Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not aruging that there is no evidence in the historic record of UFO like events, but the 'Chariot of fire' is a Hebrew metaphor, and has to do with the Merkavah tradition of Jewish thinking. You may want to read about it. They weren't literal, they were describing a mystical, spiritual ascention through meditation and ritual to the thrown of God, not a literal physical abduction. That's acknowledged even by the author and the text itself as well as the age old tradition of those that actually authored and understood it, and Hebrew fully.
So yeah, not a great piece of evidence. Lol. There are better out there, but anyone using the Bible has the same burden as a Christian in my view. To study and understand the real translations in the original languages, and the cultural and spiritual context in which those books were written historically.
I'll give you that. One example of this are the words Elohim and Nephilim. My research tells me that Elohim is the plural form of the word God. Nephilim means those that came down from the heavens. Most Christians believe in a singular God and many identify the word Nephilim with the word giants. Trust me, I would love to learn more about the actual Hebrew OT. This (I've been told) contains the real truth about the bible.
I'll give you that. One example of this are the words Elohim and Nephilim. My research tells me that Elohim is the plural form of the word God. Nephilim means those that came down from the heavens. Most Christians believe in a singular God and many identify the word Nephilim with the word giants. Trust me, I would love to learn more about the actual Hebrew OT. This (I've been told) contains the real truth about the bible.
You're not wrong with regards your translation of Elohim and it potentially being a plurality ("those that came from the skies" being one possible translation), but you are still wrong. No I'm not being a jerk, lol, I'm just pointing out the complexity of Hebrew. Lol.
To massively simplify, the Jewish God is an extremely complex entity, and has a multitude of names, expounded by Jewish Kabbala (mysticism), Midrash (oral tradition) and a thousand and one other things to reconcile their MT with their understanding of their very complex God entity. To summarize in very brief (and thus largely innacurate concepts but they're the best I can do on a forum without writing a thesis on the subject), God in essance was an infinite nothingness originally. (Though still aware). This nothingness, based on the term "she-en lo tiklah". (The endless one in Hebrew.) Literally, as it says in Geneiss, "First there was the Word, and the Word was God" God is critically spelled YHWH, the famed tetragrammaton. In essance they literally mean this is the first word, the sound of the big bang, the noise that created everything and if ever pronounced correctly could unmake the universe. It's the noise of God's first thought and his true name, and also him thinking himself into existance. (This sounds ridiculous until you consider that to the Jewish mystic, his language was literally an emination of the divine, ancient Hebrew being more than just symbols, but profound spiritual characters that embew him with the ability to think and reason, thus logically that's what God would have used.) Obviously as he continued to create, and eminate through this creation each of these eminations of the divine had their own name (hense the pentagramaton etc.)
Crucially, the word Adonai is substituted in for the Tetragrammaton because it is not considered right to pronounce it absolutely correctly, or even say it.
So basically what I'm saying is, be extremely careful in using one interpretation of Jewish mystical thinking (sky people, or those who came from the sky or whatever) through a modern lens in interpreting the ancient Hebrew language. To do so accurately and without risk of colouring your perception through a modern lens you really have to understand a great deal of Jewish mystical practices. It's unlikely that anywhere in Hebrew you'll find real reference to 'sky people' or 'those who came from the sky'. It's all much more complicated than that.
I think you'd find more compelling evidence if you turned your eye to some Hindu texts and artwork. Some of that may have more weight.
Try to do some research on ancient alien theories and you will find that most of these "aliens" are said to be human looking beings. Now, if you don't believe that Earth has ever been visited, you will never believe anything but our Earth-centric evolution theory (keep in mind that almost every Earth centric viewpoint in science has been proven wrong; only our Earth-centric biology remains). Mathematically, human looking beings coming here in our past makes more sense than Earth only chemistry. I am sorry you can't see things that way, but I am not going to belittle you for having and sharing your belief (nor will I hint that you are "slow" or "uneducated"). If you don't know, then you just don't know (insults are pointless IMO).
You're assuming I'm ignoring some sort of evidence that should be obvious to me. Feel free to present that whenever you get around to it. And by present it, I mean give references to credible sources instead of just asserting that I'm not listening to something you don't seem able to present in the first place.
Quote:
It all boils down to being willing to hear the other person out (which I have done with you; can you do the same with me). This quote of yours "Making up stories about magical aliens doesn't fix that problem" shows that your mind is completely closed off to such a possibility.
Just because I've considered something and rejected it due to lack of evidence and explanatory power doesn't mean I'm closed minded. Nice try.
Quote:
For many reasons (and none of those reasons are due to a lack of education) I honestly think that human beings share a common ancestor with apes (mainstream science agrees with me on this much). However, being that we only share "a common ancestor" that is very ape-like, I believe there is a more human looking "non-common ancestor" that humans and apes don't share.
First off, humans are apes so what you're saying doesn't make sense as written. Its statements like this which lead people to say you don't know what you're talking about.
But ignoring that, sure, there are lots of human ancestors on the line between our last common ancestor with other apes and humans. They show a gradual accumulation of traits which make humans unique. No need to have sex with ubermesnch space aliens to explain it.
Quote:
This non-common ancestor (in theory) would have bigger brains than humans. This ancestor would have more advanced language and writing. This ancestor would be capable of creating technology that we don't have. This ancestor would be less muscular than us and have less hair.
Lots of speculation here but what's missing is evidence and logic. Are you thinking that the only way to get humans is to mix a chimp-like ancestor with a super-human and get a human with traits somewhere in the middle? If so, you'll have to give us more than just your word.
Quote:
The problem is that no such being exists on Earth. An even bigger problem is that the government seems to cover up all hard evidence (ie, bodies) of such possible beings visiting.
Even with this cover-up
I love the circular thinking here. There's no evidence for anything you're saying, which means it must be true. How do you know it is true? Because the government is covering it up so it must be important. How do you know it's being covered up? Duh, because there's no evidence.
I think it's a lot easier to believe there's no evidence because quite simply it didn't happen that way.
I think you'd find more compelling evidence if you turned your eye to some Hindu texts and artwork. Some of that may have more weight.
I am somewhat familiar with Vedic literature. Their "Gods" had aerial battles in sky ships called Vimanas. These battles almost sounded like modern day airforce warfare. There is an area of India today where it is believed (by some) that a nuclear weapon was used during ancient times.
Anyways, I think the case for ancient alien visitors is quite strong if we look in the right places. I believe all humans are related to the alien visitors. If I am correct, we should be looking for anomalies in our DNA.
Quote:
"Something caused our brains to evolve to be much larger and have more functions than the brains of other mammals." The analysis showed that HAR1 is essentially the same in all mammals except humans. There were just two differences between the versions found in chickens and chimps. However, there were 18 differences between the chimp version and the one found in humans - which scientists say is an incredible amount of change to take place in a few million years.
We have "Gods" mating with us in the past, "UFOs" abducting people in the present, and a gene (responsible for intellect) that evolved "too quickly". The ancient alien theory solves all of these mysteries in ways that creation and conventional evolution theories just can't.
First off, humans are apes so what you're saying doesn't make sense as written. Its statements like this which lead people to say you don't know what you're talking about.
Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today.
Quote:
It is possible that in many millions of years present day apes could evolve into some other humanlike species. It is, however, very improbable. First of all, humans did not evolve from any of the species we know as apes today. At some point 5 to 8 million years ago, the common ancestor of humans and modern apes diverged to form the two separate lineages we know today. The species at the end of these lineages are a result of a very specific combination of selection pressures and genetic mutations over millions of years. This same combination is highly unlikely to occur ever again.
why do you say "unknowable" rather than "unknown?"
We may no someday I think.
For all practical purposes, we are safe in saying that the specific process leading to the origins of life is unknowable. I think it is very unlikely that there is only one way in which life could have possibly originated. Over the coming centuries we will probably come up with many different plausible scenarios, and most likely there will end up being a least a few that are empirically indistinguishable - which is to say, there will be no evidence available now that can isolate exacly which of the plausible scenarios actually took place on earth. And, of course, life could have originated by other means on other planets.
But, of course, the point is that as soon as we have even just one plausible scenario that we can test via computer simulation and via experiments in a lab, one more domino will fall in the chain of claims coming from those who keep saying "there can't be any natural explanation for this, so we have to believe that God did it."
Personally, I'm glad that I'm not in a position of feeling like I have to make such claims as "science can never explain X." The only thing I am willing to place in this category is "Why is there something rather than nothing." And if you define "nothing" in terms of the quantum void, then even this may be a question that science can answer - although then you could ask "But why does the void have this potential?" and there I think you hit the wall in terms of logical/naturalistic explanation. At some point you have to accept some aspects of reality as "simply given". At this point there will always be some room for faith in some sort of God (maybe something roughly like Spinoza's version of God).
A thread by popular demand to allow the 'theory' thread to remain on topic.
My position is it is inarguable to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of biology, genetics, and the tennants of evolution, as well as understanding basic geologic process and fossil examination that evolution remains a sound and almost unquestionable explination for how life has come to take its many forms on this planet.
Evolution is an assumption and has almost no evidence for it's reality. And in fact, fossil evidence is lacking that would show us transional evolution. And as Henry Gee editor for the weekly science magazine Nature has told us. Fossil evidence is unable to support evolutionary narratives. These scenario's can never be tested by experiment and so are unscientific. So based on biology, genetics, ect. What can you offer us that would suggest that evolution really happened?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) I honestly think that human beings share a common ancestor with apes (mainstream science agrees with me on this much). However, being that we only share "a common ancestor" that is very ape-like, I believe there is a more human looking "non-common ancestor" that humans and apes don't share.
