may show its offspring how to dig a hole with a stick, but that next generation will not improve the stick to create a shovel. It will simply mimic the use of the stick that it learned from its parent generation.

In contrast, humans created philosophy, which lead to science, which lead to things like astronomy, architecture, medicine, and physics. I can go back and read what humans were thinking about 5000 years ago, and everything between then and now, and improve upon that cumulative knowledge with my own contribution. Chimps do not build libraries. It doesn't mean the chimp is stupid, but it does mean that its ability to teach (communicate), and for their species to accumulate collective knowledge, is incomparably simplistic when viewed next to ours.

Yes, and chimps are not as smart as humans. They do not have the intellectual capability to do those things. What reason do you have to suggest that they should be able to write down things and develop technology over the years? You are looking at humans 5000 years ago when they have been around nearly 300,000 years. Where was all the progress during that time? Where are the thoughts of people from 100,000 years ago? I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but comparing the intellectual progression of chimps as a society to humans is a bit silly. Evolution doesn't just make everything better. That's not how it works.

If our intelligence is a product of evolution and is a desirable trait why has evolution not produced comparable advancements in other species?

This statement right here defines your misunderstanding. Evolution does not produce anything because it's "desirable". Genetic mutations happen and they eventually add up to bigger changes. During a drastic environmental change, the organisms best suited to survive will, while the rest die out. Humans survived the last ice age, while the other hominids died out. The slight increase in brain function is undoubtedly why we did. Just like how creatures with thicker skin and plates would be more likely to survive a cooler temperature or the introduction of new predators in the area.

If we are all subject to the same laws of evolution there should be at least one other species that evolved in that direction.

I thought that I already explained that there were several other hominids on earth that rivaled our intelligence 30,000+ years ago. Many others DID evolve in that direction, but humans won out when push comes to shove. You can't keep talking about human evolution and progression while ignoring our ancestors and only comparing them to chimps. You might as well just pretend the entire fossil record of earth doesn't exist. Remember, humans have been around a while, but it is only one tiny slice of the history of earth. You are looking things as they are right now while ignoring the history of our species.

reply to post by Barcs

Scientific theories are based on verifiable facts.

Science is based on observation, not "verifiable facts". Calling something a "verifiable fact" is itself unscientific to an extent. There are plenty of examples of brilliant people who made great scientific contributions but slipped into unscientific language at some point, went on record stating something was a fact, and were later disproved. A well known example would be Kelvin's statement about human flight.

Observations are used to compose theories. When new methods of observation, or new ways of interpreting the observations surface the theories are adjusted to reflect the new information. Every scientific theory is eventually disproved. The flat earth model was a scientific theory based on observation. The earth looks flat, why would we think that its not? At various times in various cultures this was "verifiable fact". Then someone noticed the way that a ship drops below the horizon as it sails out and adjusted the theory. The knowledge that a ship drops below the horizon was not new, but the application of that observation to a theory about the shape of the earth was.

The typical "it's just a theory" dismissal. Yeah, it's all just scientists guessing

That is exactly what scientists do. Science is a method, not a collection of knowledge. Science is not gospel, and it does not recognize facts. It dismisses them in favor of observation, and castes constant doubt on the reliability of the observation. To accept something as a fact is to be unscientific.

reply to post by Barcs

Chimps, Dolphins, Elephants and others have made intellectual progress since evolving from their ancestors.

They evolved from their ancestors and their intelligence increased as part of that evolution. They had to become a different species to improve their intelligence. Human intelligence has increased without significant physical evolution. Our physical bodies are more or less like that of a human who lived thousands of years ago, but the most brilliant mathematician of that era knew almost nothing about math compared to an average high school student who passed trigonometry class.

If you are expecting a chimp to whip out a book and start teaching nuclear physics, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

I would be sufficiently impressed, and my premise would be shattered, if a single chimp developed an alphabet, or some comparable method of communication, independent of human teaching. Other species has been here just as long as we have but have made no progress in that direction. No other species can even come close to comprehending the concept of creating symbols that represent an abstraction of reality. A few can be taught to recognize human communication, but they cannot create their own version.

You are looking at humans 5000 years ago when they have been around nearly 300,000 years. Where was all the progress during that time?

That is a good question. Did something change about us that cause us to start writing things down? If so, how does that change fit with evolution theory? Why was that change unique to us?

All vertebrates share similarities in their physical structures, and we can draw conclusions about common ancestry between species based on those similarities. How would a newly discovered vertebrate fit into evolution theory if it had no mouth or digestive tract but could sustain itself via photosynthesis and dermal nutrient absorption? Should such a thing be possible within evolution theory all by itself, with no similar traits found in any other vertebrates that exist parallel to it? Is there an aspect of evolution theory that explains how a completely unique trait can develop in one species, and only one species, and not be present in any other known species on the planet? If human intelligence, which is distinguished from other intelligence by our complex use of language, is caused by evolution there should be other parallel species that have developed similar traits, even if not to the same extent. Some other species should be drawing symbols and telling stories. As it is, there are none and we stand alone.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by SQUEALER


And human DNA was not assembled by aliens? And you know this, how?

I don't know this, and neither do you. Evidence is required if you are suggesting that is the case. Evolution has evidence, your guess does not.

On the contrary, I do know.

I read the book.



Thou Dust: A Philosophical Essay on Cloning ,
Peter Michael Jack
# ISBN-10: 0973425202
# ISBN-13: 978-0973425208

Which proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that man was created by some intelligent being or beings, and did not "evolve" from anything.

The intelligent beings put a coded message in the scriptures, that when decoded reveals knowledge of man's DNA, which could not be explained in any other way, since when the scriptures were written, supposedly humans did not even have a concept of DNA back then.

Once you read this book, and the parts of the bible to which it refers, you'll toss out any notion of "evolution" that you might have adopted.

Man is created. It's as simple as that.

And man is about to "create man in his own image" once again.

Originally posted by cornucopia
reply to post by DazDaKing

 

lol

what are you talking about?


makes zero sense bro, but whatever..lol, I still love you

you eat vegetables an fruit because they are good for you..

there, nice and simple for ya

trust me eating flesh is not good for you...

we have all been duped by the FDA/material world society...not your fault


also...

we are not alone, never were..

also

we are all family, all experiencing life in this grand universe named nebadon

do you see spaceships attacking us?

lol

no you don't, because that is never going to happen here.

Can you really not understand what I said lol?
Let me put it in really simple terms then.

You said plants are better than meat due to the fact they vibrate at a higher frequency. Thats what YOU said. I'm not arguing that meat is better than plants for a human. What I'm saying to you is WHY DO YOU THINK THE FACT THAT THE PLANT IS VIBRATING AT A HIGHER FREQUENCY MAKES IT BETTER?

That's my question. What does the plants vibrational frequency have to do with it's healthiness.

Vibrational frequency = HEAT. I think you are severely confused with these terms like frequency, vibration, consciousness and you don't really understand the difference.

Also, my other point in my reply was that you can't say everything is a frequency, because the word 'frequency' when used on it's own is meaningless. If you don't understand that, then sorry I can't help your understanding further because I've worded it in the most precise and clear manner I could in my last reply.

Don't know why you're talking about spaceships and stuff, I didn't mention that at all .

Take care

Originally posted by SQUEALER

But when you die, you're just taking off your clothes.
Right now, you identify yourself, with the suit you're wearing.
That suit, is not living. It's made up of dead material. When you come out of your suit, it falls to the ground lifeless, and decays back into the dust of the ground.

Mate, seriously, can you please read my replies before replying back? Why are you telling me exactly what I said myself? Did you not read the analogy I made in regards to us using the computer to access the internet and us using this body to access this reality? That's exactly what you're telling me - I know this.

And although you might be fine with them eating you after you die, some aliens don't wait until old age does you in. They want food now, that means they have to kill you first.

The good aliens are the ones that only eat humans that die naturally. But, the bad aliens don't wait for death.

Once again, I understand this. If you read my posts properly again, you would of saw that I talked about a substance that allows you to encounter these 'bad aliens', and the experience that follows often involves being 'consumed' or fed on by these creatures. Read the Spirit Molecule by Dr. Strassman. I understand that. The reason I said what you're saying is different to them directly entering our universe is because in your original reply to me you didn't differentiate between 'good' and 'bad' aliens - you put them in the same box. But now I understand what you meant further.

Like I said, if the 'good alien' after-death feeding is part of our fate, what do you want me to say? Do you want me to be scared? Because I am not, infact in a weird sort of way if these guys created us by some means, then it's only fair we return to them the memories/thoughts/and experiences we had because they were purely a gift from the first place - right?

In regards to these 'bad aliens' - What can I say? If a 'bad alien' chooses to feed on me, how can I stop it? From your opinion, is it a matter of good/bad as to who they choose? Is it a matter of the content of that person's thoughts/memories/experiences? Is it simply a matter of wrong 'place', wrong 'time'? I'm curious as to what you think because I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case with a lot of UFO 'abductions' and experiences on that shamanic substance (The Spirit Molecule - READ IT!).

Yeah...according to the writings of those who claim to know, there are 8 levels. It's not infinite.

You kind of took my comment out of context here . I said according to this theory, everything on one level exists to sustain the higher level merely as food. You pretty much said that in your original reply right? My point was when you follow this chain upwards and hit the final level (which you're now saying is level 8), what exists there, and what makes THAT special? Were all other 7 levels made purely to feed that level? Explain to me what you think on this please.

Peace.

Not a source of food so much, but as a source of entertainment and then food for whatever they bring back here that will certainly be large and really good at ripping people apart. It doesn't usually last long though because humans sometimes find a way to fight back.

no not for aliens but we are becoming to many for something not to develop to use us as food bacteria or something similar.

reply to post by Erran

Not a source of food so much, but as a source of entertainment

There is a brilliantly written and highly thought-provoking short film viewable online about this very idea!

Originally posted by Slugworth
Science is based on observation, not "verifiable facts". Calling something a "verifiable fact" is itself unscientific to an extent. There are plenty of examples of brilliant people who made great scientific contributions but slipped into unscientific language at some point, went on record stating something was a fact, and were later disproved. A well known example would be Kelvin's statement about human flight.

What is Kelvin's statement about human flight? What's the name of the theory that was based on it? Verifiable fact does not mean absolute fact. Theories are NOT made about a phenomenon unless it's first proven to exist. Take the theory of gravity, for example. We know 100% that it exists. Our experiments have proven how mass effects gravity and the math behind it. Nobody would question it's existence simply because "it's a theory", however there are still areas about it that are heavily under debate. They aren't debating whether or not it exists, they are debating causes and technicalities. The same is true of evolution. If they couldn't confirm its existence, it would not be made into a scientific theory. It would be a hypothesis like abiogenesis. If you want to believe intervention, that's fine, but that wouldn't prove or disprove evolution either way. It would be like humans breeding dogs to select favorable traits. It is still evolution, however, it's just unnatural selection. Considering how fast humans have bred dogs from wolves, 7 million years constitutes complete failure on the part of any designer. Humans have done it better, without being able to modify the genes. If you have that capability, why would it take longer?

en.wikipedia.org...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

So something that's been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment is not considered verifiable fact, in your book. Interesting.

The flat earth model was a scientific theory based on observation.

False. There was never a scientific theory about the earth being flat. It was believed based on religious views and the appearance, and wasn't even that wide spread of a view. Many cultures believed otherwise. There were no scientific experiments to confirm or falsify flat earth. It doesn't qualify as scientific theory. It wasn't a fact any moreso than the bible was.

Originally posted by Slugworth
Human intelligence has increased without significant physical evolution.

www.theistic-evolution.com...

You might want to check this out. The skulls size gradually increased.

www.britannica.com...

Increase over time, although this only compares 6 species.

en.wikipedia.org...

Breaks it down with more early ones included. Either way you look at it, it's a slow increase over time, not a sudden change in humans that puts them far ahead of everyone else in brain size. Even Neanderthals had the same CC as we do.

So to go back to the chimp comparison, we have double the cranial capacity, so comparing technological and intellectual progression is silly. One COULD compare it to an earlier hominid, however.

Our physical bodies are more or less like that of a human who lived thousands of years ago, but the most brilliant mathematician of that era knew almost nothing about math compared to an average high school student who passed trigonometry class.

It started with us becoming a global society, and freeing our minds from religion and exploring the scientific method. You are just comparing the last few thousand years, but again, homo sapiens and their recent ancestors with comparable intellect go back around 500,000 years. Modern humans go back 30,000 years, but homo sapiens as a whole go back 200-300 thousand depending on where you cut off Neanderthals and humans from their common ancestor. Slow change over time is both evident and apparent.

Is there an aspect of evolution theory that explains how a completely unique trait can develop in one species, and only one species, and not be present in any other known species on the planet?

You keep saying "any other known species on the planet". AGAIN, you are ignoring other hominids. Cave paintings have been found dating back to Neanderthal times. Other species have developed similar characteristics, but there are PLENTY of creatures on earth with unique traits to other species. If evolution is true, why wouldn't there be? The theory is based on genetic mutations that add up over millions of years and creatures with advantages survive environmental changes. Convergent evolution happens, but it isn't mandatory. If you put a white mouse in a blackened suity environment, you could make it a genius, and it would still likely be dead before it could defend itself because of its contradiction to the environment. Different traits for different environments plus genetic variance.

We know humans are the smartest creature alive on the planet at this moment right now. It doesn't prove anything nor justify the claims you have made about evolution. For all we know humans could have killed off their intellectual rivals in a big war 30,000 years ago. Just because we are the sole survivors of our kind right now, does not mean it was always that way.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive

Are humans created to be the perfect food source for a carnivorous alien race?

No, this seems very unlikely.

If so, it looks like they don't eat much.

reply to post by Barcs

What is Kelvin's statement about human flight? What's the name of the theory that was based on it?

He made several, and was not generally optimistic about the possibility of heavier-than-air flying machines. Here is an interview where he discussing his opinion on it: Utter Impracticability of Aeronautics & Favorable Opinion on Wireless. In the interview he briefly explains his theory:

"Do you think it possible," I asked him "for an airship to be guided across the Atlantic ocean?"

"Not possible at all," he replied.

"On what ground do you think that the airship is impracticable?"

"Because no motive power can drive a balloon through the air."

"Your objection, as I understand it, rests upon the unwieldiness of the balloon, but how about the aeroplane? Do you think that that is practicable?"

"No; no more than the other."

See also: Clarke's first law

Verifiable fact does not mean absolute fact. Theories are NOT made about a phenomenon unless it's first proven to exist.

So a fact can be verifiable, yet not be absolute? If a fact is verified, but later discovered to not be absolute this means that the initial verification was flawed and that it was never really a fact at all.

Take the theory of gravity, for example. We know 100% that it exists. Our experiments have proven how mass effects gravity and the math behind it. Nobody would question it's existence simply because "it's a theory", however there are still areas about it that are heavily under debate. They aren't debating whether or not it exists, they are debating causes and technicalities.

Some of the world's most highly regarded physicists are publishing papers that cast doubt on the existence of gravity.

The same is true of evolution.

If the people on the bleeding edge of theoretical physics are doubting the existence of gravity then this statement illustrates why we should doubt evolution.

If they couldn't confirm its existence, it would not be made into a scientific theory. It would be a hypothesis like abiogenesis.

You seem confused about the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

hypothesis:A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be

A hypothesis is a premise intended to be tested through experimentation. The results of the experiment may be used to form a theory. Abiogenesis is neither a hypothesis nor a theory, though it could be used as the basis of either.

example hypothesis: Abiogenesis is the process by which terrestrial life was formed
example theory: experimental evidence indicates that terrestrial life was formed via abiogenesis

If you want to believe intervention, that's fine, but that wouldn't prove or disprove evolution either way. It would be like humans breeding dogs to select favorable traits. It is still evolution, however, it's just unnatural selection.

If an intervention does not prove or disprove evolution, the logical converse of that would be that evolution does not prove or disprove intervention. You are arguing in favor of the possibility of intervention, whether you realize it or not.

Considering how fast humans have bred dogs from wolves, 7 million years constitutes complete failure on the part of any designer.

Time is relative, and perception of time is subjective. Is 7 million earth orbital periods a long time? Relative to what? According to which life form's subjective perception? You are making assumptions about the relevance of 7 million years, and the nature of time itself.

There was never a scientific theory about the earth being flat....

It absolutely qualified as a scientific theory when there was no method to disprove it. This is how science works. Again, science is not a collection of facts or knowledge. It is only a method, we can use the flat earth model to illustrate its application...

Hypothesis: The earth is flat
Experiment: Stand on a beach and observe the horizon without the aid of equipment (optics, etc) or knowledge of geometry or astronomy, testing for signs of curvature. There is no measurable curvature, because the equipment and knowledge necessary to observe such a curvature does not yet exist.
Theory: Evidence indicates that the earth is flat.

Eventually new methods of measurement are developed. The hypothesis is tested again, this time using the new methods, and the curvature is now observable.

reply to post by Barcs

Either way you look at it, it's a slow increase over time, not a sudden change in humans that puts them far ahead of everyone else in brain size. Even Neanderthals had the same CC as we do.

You are comparing human brains to those of other species that preceded humans. I suppose I was unclear in my statement, and will clarify it by changing a single word:

Homo sapiens sapiens intelligence has increased without significant physical evolution.

The articles that you linked to not dispute this statement. Additionally, there is no other species that has experienced a comparable increase in intelligence while remaining the same species.

It started with us becoming a global society, and freeing our minds from religion and exploring the scientific method.

I was not aware that all of this had happened. The best research that i could find says that 5.8 billion people (84%) are religious. Regarding the advancement of science, very few people truly understand scientific method outside of the scientific community. You are obviously interested in science, and no doubt intelligent, but even you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about what science is really about, or at least a few misconceptions.

Other species have developed similar characteristics, but there are PLENTY of creatures on earth with unique traits to other species.

If you name one, along with its unique trait, I will explain why it is not unique. Prove me wrong.

If you put a white mouse in a blackened suity environment, you could make it a genius, and it would still likely be dead before it could defend itself because of its contradiction to the environment.

It depends on what you mean by "genius". If it were smart enough to make camouflage it would blend right in. If it were smart enough to build armor or shelter it could protect itself from predators. If it were smart enough to build simple weapons it could subjugate the white mice. If it were smart enough to manage its kingdom of white mouse subjects it could make them do work in tiny mouse mines, harvesting materials for the little mouse factory building a fleet of the cutest little fighter jets that you've ever seen, armed with guided missiles that could kill every predator that comes near it.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by Erran

 

Not a source of food so much, but as a source of entertainment

There is a brilliantly written and highly thought-provoking short film viewable online about this very idea!

If that incredibly funny South Park episode is a thought provoking "short film" then I'd hate to see your idea of a reality show : )
I like to think that anything you can think of either exists somewhere else or if possible, could become a reality. I've seen some things and I've been trying to put it all together lately and at around 17 or 18 I was told some things that didn't make any sense and I thought these people were lying to me until I started to actually remember bits and pieces. For a span of maybe 7 or 8 years I was living a normal life, or so I thought and there are some of these theories that I thought were "Nuts". Like I was saying, when these people..."friends" of the family started telling me things and it started to make sense, it was screwed up and I couldn't take it so, I went to Jose(Joseph) Silva (Mexican Hypnotist) after doing some research and at that time he was in Hartford, CT. I had saved up some money...About $3,000. and I went to him to ask him to make me forget it all(and I'm starting to remember stuff)....he put me under but when I was coming to I attacked him for some reason and they took me somewhere and locked me in a cage. It was not the first time in a cage and it probably won't be the last and if these things I'm starting to remember are true then some of these conspiracy theories are quite true and at some point I may tell people what I know but, that is for another thread maybe not here but close.
Have a pleasant Sunday.

I spent some time thinking about this a few years ago and still list it as a possibility. If you look at the bible read Leviticus! This whole book is pretty much about butchering animals and the sacrifice system. I believe only one person from the Levite's tribe was allowed to prepare an animal for sacrifice. The animal was supposed to be the best a family had to offer. Draining the blood and removing organs was part of it. The book stated God would come by in a cloud and take the offering. Over time people starting giving lame animals and the ritual was ended by God.
Today we have Cattle mutilations where there is no blood left and missing organs! Humm interesting, where have I heard that before? There also has been a couple of reports of human, cat and dog mutilations as well. From what I have read I think there is at least one group of ET's that must use or consume our blood. I believe this is one of the reasons the government is silent on the matter. I don't think they have come up with a way to stop them and are powerless over the matter. Humans have been able to overcome almost everything when we work together.Yet interestingly most are too busy fighting over religion and money to worry about this threat. And it could be our evil governments people made a deal with these ET's for money, fortune and power in exchange for them turning a blind eye to ET's incursions.
When you start to look at GMO's and our horrible food sytem it makes you wonder if people are not indeed being prepared for harvest. And the idea about smoking sounds dead on.The US government attack and tax on smoking makes no sense. Smokers I know who have passed away have not cost the health care system money as a matter of fact quite the opposite.

Originally posted by infidel666
I spent some time thinking about this
...
Today we have Cattle mutilations where there is no blood left and missing organs! Humm interesting,

.

You've heard of the Cult of Mithras?

The initiation into the cult requires baptism in the blood of the cow. Basically, they fill a basin with fresh cattle blood, and the new initiate is "dunked" into it, in the same way Christians used to "dunk" people in water.

The cult is probably alive and well, and operating in those areas where you find these mysterious cattle mutilations.

It's Black Magic ritual.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
You might be onto something if there wasn't already overwhelming evidence that we evolved from chimps.

30 % of your dna is vegetable but you do not hear people saying that we evolved from a mushroom