I do not understand the point of how there would be no evidence left. We have discovered fossil records dating back to millions and millons of years, so obviously evidence can last that long. Archaeologists and Palentologists have recovered fossil remains of the reptiles, amphibians and fish that were here before the dinosaurs. If there had been some other form of life we would of found evidence of it.
This whole stupid debate is being perpetrating by people who obvioulsy completely do not understand science or the scientific process. You are arguing against decades of scientific research, experiments and forensics performed by people who have their docorates so they can discover the truth of our pre-history, which they have. I'm sorry but you cannot cook up some scenario in your head, decide you are right even though you have zero evidence to back up your hypothesis and you try to argue it against decades of scientific research. So these researchers, scientists, archaeologists, palentologists, forensic anthropologists, biologists, botanists, geologist, etc are all wrong and you, who obviously has NO understanding of science, doubtfully has the education or experience, are right. You cannot make predictions like this and insist you are right and decades of research and hard-work are wrong when you do not have any evidence to support your claim. There is an abundance of evidence that supports the hypothesis of what was here pre-dinosaur. "Scientific theories are wrong sometimes." Sure they are, but they are not wrong about this. There is so much evidence and it is supported on so many levels by so many different fields of physical science that it is practically fact. Science and the people who perpetrate it have given you almost every luxury you have in your life, TV, phone, car, medicine, electricity, playstation, IPOD, the ability to save your life or your loved ones life, all different forms of energy, the list goes on and on - I can confidently say that I know you take advantage of these things every day and enjoy so perhaps it is time you learn to respect the field it was born out of and respect the process that supports its findings.

How do u know that? GOT PROOF? Nobody knows that for sure....and why did u start a topic that u supposbly already know the answer to? Seems remedial to me....but not a valid answer to the original question of this thread.

Exactly...

This is a hypothesis. I am sorry. I accept that this not a theory. Yes we have discoverd fossil records. There could be more fossils which are undiscovered.



What kind of stupid logic is this?
The evidence we have did not pop up at one point in time. Archaeologists, palentologists, forensic anthropologists, biologists, botanists, geologist, etc may come up with new theories based on future discoveries. There is no evidence that the sasquatch exists. If we capture sasquatch scientist may find that sasquatch had been around long before man or the dinosaurs. Who knows how many more specie like the sasquatch exist? And who knows what the nessy really is?



I did not say I am right. I said I could be right. I could be wrong. Decades of scientific research is based on the evidence we have. New evidence can be found even in the future.



And are you trying to suggest that you have the education to conclude researchers, scientists, archaeologists, palentologists, forensic anthropologists, biologists, botanists, geologist are all absolutely right?
We all know scientists have been wrong in the past. Education is a privliege that most of us have. And your area of education may not be relevant to researchers, archaeologists, palentologists, forensic anthropologists, biologists, botanists, geologist etc but yet you act like Science is your firstname, Education is your last. There is no end to education. Get more education and loose your arrogance.

The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think - rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than to load the memory with thoughts of other men-Bill Beattie

Nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts-Henry B. Adams



I mentioned in my other posts that I am not aganist science. Scientists can be wrong sometimes. I am mearly saying we shouldn't close our minds to new ideas. New evidence maybe found to support other theories of evolution or to support any hypothesis. We are mainly focused on evolution of species here. Read my post before you react like someone shoved loads of cilli down your throat. Bloody sh** heads who can't think beyond what they are fed make me feel like I going into a coma. If the most gifted scientists had conformed to the accepted theories prevalent in their time there would have been people like you preaching a new gospel of bullshi*.

Of course I have investigated it!! Why don't you!!
People far more converse than you and I tied together anf folded over have researched and published findings on the field of research. Read it. As you correcty stated, Science is systematic study, and is changed as new findings become available.
You have assumed science is wrong, when the reality is that Science knows the facts far better than you do, they work at it all day, every day. You hypothesise on this board. I would call that claiming all the facts (getting irate at anyone not agreeing with this silly theory) and underestimating others (men of science and the factual data they gather). By your own definition, you are being childish.



I'll just go with the first sentance here

As you responded to both my posts, I'll take that as a compliment Thank you

Blame game? I just tried to point out how silly your theory was before you went before your friends and made an ass of yourself....too late I see. Crazy of me to think that you might consider fact and recant your "theory" in the face of common sense.



Kid, ROFL, because I disagree with your silly idea?
Do you think your actions here are humble??
Do you think If I threw all the fact I have studied out of the window to agree with you that I would be humble?
To argue your theory against known fact is arrogant, surely you can see that?



Ohh,, mighty one filled with humbleness and tolerance...........
Get a life, mate is what we Oz naitives call each other, collegues, partners, frieinds "down under". Expand your horizons. Never seen Crocodile Dundee?

Don't participate? LOL Make me
The posts of people proving you wrong have valuable information, as it is information, not a personal idea.
Is this not a public place? Do we not need to tolerate each other in such an environment?



Sensibility? Try fact. Somethng you despise for some reason.
Fact discounts your theory immediately.
I suppose you do not think it ridiculous to think the world's elephant population will turn purple at the stroke of midnight? Well, according to wat we know of the earth's history from strata and fossil record, I would say that theory is as valid as yours.



What you are attempting to outline is extremophiles.
Of course I question every fact I read, I consut multiple sources. You should try it instead of being insulting.
If I was rude in the first instance at all, it is because someone offered you good information on C14 dating. You refuted the evidence without a second glance and tried to use it as evidence of your musings. I find it the pinnacle of arrogance to have valuable information like that brushed aside for your idea.
I can discuss topics, how would you know if I am tight arsed, and what does that have to do with a debate?
Name calling, and you are calling me childish. Sheeesh.



Well, at least I listen to people with knowledge and am capable of seperating fact from some idea in my head that I want to be true so I feel good.
If the human race followed ideas like yours, we would be extinct by now.

Gotta love this quote



K...



Shame you do not seem to be able to!! Take a page out of your own book.

Not quite, Navigator called me crazy, I am a Billy fan too. Seen him live more than once, and strummed that very tune to many on more than one occassion. Trully sad was his passing. He was a great musician.

Yes, metals rust and corrode, when exposed to oxygen. The banded iron formations date three thousand million years before present. Interesting fact on them - The total amount of oxygen locked up in the banded iron beds is estimated to be perhaps twenty times the volume of oxygen present in the modern atmosphere.

Electronics on earth are made of carbon and or silica amongst many other things, which I know would leave traces. Would a hypothetical race use another resource? Common sense says unlikely, as the substances I mentioned are the ones available on earth and are used to conduct electrical charges.
Footprints have been fossilised. Why do you think all traces of a civilisation would be lost? What would I expect to find? A fossilised skeleton, technology, a structure, anything, something. Not absolutely nothing. We know that a planet crashed into the earth 4 billion years ago - the evidence lies right under your feet. Now that we can enter space for a better perspective, wew can see that a large meteorite slammed into the Yuccatan peninsua. Our history is unfolding, all we have to do is keep up with the good work offeredby these dedicated individuals. They may be wrong from time to time, but do you honestly think this theory is more plausible? Is science guesswork?. No. It is not published as fact untill proven. Theories may be wrong, that's why they remain theory, to let the rest of the world know it is not a given, and that your input is welcomed.

Digging up the entire continent of Australia is not necessary. We have fossilised relics from the begining of the earth. Why would an entire race reman hidden, but other fossils not? Would you dig up all of Australia for such a fruitless quest? Would you drain the Loch to see if Nessie was there?
No. That's because somethings are woth pusing, even a wild idea, however there is a large difference between being thorough and just wasting time.

Remember, if you stop to think, don't forget to start again (One of my fav sayings ) And by the way, thanks for your neutral offering I am always far easier to get along with when peole will offer debate over wild theory and insult

Ok sir. I will get a life and just what are you doing in this forum?

Pathetic product of thrash that was dumped without consideration for Aborgines. What a waste of a beautiful piece of land.

Good, you need one. Look for a personality while you are at it.

What am I doing in this forum. Debating, learning, sharing views. What are you doing? Forcing your ideas as fact on people then attacking them without meaning when they do not agree. How dare one have an opinion when you are around!

More insults huh? My origins are not British my small minded aqaintance. Perhaps you could do with brushing up on history in addition to science and reality. How do you know I am not an indigenous Australian for that matter. I guess once again you are demonstrating the amount of forethought you put into an idea.

I am certainly amazed we agree on one thing, yes, what a waste of land. How man can ruin resources bacause of stupid ideas. Perhaps they should have sent scientists to do a study on the impacts rather than go with the first stupid idea in their heads?
I see you do not list your country, are you one of the pathetic pieces of crap that made the desicion to destroy this fine land? Perhaps you decend from the idiot who introduced Cane Toads? Imagine how different things may have been in this country's great history if forethought coupled with fact was used to make these desicions? The country is under threat from stupid ideas. We have had enough of them thanks, try them out on yourslves in your own backyard.

Great! you sound like the pommy attitude has rubbed off on you. With that kind of attitude you deserve more insults. Anyway I forgive you Have fun mate.

Glad to see your cultural boundaries have been broadened. You understand the meaning of "Mate" now.

See. It wasn't all that hard to learn something Try it with science

How do you figure the pommy attitude has rubbed of on me, and how does that comment indicate that? More of you reasoning I guess Some of my good friends are pommies. They would love to meet you.

Deserve insults do I, for disagreeing with you. Nice to know you forgive me. I feel sooooo much better now.

Well I have heard the word "Mate" everyday and I am tired of people mispronouncing it. Anyway you seem to be making a lot of assumptions but because you sound like a child I am going to ignore it. However this discussion with you is turning out to be frustratingly boring. I don't have the time to explain basic logic to individuals who lack the ability to see from other peoples perspective. First, patience is a virtue which you don't seem to have. Second, you started off making rude comments because you thought my post made no sense to you. And third, you are stuck to your ideas because you seem to think you know it all. If you think you know it before you have learned it you will never learn. Science is nothing but a systematic study. Don't hold on to it like it is a religion. There are different areas of science which are not accurate. Try to get over the school kid mentality.

I would love to meet your pommie friends if they are hot chicks. If they are guys forget it. I am tired of the ones I know. You are the one who lives in a gay paradise. Enjoy them mite!

Thank you for your post. I try to be neutral as offence, insults and pushing opinions I find gets us all no where. I like to learn and debate too without all the other crap invading my life so.......I have followed evolution since the age of about 13 when I just could not take another minute of listening to religion in school and my mind was exploding into little pieces hearing about God and the Bible. I do have many books on evolution and many other aspects of science, in fact I was rereading some last night just to get a bit more informed on what science is actually saying. One book I was browsing was The Last Neanderthal - the Rise, Success and Mysterious Extinction of our Closest Human Relatives and much of the book was very detailed but also contained these words alot, "may have", "assume", "would appear", "seems likely".you get the picture? Now these guys were around up until 30,000 years ago and were not at all like the pictures portrayed of them, caveman type pictures of unintelligent brutish humans who died out when more intelligent homo sapiens came along. But the real story is it is a mystery of why they died out. It is sometime pointed out that the end of the Ice Age contributed to their demise but none of this is an actual fact. Once again it 'appears' as if this was the case. Also it is thought but not really proven that the Chicuxulub meteorite was responsible for the dinosaur extinction, it's known that the final extinction did not come until 100,000 years after it occured, not like bang it hit and then no more dinosaurs and thats from another book I have called The Atlas of the Prehistoric World. I guess my point here is that many assumptions are made on what did and did not happen that get intermingled with what really happened, also much is pure speculation, hence the 'mights', 'seems' and so forth. No one can tell us how the Aboriginals acually got to Australia, they can assume but in another of my books Archaeology of the Dreamtime it is just not known, all speculation. In the Neanderthal book an interesting sentence pops up that says (after they have come to a conclusion), "but some advanced form of boatmaking must have been present in this time as the Aboriginals would have had to sail 60 miles of open seas to reach Australia," keeping in mind that there is evidence of Aboriginals being in Australia near 50,000 years, when Neanderthals were present and at a time of no known advanced civilisations. The other interesting thing is at that time 50,000 years ago Cave paintings were mainly limited to Europe well known ones being in France and Spain. Now, I believe cave paintings are a strong feature of aboriginals so that they came from Asia makes no sense at all to me. They are completely nomadic peoples, even now they go 'walkabout' whenever the urge overcomes them. I live amongst Aboriginals up here in Far Nth Queensland and I find them quite an enigma. The Aboriginals provide much conflicting information that science cannot answer. Skeletons found here around Lake Mungo show that the graciles were present before the archaic type, now this to me is a big problem as most people and scientists agree we developed into gracile after archaic. These small details might seem insignificant but they do point out that much is still unknown in science and much is also speculation about what "may" have occurred. I am not some idiot who have come up with my ideas willy-nilly. I have genuine questions and do not think science does always know what it claims to know. If it is so cut and dried, where are the answers? How did the Neanderthals die out? How did the Aboriginals get to Australia? Why are there graciles before archaics? I get alot of the reasoning behind evolution, it is close to my heart and I do believe we have certainly evolved over time as have animals but as far as having all the answers I don't think we do have them. Only recently have I questioned evolution and not evolution as such but creation of life, that is, where did DNA come from? I do not think it was God that made us all and there is no scientific fact that it just popped up out of no where, and I have read much on how single celled creatures that did contain genetic material appeared in the oceans given the right conditions but I do however entertain the thought that it came from somwewhere else, either possibly by meteor or by another alien race putting it here. Now if I say that I have to then ask myself how did the life form get on the meteor to which my answer would be from life in the Universe elsewhere than Earth, which in turn can then mean there is life forms in our Universe or was, that we are evolved from. Hence we are derived from an alien source. Now whether they appeared here on Earth as alien beings or the life force did come from the Big Bang is really anyones guess and I don't think they would use metals and other things that are known to us, see, common sense says to me that they must have completely different metals to what we know, if they can breathe air that is not like ours and have much advanced technology I believe they have many different factors from us, so maybe we are just not finding evidence because we are not seeing it, they say that you cannot recognise things if you don't recognise them and I believe this could be a factor in why we have not found the evidence yet, and I thank you for giving me an answer to that question also. Thier are many scientific anomolies that could point to evidence of aliens but they are often written off as hoaxs and such leading us to believe they are of no scientific worth. OK, I think I've raved on enough for now.

if your saying they were created here then they wouldnt be extra terrestrial life forms

When I posted the question I was hoping to get insight like this. Unfortunately some people found my stament about scientists offensive. I have read many articles and I have asked myself the same questions. I don't remember every detail of what I have read but it seems obvious that a big piece of the puzzle is missing when it comes to evolution. Just one look at the picture of our galaxy convinces me that we live in a almost magical place. There are many questions that science cannot conclusively answer at this time. We may get answer to these questions in the future from science.

The reason I asked this quesion is because I have had paranormal experiences which have convinenced me that there are forces we can't see. I have seen UFO's. I was able to change my life inside out by having faith. After all the expericnes I had, I couldn't help wondering what would happen to us if evolution finally perfects our sixth sense. I wonder if an advanced species existed before humans. I'll explain what's on my mind. Imagine a species which looks little similar to humans. It does not have a very well developed body but it is thousand times intelligent than humans. It has the ability to communicate telepathically. It has power over matter. It has the ability to communicate with unseen forces which we call sprits. A species that can(found a way to) traverse between realms that we see and realms that we don't. A species that was too intelligent to be stuck on this planet or in one dimension.

Well just think about big foot and the little creatures with UFOs. How can big foot be so elusive if it is not intelligent?

Why do they want to hide from us?

Are they keeping some kind of secret?

Have they been involved in changing history?

If they showed themselves to the Mayans and the Egyptians why can't they show themselves to us?

Could they be species that evolved from the same planet?

Yes it is possible that a "highly intelligent" life form existed on earth millions of years before us.

But as many people have pointed out there is very little evidence to support this idea, however there are some people that search the planet for anomalous materials and objects and some examples of these materials and objects have been uncovered, one example you could find if your inclined to Google is the ancient Radio Active rocks found in India, nothing odd there I hear you say as radiation has existed since the dawn of time but these rocks that were found were impregnated by a nuclear fusion type of radiation what should not have existed at that time in history….. odd

No, I see you do not tackle the subject willy nilly. Well said.

I guess the reason they have to fill published information with so many maybe's is that they can only speculate on the information we currently have. Clowns like the OP of this thread make sure that science does not get ahead of itself, and keeps assumptions just that until there is no shadow of doubt.Nobody was there, however, these people dedicate their whole lives to this cause. Still, people with oversized egos will think their musings hold more merit than the many years of meticulous study passed from generation to generation for our benefit. That sort of dedication deserves repsect from the general community, not continuously questioning every find with dumb ideas, that's why I entered I guess, you see someone trying to help another, only to see it rudely thrown aside as if the real information is of little value. Realistically, the information is freely available. If you want to start some theory, one should look up what information is available and see just what is plausible first. This sort of whacky theory cannot have any merit when one knows even the most basic outline of Earth's geology.
An interesting fact is that if you were to pile every homnid fossil ever found, you would barely fill the back of one pick up truck.
As such, I am sure you can appreciate that a great deal of study collaborated amongst many well versed individuals combining their knowledge to give us the best interpretation from the few fossils found to interpret anthropology as well as they have. I think it wrong, and darn rude, for amatuers to question their findings without a little forethought. Surely it is obvious that they see a far larger picture than we possibly can?

I too find the Neandertal an enigma, as most of science does. To me, the idea that Neandertal was bred out makes the most sense. I know the popular theory is that we outsmarted them, but that sounds like the victor writing the history a little. The theory that we inherit the back of your skull, and jawline via assimilation is very sound to me. The red hair gene is an interesting hypothesis as well.

It is believed that first human migration to Australia was when this landmass formed part of the Sahul continent, connected to the island of New Guinea via a land bridge. That would not require boats. Also a similar depiction as to how the Island of Flores was populated. The painting issue does not seem that strange to me, the peoples seperated, why not the cultures? Do you know any of the indig up there? Talk to them if you can, I am related by marriage to the local indigenous people here. They have some quite amazing insights that the cultural gap just cannot breach.
Early Australians had quite a trade with the Malay fishermen, who traveresed the sea regularly to fish the northern sea cucumbers (I think that was the main basis for trade, I could be wrong as I am relying on memory here). Still, it seems across sea trade was not as difficult as we might have imagined.
Your information seems to be out of date. It has been known for some time that sapiens and Neandertals existed together, they would certainly be around at the time of the indigenous Australians. In fact, during the history of the earth, more than one spaien roamed at the same time. We do not know if they got along or ate each other, we do know they existed at the same time. Some evidence of defleshing has been found in the Neandertal camp. Ritual death or canabilism? It's another unknown. To speculate on or the other might be wong, so science has to give one of those maybe's you detest. How else can they do it? Yet as you can see, a wide scope with much information is available.
Rather than a human "relay" think of a human "malay". Graciles and archaics are known to overlapped.
To say that we are of alien origin going back as far as the big bang, well that's not out there, but as everything developed on this earth, I would think that takes the alien compnent out of it? After all, Theia crashed into earth and made the moon. Two planets colliding, as such your theory has basis for merit you see. This is trully an unknown, and worthy of theoretical discussions. However, by the same token, intelligent civilisations would have had to of consisted of cyanobacteria due to the state of the earth at the proposed time. You mentioned not breathing air, appropriate as early earth had quite a different composition in it's atmosphere as to what we enjoy today. Why do you think that an earlier civilisation would not use resources from earth? That would make constructions or repairs near impossible. I don't think it would be economically viable to use a substance that is not available locally, especially when talking Galactic distances. If you break a part, you need to be able to reproduce it without having to travel to Alpha Centauri, if you know what I mean. The theory you talk of sounds more like an ET ancient visit rather than an early pre-dinosauria civilisation. This ideal is at least is plausible, even if no evidence exists, after all, imagine our system stablisised a mere million years earlier, as many systems have. How advanced do you think the human race might be in one million years given the curent rate of development? If traversing vast distances in space is indeed a possibility, then it is not ridiculous we may master it in another million years. After all, traversing such distances is also only a theory for beings with our life span.
I would be interested to know what your take on the Miller-Urey experiment or Abiogenesis, or the endosymbiont theory? Do any of these theories hold merit for you?
I enjoyed your rave, please do so again I do hope you have found mine interesting at the very least.

PS, Darn it, I meant to include this link for you, the latest theory is that dinosaurs died out withing hours of the KT event. Here is one of the published theories. I am interested to know your thoughts.

Cut out the personal attacks and stick to the topic of the thread. Debate the topic, don't attack the poster.

Navigator, some of your comments are completely out of line and I have deleted your most recent response. I suggest you tone things down a little if you wish to keep things from getting further out of hand. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself again with the Forum Rules (click the link on the top of the page) concerning your behaviour towards other members. Thank you,

~ PA

Yes, psyche101, I do have lots to say on abiogenesis and will comment on the Miller-Urey experiments and endosymbiont theory and will reply more to your post also tonight when I have more time and I shall also check the link you gave, I enjoyed your 'rave' also, thanks.

Very good points Navigator, I am out of time now but do want to comment more on them, I will be back tonight to answer your post.

I am leaving this thread. This pathetic pain in the asss turned out to be a virus in the thread. For all of you who gave a valuable insight into the topic. Thank you.

Gee, you sure get mad when someone does not agree with you don't you.

Are insults the only form of debate you can offer? Why can't you put forward a valid argument toward the points I raised? Calling someone names does not make your ideas right.

Bye.

I have reread your post and I think what you say makes sense in many ways. I have just kept in parts that I want to make comment on in my next post, I'm still not sure how to put each part into the quote boxes seperately. Before I do that though bear with me here as I think it would interest you to know that I was debating exactly basically what you are saying a few months ago until I was convinced by many things that maybe I didn't know as much as I thought I knew, it includes the Miller-Urey experiments and such, this is some of my posts in the Evolution thread still going but dates back to April 17th, you should even browse it totally as it's pretty full on in this the area of origin of life.
I said:
Evolutionists don't necessarily believe the big bang theory, it has nothing to do with evolution actually. Evolution started when conditions changed to be able to support life which started in the sea as microscopic, single celled organisms, called simple organisms, they are not complex, but they contained genetic material. Just because we can't recreate this process in a science lab does not mean it could not have happened, humans give themselves way to much credit, we are talking 4 billion years ago. I'm sure you will bleat about biogenesis but minerals were leaching from the Earths magma and there could have been an organism in there somewhere. Some of the criteria for making these organisms may not be around any more. It proves squat that it could not happen. Anyway proving an organism is not my specialty. It is one thing we may not know but does not mean it couldn't have happened. Cyanobacteria and chlorophyll is central to creation, once photosynthesis started making oxygen the stage was set for major evolutionary development. Stromatolites are relics of a special type of cyanobacteria that converted sunlight to chlorophyll thus reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this process went on for another 2 billion years, only after that were conditions right for more complex life forms. Stromatolites are the oldest evidence of life on earth yet. Then it was only plants for another 2 billion years and they were only in the oceans. Protistans which appeared 1,200 million years ago are the successor to simple organisms, they were the complex organisms, some protistans used photosynthesis to provide food so they could be plants but some ate these plants so they could be considered animals. Once land plants such as Cooksonia took hold and created more oxygen and the ozone layer evolution exploded.

Then I said:
Creationists blow my mind, how could you possibly choose to believe some God who we can't even define somehow created everything including us? How did he do this? Wave his magic hand and go 'voila' a flea, 'voila' a palm tree, 'voila' a human?

To which Fearisgood replied:
Are you appealing to an unknown science? Present observation of chemistry and biochemistry show that the formation of even the simplest cell present is not possible through natural means. You are going to have to start to appeal to unobserved organisms somewhere in the past and believe it is true. Just not science is it now...
Oh well, might as well say Evolutionists blow my mind, how could you possibly choose to believe some time somewhere, somehow an unknown mechanism gave rise to an unknown organism we can't define, and then everything living we observe today arose from that unknown entity? How did it happen, time a lot of luck? Was there a magic mechanism that is unobservable today, whereby this magical mechanism randomly waved its workings and 'voila' an incredibly complex cell, now go forth and mutate into all the complex organisms we observe today. Instead of trying to say Creationism is not science, show some evidence that abiogenesis did occur or concede that no theory on the origins of life is actually a science.

Then I said:
I'm interested in this as a follower of evolution not because I'm trying to disprove you, nor do I care if its science or not. Charles Darwin wrote: "if we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammoniac and phosphoric salts, light, heat and electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." And from my book on Space: In 1953 2 American chemists Miller and Urey tried to simulate some of the features of this ancient environment and by the end of the experiment they had a deep red solution, rich in large organic molecules including amino acids, the basic building blocks of life. A biologist working for NASA succeeded in synthesizing the basic ingredients of the DNA molecule. Scientists agree that after millions of years a particular configuration of molecules emerged that was able to replicate itself. Still more molecules appeared with growing numbers of the attributes we now associate with living matter. Ultimately the first tiny living thing formed out of countless successive synthesis of other molecules. Its progeny will have included slight mutations, different types of living organism which if successful in the battle for survival spawned others of its own kind. The 4000 million year story of evolution, which culminated in the emergence of mankind, had finally begun.
These are explanations that interpret the beginnings of 'life as we know it'. Besides sounds like science to me, but what do I know.........

Fearisgood replied:
"The Miller-Urey only proved that some of the amino acids can be formed naturally under reducing conditions. Cysteiene is an amino acid where there is no natural mechanism of formation. This alone poses huge problems."

So, I know I'm getting a bit off track but I'm leading up to you asking me about the Miller-Urey experiments and biogenesis and abiogenesis. I just wanted to provide you with that information so you could see I was a complete evolutionist trying to tell someone how I believed a multi celled organism could appear and there was proof of it but as you can see I was put in my place by Fear who disputes what I have said and on following up what he says it appears he could have been correct. Which then got me studying some more and thinking about it all over from start again, I then decided maybe my views were incorrect and it could be a possibility that DNA multi celled organisms could not have appeared spontaneously. It wasn't just Fear than put this in my head either but many different sources but it was his that made me stop and think a bit more.
I do believe the Miller-Urey experiments have alot of credibility but if Fear is correct with his cysteiene 'fact' it means that this has a big question mark over it's head to begin with. Then when Ponnamperuma used techniques similar to those pioneered by Miller and Urey and succeeded in synthesising the basic ingredients of the DNA molecule I have to wonder if it was all a legitimate process that would have worked in the conditions that were present when life originated. It does make sense to me but doesn't if you know what I mean.
Abiogenesis is unproven. I used the Miller Urey experiments to illustrate that it could but all they showed really was that amino acids can be synthesized from carbon atoms if the right early earth conditions were there. Amino acids are not life, but the building blocks of life. It's all very technical really and to be honest I'm still unsure of my stance on it. I thought viruses may have been an answer but apparently they lack cells too. I'll quit on the Miller-Urey and biogenesis now but that's basically my overall views on it all. I'm not very informed about the endosymbiont theory, in fact I'm just getting my head around it recently so I think I will save my comments on that one for another time. I'll go back to your post and comment on some other stuff you wrote.

Firstly Neanderthals, I may have been misleading in what I wrote as I am aware they co existed with homo sapiens. I also have a theory that possibly Pleistocene Aboriginals could have been interbred with Neanderthals as there is no concrete proof that homo sapien and homo neanderthalensis were different species apart from their physical differences, but it is assumed they were and that that put an end to the idea of interbreeding. You say interbreeding could have been a factor and so I could also say that interbreeding occured even though my book states that it was highy unlikely IF they were of different species (which they don't exactly know). The only known difference were anatomical but if they could have interbred it opens up lots of doors. Also apparently they could not have walked across at the time stated they arrived here. It is not a possibility according to all my sources. In fact you should buy yourself a copy of Archaeology of the Dreamtime by Josephine Flood, from 1995 by A&Robertson especially if you have an interest in Aboriginals, it is very detailed and so interesting. By the way I don't detest maybe's lol, I just think it leaves opportunity for more exploration.
Now onto aliens and the topic of the thread. I am mixing 2 ideas here and you are correct to assume that, I was getting off track there, as you know I say that we could have sprung up from alien DNA left behind from a meteor colliding with Earth but my main debate here was that aliens could have been here before dinosaurs. I really don't have any proof or cannot fit it into the scheme of what we know but basically what I was saying is that we don't REALLY know. Now here comes the part where you can write me off totally and think I am totally insane or go with me on it to see where I am coming from. Firstly I am not Raelian but I have read Intelligent Design and other Rael books and think their ideas and issues do have a place in our world. Now according to Rael the Elohim told him they chose earth as a suitable place to test out genetic experiments when they were sent from their own planet for getting out of line with this technique and threatening the stability of the planet Elohim. Now think Lilo and Stitch (if you have seen it) where genetic scientist is banished from home planet for making Stitch who is seen as a threat as he is too intelligent and dangerous to them and has no place there. So basically if you take that scenario and place it in the time before any life was here you can see if alien people were capable of this they could create any amount of genetic designs and cover the planet with them. This is why Raelians believe the future is in cloning and genetics because it ties in with their story of creation. The cloning is to achieve a nevr ending life that enables them to become even more intelligent each time so reaching the level of intelligence required to do this sort of stuff. We cannot even comprehend it really but it is a doable thing if you think about it enough. So the Elohim came, made genetic experiments, not just animals, but plants and flowers also. Now these have evolved over time since this happened of course and we have such a diverse range now but it could have started with a smaller amount of plants and animals. So dinosaurs were a genetic experiment also. Now dragons have been mentioned for many eons and these were actually dinosaurs before we named them dino-saurs in the 1800's. In the Bible (eek) it can be interpretated as a record of the aliens and dinosaurs interacting with us, if you substitute the word God for alien or Elohim and Nephilim were the interbred race. I am the last person to want to believe any Bible story but I always wondered how it was that it was done, how could anyone just make up stories like that, ancient cultures refer to Gods all the time, i couldn't just brush it under the table but at the same time believe what it said. raelian belief is an atheist belief but you can see how the aliens could have been confused with Gods if you read Raels version of how the Elohim explain the Bible and the advanced technology in it that abounds and miraculous things. Then the dinosaurs became extinct, OK, a meteor perhaps, or what about the Flood mentioned in the Bible, this was when the Elohim realised that they had made much that was not what they had hoped for and Noah built his ark excluding any dinosaurs except for some and it was not animals in animal form that he took, it was simply DNA so the Elohim could clone it and keep the animals and plants it felt were worthy of keeping. The aliens gave Noah precise instructions for building the ark also as it was actually a type of craft that didn't sit on the water but "rose above the Earth" it states this in the Bible just as it states much else that can link with this whole scenario I am giving you. Now this all can fit into evolution as well except some parts, dates and others that may not be correct. I am not a religious person at all and do not take the Bible literally but if I do read it like I am stating I can see it all makes sense to me. I have one here that I reference. I don't have all the answers but am tryng to come to some conclusions, I understand if you think these ideas are crazy and don't make any sense but I think they do. Flooding would have followed a meteor hit. If you open your mind enough it can work in. Basically I am trying to try and make it all fit together showing respect for what many believe,evolution, peoples views of what God is, UFOs and the Bible as well as fitting it al in the scheme of what we know and don't know, I'm sorry I'm not so clear cut in my thoughts but thats why I'm not, I am just working out how what people beleive can all fit together to complete the jigsaw puzzle. Is anyone really wrong or is it just we need to sort out where everyones beliefs fit together? If I believe what I have just stated I can accept that aliens were here before dinosaurs hence I can see that intelligent life was indeed here before dinosaurs. I'm not saying I believe all this either just trying to put it into some form of context.
So thats how I come to my conclusions of these matters, that's enough for me just now, forgive me once again for raving on but I find it all very fascinating and hope you enjoy my thoughts once more. (Gosh and I still havent got the the KT link yet)

I'll start with the Neandertal as well

Looks like we will have our questions answered very soon.



Having so much in comon it is hard to believe they did not interbreed. I will follow these results closely. By the sounds of things, we could have even shared a common language. I have always favoured the red hair gene theory

I wil have a look for Archaeology of the Dreamtime. As I mentioned, I am related on more than one branch, I think I know a few people who would want to read this book. Thanks for the tip

Now, I believe that my take on the first post would be the same as my take on the second post.

Mostly my debate consists of the old adage, the chicken and the egg.

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. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed. 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.

Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the orignal Miller-Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.



All in all, pretty convincing. I understand that there is two sides to every story, but the fossil record does not tell two sides, it tell's one. It is easy to see the eventual development of Haikouichthys to Cephalaspis then via lobe fins to Hynerpeton to finally leave the briny environment for land. As long as people want to doubt this process they will be successfull with the weak argument of, you weren't there. I take the record as far better proof than a "you weren't there" argument. To me, it seems the relatively small size of the gaps is irrelevant. One can easily see the big picture if you step back and take in the perspective of the similaraties between these species.

I cannot say I share your confidence in Raelians. Just the concept is contradictory? Correct me if I am wrong, but do they not contact the alien Elohim? And Elohim is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity? That is confusing enough alone considering they herald themselves as proud athiests. Looking at the whole concept it appears to be that they feel they are contacting a higher being. It all sounds a little familiar don't you think? Is there a great deal of difference as to what Raelians believe and as to what the Catholic Church teaches? The basic prinicpals seem to have a great deal in comon, it just seem to interpret the Bible i a Sci-Fi way. If I remember correctly, the God given food manna appears in both beliefs. What is the big difference between the proposed heaven and the planet of eternals? It more sounds to me like someone attempting to make religion "cool", or more likely, profitable. In fact, it sounds a fair bit like scientology. And if you buy into those beliefs, that is just nuts. No offense intended but I have a bee in my bonnet about those people (scientologists), and more so the famous people promoting it so they have an endless supply of slaves. It seems more than a coincidence that these space religions are all founded by writers. One of which even stated, if a man wants to get rich, starting his own religion is the way to do it. Yet still millions follow the writings of a science fiction journalist. I dunno, to me it is just so plain to see that these religions offer no more than profits for the founders. In some cases, they offer genocide as it ended in Johanesburg. Those people all thought they were going to hop into a gleaming spaceship and head of into the Milky Way for eternal happiness. Drinking Cyanide did not do that for them no matter how much the believed.

Now what I think is the biggest stumbling block in the alien or creationist theory is which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Creationists will say the almighty has always existed, and there is a pretty weak back door for them, but were does this leave Raelians? How did this race develop? Did they not undergo evolution? We are assuming they are simply a more advanced form of life.
Speaking of creationists, how on earth could such a diverse number of creatures exist when the fossil record clearly show the demise and rise of species. Regardless of the very likely process of evolution, take that all away, and why were Kangaroos 4 times larger and carnivores at one time? What happened to all the monster Wombats? How is it modern animals do not show up in deep buried layers of rock but dinosaurs do? How can the reign of animals shift? How the heck did they get not one but two Titanosaurs on the ark????? That ark must have been bigger than the Red Dwarf!!!! And this is only a fraction of the questions I have for creationists. Now this may be suprising but I am actually a religious person and believe in God - note I didn't say creation, God . I firmly believe the two can exists side by side in harmony with a little understanding, but this is neither the time nor place for a discussion like that so I will look forward to your response.

Still, I ask was it the chicken or the egg? In evolutionist theory it is the egg, in creationist theory it is the chicken. To me it makes more sense the egg formed first.

Good points and as far as origin of life, I still agree with my originial thoughts that it all could have occurred in an evolutional way but have really just broadened my horizons on the basis it is just a hypothesis. I think the Miller-Urey experiments showed that it could happen but once again amino acids are not life so I hesitate to state an absolute on anything really in general. As you say DNA has not been synthesised but I am open to the possibility it did happen in the way thought to. I will admit it is all a bit complicated for me to fully understand. I'd like to point out that I do think evolution of animals and plants has happened in the course of life as we know it and I appreciate how hard it is to replicate things when the atmosphere and such was completely different. Evolution is bound to occur naturally in any state simply because of the changing environments that the Earth has gone through in it's lifetime. I can also entertain the thought that life did pop up like this and then the aliens came after that as I think it highly unlikely that they would have come here if the Earth had absolutely nothing here so I am placing alien intervention between evolutionists view of origin of life via the 'warm pond' as mentioned by Darwin but before the evolution of dinosaurs from amphibians. You may notice I contradict myself sometimes but it's simply because I'm so unsure of things and have many thoughts in my head going on, I have no real set in stone belief but a multitude of many I am trying to decipher and place in accordance with what I feel could have happened. Can you imagine what a human will evolve into given the same time amphibians evolved into mammals? Mind bending stuff. The chicken or the egg? Hmmmm well if life cannot come from non life I'd say it does need something to make it but if the warm little pond can be seen as the chicken....

When I first wrote I think intelligent life came before dinosaurs I placed many of my ideas into this and looked to see how I could compromise them into my answer. By intelligent life I guess it is referring to humans but intelligent life could be many things, dinosaurs from what I have read were not overly intelligent anyway so I could say yes and be meaning smaller reptiles before them, quite intelligent creatures some small reptiles but I am referring to a human form or could it be an alien form, see what I mean, definition is very hard for me as too much comes into the equation, my mind thinks not in black and white but many shades of grey. What I thought yesterday can be different from what I think today depending on new information I have. Anyways...........
I am very interested in the link about Neanderthal DNA, thanks for that, I will keep updated on that one for sure. From what I know also unless a species has 100% DNA offspring won't be able to reproduce, but I have not really looked into that much, just from what I know about donkeys and asses can mate but the offspring, the mule cannot reproduce. By the way I did check out the KT link and you know, I think it makes sense.
On to Raelianism, I checked it out at first as simply a new learning experience, not to be one or anything but to know what it's all about. If you are truly interested in learning stuff you should go to their website Raelian Movement where you can download Free Raels 3 books condensed into 1 and browse it, unless you do you can just not grasp the whole concept. Many have said oh I wouldn't bother when I've suggested it, but why not??? It is a learning experience, to me it's like reading any other book, to get an understanding. Nothing I could say would help you understand it unless you read it for yourself. Many people have also said it's a rip off of Sitchins book but it simply is not, Rael published his French version 2 years before Sitchins 12th Planet came out but because the English version was released the same year it is thought of this way. I've read whole websites devoted to this which are just wrong because they have gotten the facts wrong in the first place. Cults such as Heavens Gate, Jonestown, Davidians and others are/were Jesus based, I think that's where they get too dark. The Elohim contacted Rael, it is similar to what the Catholic Church and Christianity tells because it is the same in context, it's HOW you interpret it that's different and a big part of why I cannot simply dismiss it, look how much these faiths and others are ingrained into society, why? I ask myself, because it's the same story but until recently UFO's and aliens were so foreign they were interpreted as Gods. Raels books have ideas for world peace, who else is doing that? He tells us via instruction from the Elohim how to achieve this and is in fact involved in many excellent causes. What other religions have an agenda but their own?? None that I can think of. I actually have my own thread on here titled Are You Really A Raelian? The ideas Raelians put forth are definitely worth consideration, forget their creation theory and cloning, read about what they are trying to do to lead us to world peace. Once again, if you are really into learning you should have a read of Raels books, otherwise you will just be an ignoramus like many others I come across, you don't have to believe it or anything, just open your eyes up and learn something new. I like your last paragraph about fossils, craetion, large Kangaroos and extinct marsupials in Australia have fascinated me, I have a couple of books on that too, The Antipodean Ark is excellent and I am not that far from Riversleigh and hope to visit there one day, maybe we can continue that discussion further down the line. Thats about it for me tonight.

I had forgotten about this silly thread and I am ashamed I did not come back to defend myself. How dare you suggest I get more education. I am a PHD student receiving my doctorate in Anthropology. So YES, little boy I am suggesting that I have the education to conclude that the above scientists are indeed correct in their findings and that MY AREA of education is VERY relevant to this topic. I have only been studying it intensively for the past 15 years. Call me arrogant all you want because when it comes to this I don't have much patience for people who act like bratty, spoiled teenagers with too much time on their hands coming up with ridiculous ideas and then being totally combative when people disagree with you. You can't just make statements like the dinosaurs ruled for "billions and billions" of years(175 million years tops)and there was "little-evidence" left behind and not expect to get attacked. You showed you vulnerbility right away which was you do not know your basic facts yet you are challenging decades of research with the evidence to back it up.
Anyone who tell me it is "silly logic" to suggest if there were previous non-hominid civilizations there would be evidence left obviously doesn't understand how field research works. How else did we learn about our pre-history - through fossil records, artifacts, in some cases whole cities that were recovered so it is not too silly to suggest there would be evidence of other civilizations and its inhabitants.
Anyway, I am not going to continue wasting my time. I just wanted to point out that you were wrong, again, by suggesting I did not have the education to back up my words.

Frustrating, isn't it? I've taught various science related subjects for 30 odd years and I can't tell you the number of times someone has come along and "re-defined" the scientific method for me! In these situations simply keep cool and stand firm, there's not much else one can do.

People, can we cut the bickering, personal attacks and insults. Attack the idea not the person. That means both sides.

I agree with Lilly and Waspie. Its the old ad hominem routine, you know, replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Lets get back on topic people.

My 50 cents on OPs first post.....As there is no hard scientific evidence of Intelligent life before the dinos ,Id say NO.....That might change any day though, all I/we need is credible proof.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inteligence

Was this stated here? I mean, there is no theory that says that the amphibians evolved into dinosaurs. there is a boatload of fossils for the period between the amphibian becoming a land dweller and the earliest dinosaurs though.


In a manner of speaking, most of them were. Some are based on fossils that were found by ancient people that had no knowledge of what they were looking at. Some were based on the remains of rotting whales that washed up on the beach too.


Perhaps, but there is an extremely large difference between the molar of a primate and the molar of, say, a rhinocerous. So it''s folly to not theorize that humans are primates, until something that can better explain the similarities can be discovered or hypothesized.

Harte

I believe that extraterrestrials have been visiting this planet for quite some time now.

hmm....this site reminds me so much of The X-Files its so weird! but this site is so interesting! even if i can be a skeptic at times...

I don't know what to say to this one. Sometimes I believe in god that created everything but that's just me

Dinosaurs existed for 200 Million years, not a billion.

Well the question of if 'aliens' were around during the time of the dino's is a challenging one. Yes, there is much evidence that states that they were not around...but just because there is not hard core evidence, does not mean that things can be true and that maybe there was 'aliens' around when there was dino's....anything is possible

I like to ponder things like that as well, but why ponder the unproveable, or the such.

In the end, there is probably no alien intervention, no God creator, just good old man evolving from the 'warm, little pond', but sometimes having imagination is good stimulation for the brain, I'm not here to win any prizes for being right and I don't even feel like I need to prove my ideas to anyone, I just like thinking about things in a round a bout way, I just don't have that complete faith in that we could not have got our history wrong abit.

Yes, that was my point. If you read the very first thread in this topic he stated that dinosaurs were around for billions of years - I hope it was clear in my last post that I was pointing out he was very wrong and evidence suggests dinos were alive for about 175-225 million years. Thats all, I just want to make it clear that I was not saying they were around for billions of years, I know better than that.

PHD huh? Anthropology? LOL.



Another one. Two sad characters.

Amazing what serves to amuse some people.

However, there's still *zero* evidence for the claim that there was intelligent life on Earth before the dinosaurs.

human bones wouldnt last 65 million years...IMO..so theirs proof neither way..