do you believe aliens created us

[Leviathan87]

so do you believe aliens created humans. what are your thoughts on this?

i believe they did.

[DuLake]

First, I have to say congrats on making the least expected post of the week.

Second, I'm going to have to say no, I don't believe aliens created humans. While there is a strong possibility of some form of cellular life somewhere else in the universe, it seems improbable that it would be as evolved, or technology advanced, enough to create humanity. That, and we have enough evidence showing that we evolved on earth that panspermia seems just as ridiculous (to me, anyway) as divine creation. I suppose it's possible, but it would circumvent a lot of evidence we have to the contrary.

I'd certainly love to here your thoughts on the topic though, and how you came to your conclusions.

[Kappuchu]

Aliens couldn't have created humans, because we evolved from monkeys, in the biblical point of view. It is no scientific proof that allien exist nor that they created us.

Take a look here:http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=73902

[† Anras Rune]

I almost died when I read this thread! Brillance!!

I agree with DuLake though. The idea of panspermia (kudos DuLake, you're the first person I know other than me to use it) being the seeding of life throughout the universe is interesting to say the least. But highly unlikely. And the idea of direct manipulation of the human geneome by extraterrestrials, I don't think so. Certain panspermian theorists do suggest though (I can't remember exactly who, but I'll try and find out if you want) that the human evolution was a planned event. That by seeding our planet with life so many years ago, we began a long journey throught our evolutionary path till we arose, after completing our set course. Yet others believe, despite the psuedo science they use, that we were directly influenced by ET every so often throughout our evolution. In fact one of said "scientists" is in Kappuchu's link.

Btw Kapp, that link is brilliant, they are really going at it...^.^

[DuLake]

That's kind of the thing for me. While panspermia is intriguing, and among the vast realm of possibilities, I never understood how it was more logical than any other form of intelligent design. Kind of a fun thought exercise, and a great video game series, but completely unnecessary for life to exist as it does (beside being rife with contradictions and being subject to infinite regress). Perhaps I'm just too cynical, but it seems to me that aliens are just a different kind of god that services the desires of conspiracy theorists as opposed to every other religious patron (and perhaps that's why we see quotes where aliens are considered the inspiration for ancient gods. Like an evolution of religious thought in a way). It's understandable, and if that's what helps you cope with the world that's great, but I'd rather remain a cynical little bugger until I see the evidence.

Also, funny link, Kapp. It's crazy how invested people get in debate like that. So glad people here tend to use better manners than that.

[† Ferocia Coutura]

I never knew that this was a viable theory of Human Formation and Pre-Existence. Well, I guess I'll give a list (as I do looove me some lists!)

Pro-Panspermia:

1.) Clearly its a possibilty, as is anything.

2.) Aliens could have been around long enough to be able to figure out a way to create humans (us). We have no proof of E.T.'s, therefore e have no evidence stating that they haven't existed for Trillions of years.

Anti-Panspermia:

1.) As it is always a possibilty, it is true that nothing can ever be certain. Therefore the opposite should go on this list.

2.) If aliens DID in fact create us, why make there existense soooooo odd and mystifying to us. Logically speaking, aliens would have only created us to either:

A.) Make us slaves/servants/pets.

or B.) Science experiments that they would probably kill off after the experiment is done.

3.) The fact of the matter is, the alien theory is as farfetched as the God Almighty theory. They are very similar (beings greater-than-us create us and live shrouded in mystery even though they created us and for some odd reason choose to do so.) Since I am skeptic of the God Almighty theory, I am also skeptic of the Panspermia Theory that this thread is about.

So, after debating both "sides" of my list, it is clear that in MY terms of logically possible possibilities, I do not believe that we were created by Aliens, because that theory is too similar to God Almighty Theory.

[seirachan]

There is a possibility however the possibility's of our creation are endless. Alien's much smarter then us could have created us. We could have overthrown them or been left here to develop. But we also could have crash landed here while exploring the deep space/gotten lost and it was completely forgotten while the ship is buried not to be found for another 1000 years. Even if it was found someone would claim heredity(dunno how it's spelled but basically treason for claiming that our birthplace is not our own). Maybe we evolved, ect. It really doesn't matter to me

[matak]

lol no way God created humans and the universe, God is the force behind everything in the Universe

[Spacecreepkitan]

I believe that it's possible that we were created by alien life-forms, but not in the form we are in today... I mean it's completely possible that an alien turd rock collided with the earth and formed all life... isn't it ?

[koz221]

i dont know whats going on

[Avith]

i dont know whats going on

FAIL.

... Anyways ...

I do find to be possible as almost anything is. (just as honey_prince stated)

It's logical, but just not beliveable if that makes sense. It's just a gut feeling because I was not around and I am not a super enlightened being there's no way for me to know for certain.

[Bahaha]

Your mum...

created you

As if it was aliens? lololololololo

[DuLake]

I think it should be noted that an absence of negative proof is not proof. That's written kind of tricky, but basically, I'm saying let's not give credibility to aliens because we can't disprove them. Equally, I can't disprove the claim that I've read the entire Webster's dictionary, and that doesn't make it true. It should also be noted that this is flirting with argument ad ignorantium (Argument from ignorance, I don't know otherwise so it must be true).

[Avith]

I think it should be noted that an absence of negative proof is not proof. That's written kind of tricky, but basically, I'm saying let's not give credibility to aliens because we can't disprove them. Equally, I can't disprove the claim that I've read the entire Webster's dictionary, and that doesn't make it true. It should also be noted that this is flirting with argument ad ignorantium (Argument from ignorance, I don't know otherwise so it must be true).

The lack of negative proof, true, does not make it ture. However, if proof does not exsist that disproves an idea then it is still possible no matter how unlikely it may seem to anyone. Possible does not equal true or false, just a possibility that is undeniable.

Every religion, idea, theory, belief,ect. out there has not been proven OR disproven and most of them are very logical and possible. No person has seen how the universe or humans came to be and no person is super enlightened and KNOWS the truth; they can only belive or not belive. That is undeniable, so we throw this idea of alien creation in the bucket of ideas, not absolute truth or falsehood because trying to do that would be impossible. It's a paradox that is so far that can't be solved.

[DuLake]

Avith, I completely agree in the broader idea of it existing as a possibility (as I mentioned once or twice myself). Perhaps I was vague in my post in that, while it is possible, we shouldn't be mistaken into giving it additional credence for lack of negative evidence (though there is negative evidence in this case, we can assume that the argument could be fine tuned to explain it away). I'm not trying to say that it's not possible, rather just reminding that possibility does not give it any merit as an idea. That would require a certain amount of evidence to the positive, and logical dismissal of negative evidence. Two phenomena not exhibited by this currently discussed possibility (panspermia). I just kind of wanted to clarify that this is not to be considered a credible theory based on it's potentiality. I feel like a lot of these sorts of things build a reputation based on that sort of understanding when it's simply a misstep in logic.

Again, you're totally right in what you're saying. I just, perhaps, wasn't entirely clear in my point.

[Avith]

I just kind of wanted to clarify that this is not to be considered a credible theory based on it's potentiality. I feel like a lot of these sorts of things build a reputation based on that sort of understanding when it's simply a misstep in logic.

Oh, I see now. I also agree with you on that statement. The idea of alien creation being credible IS missing (or at least I can't think of anything that would show that is credible). Maybe that's why I have been having the gut feeling of a "no" on the theory for me.

Maybe more people like Naitomeru87 and others who belive in alien creation can share their thoughts on why they DO belive so. Please, I am interested as to why.

[† Anras Rune]

I've just re read this thread again, hm. Panspermia is thrown around alot in the thread now, yet it being used in proper context.

Panspermia is only the seeding of life, the idea that life throughout the Universe is distributed by meteroites, asteroids and planetoids. Meaning, microbial life, extremophiles and the likes. Not roving colonies of space humans that land out of divine providence!...XP

What is being discussed in this thread is more along the lines of Exogenesis (althought the distinction is very blurred) in where life on Earth originated elsewhere and was transferred here. The other is actually a form of the Intelligent Design Theory in which aliens directly manipulated us, instead of God or other deities.

Just clarifying, cause I was getting confused at the mention of PS when re reading...meh.

EDIT: I also want to say something about the idea of other intelligent life. Today's estimates of values for the Drake Equation suggest the probability of intelligent life in a single galaxy like our own Milky Way may be much smaller than once was thought, while the sheer numbers of galaxies in our Universe make it seem inevitable that life has arisen somewhere. According to current theories of physics, space travel over such vast distances would take an incredibly long time to the outside observer, with vast amounts of energy required.

Then we have the Rare Earth Hypothesis, which recognises that the conditions neccesary for intelligent life may be exceedingly rare in the Universe, whereas the components for microbial life may be abundant.

[Leviathan87]

Alcubierre drive ftw. ill post my thoughts soon

[DuLake]

Avith, Yeah, I've found that a lot of things sound okay until you go back to the basics (generally, a list of logical fallacies do the trick). Of course, it's a pain in the ass to memorize fallacies and an even bigger pain to remember to use them. =P

Rune, I apologize for the mistake. To be honest, I wasn't entirely sure of the difference myself and I appreciate the clarification. In this case, I'd suggest Panspermia is unproven but a viable explanation, but doesn't matter much since, if I'm understanding it correctly, it implies that simple life evolved somewhere else and just ended up on earth to finish the job. Just a detour to end at the same point, really. Of course, I still find the, now correctly cited, Exogenesis and Intelligent Design theories to be frivolous.

Good points on space travel and probability as well.

Naitomeru, I'm not really and expert on Alcubierre Drive, but, while it is a cool idea, it's also completely hypothetical. Perhaps we could assume that some sort of faster-than-light travel is possible, but it remains an assumption until it can be more properly evidenced. Again, this reminds me a lot of intelligent design arguments, where people suggest a hypothetical to make the theory work, but, at the end of the day, that doesn't actually prove anything. I don't know, just some thoughts.

Anyways, I'm looking forward to seeing your thoughts in more detail. I don't hear this argued very often so it'll be interesting to see what the theory brings to the table.

[† Anras Rune]

lol, Alcubierre's Drive....its a pipedream in terms of modern physics.

In general relativity, one often first specifies a plausible distribution of matter and energy, and then finds the geometry of the spacetime associated with it; but it is also possible to run the Einstein field equations in the other direction, first specifying a metric and then finding the energy-momentum tensor associated with it, and this is what Alcubierre did in building his metric. This practice means that the solution can violate various energy conditions and require exotic matter. The need for exotic matter leads to questions about whether it is actually possible to find a way to distribute the matter in an initial spacetime which lacks a "warp bubble" in such a way that the bubble will be created at a later time.

Also, to top it off, Sergeui Krashnikov stipulated that warp bubble generation would still be impossible if we can't force the exotic matter to FTL speeds, locally (on flat spacetime, moving relative to other objects) which would require tachyons, yet another hypothesis. Other methods avoiding tacyonic have been proposed, but many would most likely create naked singularities in front of the bubble.

If tachyonic matter cannot be found or used, then a solution might be to arrange for masses along the path of the vessel to be set in motion in such a way that the required field was produced. But in this case, the Alcubierre Drive vessel is not able to go dashing around the galaxy at will. It would be like highways, railroads and such, specific travel routes throughout the galaxy. But this means that the path must be laid first, and this presents the same problem as before. A star 12 LYs away will need to be traveled to by normal relativistic FTL meaning that it would take more than 12 years for the path to be laid. Next imagine stars 100 LYs or 1000 LYs away....implausible.

Alcubierre's Drive is thought to be a infeasible scheme, due to one of the requirements needed to make a Alcubierre Drive, is a Alcubierre Drive. Since none have been proven to exist already then the drive is impossible to construct, even if the metric is physically meaningful. Coule argues that an analogous objection will apply to any proposed method of constructing an Alcubierre Drive.

I love a disscussion that involves physics so keep em coming, especially considering it isnt a well discussed topic, and that Alcubierre's Drive has been mentioned despite the sheer amount speculation needed to make it real....lmao As DuLake said, hypotheticals to prove theories.