• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

Scientist find extraterrestial genes in Human DNA



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

KrytenKoro

Bronze Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,056
Location
Over the Rainbow
A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Then evolution is not a theory, according to your definition. For one, it is not predictive.

Martian fossils:
We have found signs of life on other planets. Developed, no. Conclusive, no. But we have found signs.

Polka dancing:
You quite aptly explained the differences yourself, in the following paragraph. Whether the man's theory was the most common, or familiar, does not mean that it is automatically invalid. Whether he has wholly conclusive proof (we have naught but an exploration of a mathematical POSSIBILITY behind black holes, yet no one doubts them), is unimportant: his theory does not contradict the evidence, and it is predictive, however slight.
 

Phoenix

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
13,786
Awards
7
Then evolution is not a theory, according to your definition. For one, it is not predictive.

Incorrect. We have predicted we would find transitional fossils between mammals and reptiles, and so we have. We predicted we would find fossils between reptiles and birds, and so we have. So either science is prophetic, or it's a valid theory.

We have found signs of life on other planets. Developed, no. Conclusive, no. But we have found signs.

Do tell.

You quite aptly explained the differences yourself, in the following paragraph. Whether the man's theory was the most common, or familiar, does not mean that it is automatically invalid. Whether he has wholly conclusive proof (we have naught but an exploration of a mathematical POSSIBILITY behind black holes, yet no one doubts them), is unimportant: his theory does not contradict the evidence, and it is predictive, however slight.

Oh, but it does. It contradicts most of the proof the theory of evolution picks up. Just ask any Academy of Science.
 

KrytenKoro

Bronze Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,056
Location
Over the Rainbow
To clarify my earlier post:

By no matter how much of a minority, the status of many transitional fossils is disputed - and their is a fair amount of controversy behind the reptile>bird one: forgeries have been discovered to be common.

Predictive does not mean finding other fossils, as it cannot be specifically proven that one came from the other - fennec foxes are a clear example of this sort of fallacy. Predictive, in the case of evolution, means that we could run an experiment and expect, over the course of a few million years, for macroscopic evolution of a specific kind to occur - animals evolving to the point of non-mutual mate-ability, and the other hallmarks of macro-evolution.

We cannot predict how a creature will evolve (as of yet) under extremely-controlled circumstances. We can predict, with extreme detail, how other theories that are STILL on the border, and not treated with so much persecution if met with disbelief (ie, black holes and other phenomena) will act. Hell, even with string theory, which isn't even a consensus theory, we can explain with extreme detail what will happen.

Naturalistic evolution, as it exists, has less scientific power than even the Vedas have explanatory power. In its current form, however many supposed "examples" (which do not actually illustrate the theory - it's like pointing to a whirlpool in space and saying it's clear evidence of a black hole, when it could merely be a dim or small star) have been pointed to, it only postulates a possibility for how something COULD have POSSIBLY happened. It does not point to existing creatures and explain how things are or will happen, and this is another MAJOR failure of the theory. A theory, to be validly accepted, requires demonstration - and naturalistic evolution has BADLY failed to produce any.

The man's idea does not contradict the theoretical process of evolution. It may contradict the church of evolution (and as I understand his theory, it fails to even do that), but science does not consist of dogmatic histories - it consists of theoretical processes, that can be applied to produce such histories.

AN OPPOSING THEORY IS NOT EVIDENCE, AND IS NOT TO BE USED AS SUCH. He could easily say that evolution contradicts his theory, and thus evolution is invalid.
 

Phoenix

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
13,786
Awards
7
By no matter how much of a minority, the status of many transitional fossils is disputed - and their is a fair amount of controversy behind the reptile>bird one: forgeries have been discovered to be common.

Forgeries have been discovered in everything. That means everything's fake?

Also, whether they dispute doesn't really matter if they can't make a decent article on *why*.

Predictive does not mean finding other fossils, as it cannot be specifically proven that one came from the other - fennec foxes are a clear example of this sort of fallacy. Predictive, in the case of evolution, means that we could run an experiment and expect, over the course of a few million years, for macroscopic evolution of a specific kind to occur - animals evolving to the point of non-mutual mate-ability, and the other hallmarks of macro-evolution.

"A prediction or forecast is a statement or claim that a particular event will occur in the future."

So if I predict we would find fossils that share mammal and reptile characteristics within a certain period of time in the Earth's history, how did I know that?

Naturalistic evolution, as it exists, has less scientific power than even the Vedas have explanatory power. In its current form, however many supposed "examples" (which do not actually illustrate the theory - it's like pointing to a whirlpool in space and saying it's clear evidence of a black hole, when it could merely be a dim or small star) have been pointed to, it only postulates a possibility for how something COULD have POSSIBLY happened. It does not point to existing creatures and explain how things are or will happen, and this is another MAJOR failure of the theory. A theory, to be validly accepted, requires demonstration - and naturalistic evolution has BADLY failed to produce any.

* Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
* Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
* Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
* Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
* Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
* Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
* Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

The man's idea does not contradict the theoretical process of evolution. It may contradict the church of evolution (and as I understand his theory, it fails to even do that), but science does not consist of dogmatic histories - it consists of theoretical processes, that can be applied to produce such histories.

Substitute aliens with unicorns, and according to you, I have a theory too.

AN OPPOSING THEORY IS NOT EVIDENCE, AND IS NOT TO BE USED AS SUCH. He could easily say that evolution contradicts his theory, and thus evolution is invalid.

He doesn't have a theory. He has a hypothesis. I'm not gonna give you the definition for theory again, as you'll obviously forget it within a day.

Also, I'm not using evolution to prove his hypothesis wrong, I'm using common sense.

To end, "If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy."
 

KrytenKoro

Bronze Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,056
Location
Over the Rainbow
Forgeries have been discovered in everything. That means everything's fake?
I didn't say everything - just that the bird one is extraordinarily lacking in actual fossils.

Also, whether they dispute doesn't really matter if they can't make a decent article on *why*.
I've seen many decent articles. Though, I would need to know your definition of "decent" - does it have to outrule miracles?

"A prediction or forecast is a statement or claim that a particular event will occur in the future."

So if I predict we would find fossils that share mammal and reptile characteristics within a certain period of time in the Earth's history, how did I know that?
One, mammal is an arbitrary grouping, based on circumstances, and has been changed over time. It will likely change further, as it is a comparitive definition, not an absolute one.
I can predict that I will find a dinosaur with certain characteristics at a certain time - doesn't mean I have a theory, just that I notice that dinosaurs have a common set of characteristics. Reptiles already were known to look alot like mammals, besides certain characteristics (LIKE HAIR AND MAMMARY GLANDS - guess which we've found on fossils), so it is easy enough to make a guess.
If I understand it, the theory of evolution is one of change. Therefore, INSTANCES will not provide acceptable evidence of it. Observation of the process will.
Gravity is not provided evidence by finding things on the ground - it's provided evidence by watching things fall.
Substitute aliens with unicorns, and according to you, I have a theory too.
And? As I'm not dogmatic, I don't automatically rule things out without observation. 50 years ago, gorillas would be treated with the same disbelief you attribute to unicorns. Since I believe that rhinoceri exist, I believe that unicorns do too, I guess.

Also, I'm not using evolution to prove his hypothesis wrong, I'm using common sense.

To end, "If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy."
Archaeology does not use the scientific method to produce theories - it attempts to catologue and explain the human past. So I have no problem with you removing it from the field of sciences. Astronomy does make future predictions - ever heard of astrophysics? Gravity is included in this as well.

By the way, Astronomy is in fact one of the first sciences, according to this definition, as eclipses were one of the first things to be scientifically predicted. The tradition was also continued with finding Neptune and Pluto, and with the bending of light during an eclipse backing up special relativity.

His theory does not contradict the evidence
Oh, but it does. It contradicts most of the proof the theory of evolution picks up.
Also, I'm not using evolution to prove his hypothesis wrong, I'm using common sense.
You specifically say you are using evolution to prove him wrong, then you don't. Which is it?


A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method).
Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results.
In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.
Predictive: no.
Logical: sure
Testable: yes, but it hasn't succeeded- in fact, experiments to test simple parts like original formation of organisms, or macroscopic evolution, have unequivocally failed

If treated with normal scientific criticism, naturalistic evolution would have failed as a theory when experiments failed to produce even organic molecules using "known" environmental characteristics of the predicted time period. As it is, it was just claimed that the theory depended on extraordinarily random chance, and was probably untestable - shouldn't that be a huge hint?
 

Phoenix

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
13,786
Awards
7
I didn't say everything - just that the bird one is extraordinarily lacking in actual fossils.

You seem to be uder the impression that fossils are common. Fossils are extremely rare, and nevertheless, we have:

* Diapsid reptiles to birds
o Yixianosaurus
o Pedopenna
o Archeopteryx
o Changchengornis
o Confuciusornis
o Ichthyornis

I've seen many decent articles. Though, I would need to know your definition of "decent" - does it have to outrule miracles?

If the proof doesn't predate the conclusion (a miracle), then it's a speculation.

One, mammal is an arbitrary grouping, based on circumstances, and has been changed over time. It will likely change further, as it is a comparitive definition, not an absolute one.

So?

I can predict that I will find a dinosaur with certain characteristics at a certain time - doesn't mean I have a theory, just that I notice that dinosaurs have a common set of characteristics.

..... except we're not talking about normal characteristics, we're talking about finding organisms with characteristics never seen before, and predicting those characteristics before the actual organism is found.

Reptiles already were known to look alot like mammals, besides certain characteristics (LIKE HAIR AND MAMMARY GLANDS - guess which we've found on fossils), so it is easy enough to make a guess.

"Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005)."

If I understand it, the theory of evolution is one of change. Therefore, INSTANCES will not provide acceptable evidence of it. Observation of the process will.

Incorrect. A *lot* of instances during different times do show a process.

Gravity is not provided evidence by finding things on the ground - it's provided evidence by watching things fall.

Let's fix the broken analogy. First second, object is 20 feet in the air, second second, it's over 15 feet, 3rd second 10 feet, 4th second 5 feet, 5th second ground.

According to you, this would mean nothing for gravity.

And? As I'm not dogmatic, I don't automatically rule things out without observation. 50 years ago, gorillas would be treated with the same disbelief you attribute to unicorns. Since I believe that rhinoceri exist, I believe that unicorns do too, I guess.

Except I'm talking about pink, horse-like, thin, mythical, magical talking unicorns. And you give the ones I said the same credit you give everything else. Good for you. Giving something without proof the same credit you give something with prof is unscientific.

Archaeology does not use the scientific method to produce theories - it attempts to catologue and explain the human past. So I have no problem with you removing it from the field of sciences.

It doesn't what?

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

* Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry. (check)

* Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry). (check, you can check cities of the same civilization to see if the city you're in belongs to it)

* Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment. (check, once you know what civilization it belogns to, you can predict what sort of architecture it has)

* Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias. (since you know the architecture, you know where to look to find its famous columns)

* Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. (many things in the city [such as finding radically different columns from the ones you expected] could prove you wrong)

* Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

* Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
* Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
* Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time. (via its writing, you can see what happened to the city, how it grew, what it ate, etc.)


So do explain to me how archeology is not science.

Astronomy does make future predictions - ever heard of astrophysics? Gravity is included in this as well.

But according to you, studying the birth, growth and death of stars is unscientific.

You specifically say you are using evolution to prove him wrong, then you don't. Which is it?

I said it contradicts the proof evolution [picked up. It contradicts the evidence out there that just so happens to support evolution.

Predictive: no.
Logical: sure
Testable: yes, but it hasn't succeeded- in fact, experiments to test simple parts like original formation of organisms, or macroscopic evolution, have unequivocally failed

Didn't you just quoted:

In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

If every single scientists that was ever born, including IDers, recognize evolution as a theory, then you're wrong, not the whole world.

If treated with normal scientific criticism, naturalistic evolution would have failed as a theory when experiments failed to produce even organic molecules using "known" environmental characteristics of the predicted time period.

"The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture.

The molecules produced were simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first."

Wtf are you talking about? The experiment was a success. Organic molecules, bloody amino acids even, were formed.

As it is, it was just claimed that the theory depended on extraordinarily random chance, and was probably untestable - shouldn't that be a huge hint?

Evolution depends on.... what? *Mutations* depend on random chance, and mutations are 1 of the elements that compose evolution, but evolutio does not depend on random chance. Natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow are not random chance.
 

KrytenKoro

Bronze Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,056
Location
Over the Rainbow
Except I'm talking about pink, horse-like, thin, mythical, magical talking unicorns. And you give the ones I said the same credit you give everything else. Good for you. Giving something without proof the same credit you give something with prof is unscientific.
No, I merely do not rule them out beforehand.

Wtf are you talking about? The experiment was a success. Organic molecules, bloody amino acids even, were formed.
Every time I've read about the experiment, the first test, using exactly the environment that was predicted, led to cyanide at most. The one that lead to amino acids had a much different composition of environment than what was predicted for Earth.

I admit that my understanding of predictiveness may be wrong. However, I find myself confused how you can make predictions about a certain city without knowing what civilization it belongs in - but to figure that out you already have to have catologued it. Isn't this circular reasoning?
 

Phoenix

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
13,786
Awards
7
No, I merely do not rule them out beforehand.

Do you believe they exist?

Every time I've read about the experiment, the first test, using exactly the environment that was predicted, led to cyanide at most. The one that lead to amino acids had a much different composition of environment than what was predicted for Earth.

I'm confused. The Miller-Uller experiments were a smashing success. And those were the first ones o_O The only argument against them I remember was that we can't be sure of what was the Earth's ancient atmosphere.

I admit that my understanding of predictiveness may be wrong. However, I find myself confused how you can make predictions about a certain city without knowing what civilization it belongs in - but to figure that out you already have to have catologued it. Isn't this circular reasoning?

To an extent, it is. However, you can't predict how fast will an object fall unless you catalog it falling, which is also circular reasoning when you apply it to other objects.
 

KrytenKoro

Bronze Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,056
Location
Over the Rainbow
Do you believe they exist?
I neither believe they do nor they don't. I have no evidence either way, so I do not rule them out.

I'm confused. The Miller-Uller experiments were a smashing success. And those were the first ones o_O The only argument against them I remember was that we can't be sure of what was the Earth's ancient atmosphere.
I must have read something else, then. I remember cyanide and methane being the most organic molecules created.
By the way, Miller-Uller turns up no results on wikipedia or google - so I can't find a full account of the experiment.

To an extent, it is. However, you can't predict how fast will an object fall unless you catalog it falling, which is also circular reasoning when you apply it to other objects.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - you actually can't find how fast something is falling by catalogueing it.
 

Phoenix

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
13,786
Awards
7
I neither believe they do nor they don't. I have no evidence either way, so I do not rule them out.

Good. So unicorns are as believable as God.

I must have read something else, then. I remember cyanide and methane being the most organic molecules created.
By the way, Miller-Uller turns up no results on wikipedia or google - so I can't find a full account of the experiment.

Miller-Urey* My bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - you actually can't find how fast something is falling by catalogueing it.

Well, that's a gross generalization.

"In its simplest form, it applies to the position and momentum of a single particle, and implies that if we continue increasing the accuracy with which one of these is measured, there will come a point at which the other must be measured with less accuracy."

It says the more accuracy you apply to one, the less you'll have for the other one.
 

KrytenKoro

Bronze Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,056
Location
Over the Rainbow
It says the more accuracy you apply to one, the less you'll have for the other one.
And that if you measure one perfectly, you have 0 accuracy on the other.

Good. So unicorns are as believable as God.
Well, besides a hell of a lot of people witnessing and willing to die for things completely unexplainable in the realm of science - barring massive, frequent, and compatible mass hallucination.

It produced 85 percent tar, 13 percent carbolic acid, 1.05 percent glycine, 0.85 percent alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals. Although the amino acids glycine and alanine are required for life, the tar and carbolic acids would be toxic to any proteins if they ever formed. Every subsequent experiment of this kind has produced similar results. Some experiments have produced slightly higher percentages of the usable product, but the majority of the material that is produced by these experiments is toxic to life.[11]
This is what I was talking about, but it seems possible for the tar and things to seperate out. I don't know. The wikipedia article also mentioned that Oxygen would be highly toxic to these reactions - but wouldn't the electrolysis of water vapor produce lots of oxygen?
 

Phoenix

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
13,786
Awards
7
And that if you measure one perfectly, you have 0 accuracy on the other.

But seeing as how we're not measuring anything perfectly, and how, with a timer and a camera, you can measure both on a macro level (a falling ball) the principle doesn't apply.

Well, besides a hell of a lot of people witnessing and willing to die for things completely unexplainable in the realm of science - barring massive, frequent, and compatible mass hallucination.

1. Humans die over lies. This is nothing new.
2. But objectively, unicorns have the same believability God does.

This is what I was talking about, but it seems possible for the tar and things to seperate out. I don't know. The wikipedia article also mentioned that Oxygen would be highly toxic to these reactions - but wouldn't the electrolysis of water vapor produce lots of oxygen?

Good question, but remember, not only was the early atmosphere almost completely devoid of oxygen, but abiogenesis took approximately 100 million years to pull something off. So while yes, oxygen may contaminate some samples, if something has a 1/1000000th chance of happening, over this period of time, it will happen.

Also, enlighten me on this. I was under the impression that our atmosphere was filled with oxygen because of photosynthesis, not water vapor getting broken down. There is very small evidence for an atmosphere with 0.1% of oxygen, but this is negligible.

"More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen---implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[2] One of the authors, Prof. Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth, (Washington University, September 2005) complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller-Urey experiment.[3]"
 

Dogenzaka

PLATINUM USERNAME WINS
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
17,730
Awards
4
Location
Killing is easy once you forget the taste of sugar
I wouldn't be surprised. Lols.

Discovery Channel says that all the signs that point to Aliens landing in ancient history (crop circles, stone henge, the pyramids, etc.) could mean that they landed and reproduced, meaning we are their children. Lmao.
 

Square Ninja

"special recipe"
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
9,934
Website
www.classicgaming.com
I wouldn't be surprised. Lols.

Discovery Channel says that all the signs that point to Aliens landing in ancient history (crop circles, stone henge, the pyramids, etc.) could mean that they landed and reproduced, meaning we are their children. Lmao.

The only thing I've seen about that is that the organic matter from which we started came from an asteroid that crashed with the Earth. Even then that's a very wild theory.
 

Phoenix

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
13,786
Awards
7
Discovery Channel says that all the signs that point to Aliens landing in ancient history (crop circles, stone henge, the pyramids, etc.) could mean that they landed and reproduced, meaning we are their children. Lmao.

That very same channel showed a couple of dudes making an intricate crop circle in one day. And it also showed how the Pyramids were built. And what's exactly so otherworldly about Stonehenge?
 

KrytenKoro

Bronze Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,056
Location
Over the Rainbow
No one still seems to notice that these genes are produced on Earth, making them quite Terrestrial. Golly, we're blind if we can't figure out that.
1) We all noticed that. A long time ago. I think it was even in the first post.
2) Something can be produced on earth and still have an extraterrestrial origin. Which is what the guy is saying - not that people are made in space and teleported into women who just had sex just because the aliens think it's funny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top