Are angels of the bible aliens?

[trevor borocz johnson]

Being that the periodic table is the same through out the universe and that all stars are made of the same substances, can't we assume that evolution also occurs the same way in all planetary systems and that an evolved species would probably closely resemble us? and that perhaps from some sort of evolved death state the angels of the bible are able to travel here from distant places and communicate with humans in different ways for example revelations to john of patamos?

Edited October 17, 2017 by trevorhbj

[Carnoferox]

9 minutes ago, trevorhbj said:

Being that the periodic table is the same through out the universe and that all stars are made of the same substances, can't we assume that evolution also occurs the same way in all planetary systems and that an evolved species would probably closely resemble us? and that perhaps from some sort of evolved death state the angels of the bible are able to travel here from distant places and communicate with humans in different ways for example revelations to john of patamos?

No. Evolution is not a process that has "end goals". The humanoid body form was not "destined to evolve", as some would have it. This is the woefully outdated concept of orthogenesis. Do some research into punctuated equilibrium and cladogenesis. The odds that an organism would evolve to exactly resemble a human in another part of the universe are infinitesimally small. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by Carnoferox

[Rlyeh]

That is some convoluted reasoning. But no, how does chemical composition imply identical order of events?

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, trevorhbj said:

Being that the periodic table is the same through out the universe and that all stars are made of the same substances, can't we assume that evolution also occurs the same way in all planetary systems and that an evolved species would probably closely resemble us? and that perhaps from some sort of evolved death state the angels of the bible are able to travel here from distant places and communicate with humans in different ways for example revelations to john of patamos?

I'll go you one further and say that all life in the universe is interconnected and did not originate from scratch even on earth. There was seeding and manipulation across time.

And yes I think some revered entities of the past were not fully earth productions. 

And Ancient Alien theorists, say YES!!

[Carnoferox]

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I'll go you one further and say that all life in the universe is interconnected and did not originate from scratch even on earth. There was seeding and manipulation across time.

And yes I think some revered entities of the past were not fully earth productions. 

And Ancient Alien theorists, say YES!!

What exactly do you consider "seeding" to be?

[WoIverine]

Technically, angels probably could be referred to as aliens, that seems reasonable. Who knows though, they could even originate from outside our universe. They're described as spirit beings, so the same laws we're bound by might not apply to them? If you believe in angels, then there's also God, who would've set all the rules and laws in place, for us, and them.

[papageorge1]

21 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

What exactly do you consider "seeding" to be?

Early life forms with  (modified?) DNA that could prosper in an earthly environment and evolve. And the progress was monitored and manipulated throughout in ways thought to be best.

Edited October 17, 2017 by papageorge1

[Timothy]

@trevorhbj this is probably worth a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

In short, you most definitely cannot assume that evolution would result in advanced life similar to that on earth.

[Carnoferox]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Early life forms with  (modified?) DNA that could prosper in an earthly environment. And the progress was monitored and manipulated throughout in ways thought to be best.

What were the processes and by whom? 

[papageorge1]

Just now, Carnoferox said:

What were the processes and by whom? 

By lifeforms not originating on earth. All processes are beyond me but one is the genetic augmentation of a hominid to produce our species.

[Timothy]

38 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I'll go you one further and say that all life in the universe is interconnected and did not originate from scratch even on earth. There was seeding and manipulation across time.

And yes I think some revered entities of the past were not fully earth productions. 

And Ancient Alien theorists, say YES!!

I’m just going to go ahead and add this to my ‘things papa believes’ list. Or were you just being hypothetical for arguments sake?

Either way, you never cease to amaze!

[Carnoferox]

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

By lifeforms not originating on earth. All processes are beyond me but one is the genetic augmentation of a hominid to produce our species.

So if you don't have any understanding of this supposed "seeding", then why even consider it? The evolution of Hominidae is fairly well-known and at no point is there suddenly a hominin that is far more derived than it's closest relatives, as would be expected if there was a sudden introduction of new DNA by an external source.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Carnoferox

[sees]

6 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

I’m just going to go ahead and add this to my ‘things papa believes’ list. Or were you just being hypothetical for arguments sake?

Either way, you never cease to amaze!

I know the programme Ancient Aliens generally gets a bad rap/appraisal here (e.g. by those who favour the reductive/materialistic dogma of old science) but it covers so much ground, so many ideas.  All I'm saying is that rather than be a kneejerker debunker, maybe don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  It pays to have an open mind rather than be myopic and outright dismissive imo.

Edited October 17, 2017 by sees

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

I’m just going to go ahead and add this to my ‘things papa believes’ list. Or were you just being hypothetical for arguments sake?

Either way, you never cease to amaze!

Yeah, been bored last few days without that crabby Fish guy to insult me.

But yes, my positions are seriously held.

[Carnoferox]

3 minutes ago, sees said:

I know the programme Ancient Aliens gets a bad rap/appraisal here but it covers so much ground, so many ideas.  All I'm saying is that rather than be a kneejerker debunker, maybe don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  It pays to have an open mind after all.

Ancient Aliens covers a lot of ground, but it is a Gish Gallop. It strings many absurd and/or unrelated tangents together in a clumsy fashion.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Carnoferox

[sees]

2 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Ancient Aliens covers a lot of ground, but it is a Gish Gallop. It strings many absurd and/or unrelated tangents together in a clumsy fashion.

I find it thought provoking at least....whilst being discerning, i.e. not necessarily buying into the whole package.

I like to stretch how I think and wonder about possibilities.

Edited October 17, 2017 by sees

[Carnoferox]

Just now, sees said:

I find it thought provoking at least....

As do I. It provokes the thought of "So this is what the History Channel has become?" 

[papageorge1]

8 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

So if you don't have any understanding of this supposed "seeding", then why even consider it? 

From an evaluation of sources that I believe know beyond what we can know. And what I have heard from them seems more reasonable than the 'it's all happenstance' theory.

Edited October 17, 2017 by papageorge1

[Timothy]

1 minute ago, sees said:

I know the programme Ancient Aliens generally gets a bad rap/appraisal here (those who favour the materialistic dogma of old science) but it covers so much ground, so many ideas.  All I'm saying is that rather than be a kneejerker debunker, maybe don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  It pays to have an open mind after all.

Yes it covers ideas, but has no solid basis in reality. If there were ancient aliens, they’ve covered their tracks well and we’ve not yet been able to identify any evidence of their existence. The ‘evidence’ presented on that show is pure BS.

But yes, I am open to the possibility, but I think it’s very unlikely. And again, in all of human history we’ve been unable to identify any evidence of ancient aliens or ET life on earth or beyond, let alone planet seeding. 

I do think there is most definitely life out there somewhere, just to clarify. 

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Yeah, been bored last few days without that crabby Fish guy to insult me.

But yes, my positions are seriously held.

 

[Carnoferox]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

From an evaluation of sources that I believe know beyond what we can know. And what I have heard from them seems more reasonable than the 'it's all happenstance' theory.

That doesn't explain anything about why "seeding" is valid or how it would even work. I think you should do some research into evolution and the history of life on earth.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Carnoferox

[papageorge1]

6 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Ancient Aliens covers a lot of ground, but it is a Gish Gallop. It strings many absurd and/or unrelated tangents together in a clumsy fashion.

That might be. So we shouldn't dismiss everything or accept everything. I don't. It is good to have some sources on the leading edge of speculation.

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

I think you should do some research into evolution and the history of life on earth.

I already have a pretty good grasp of those things. And I believe in nothing contradicted by science.

Our key difference is that I believe some sources can perceive beyond the reach of current science on this and those other subjects we have debated. I am not a follower of scientism.

[Carnoferox]

13 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I already have a pretty good grasp of those things. And I believe in nothing contradicted by science.

Our key difference is that I believe some sources can perceive beyond the reach of current science on this and those other subjects we have debated. I am not a follower of scientism.

Well you must not if you think that "seeding" by a vague external force is necessary for the evolution of life. This sort of idea is contradictory to science and what is known about evolution.

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Well you must not if you think that "seeding" by a vague external force is necessary for the evolution of life. This sort of idea is contradictory to science and what is known about evolution.

Re-read. Where did I say 'necessary'?

[Carnoferox]

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Re-read. Where did I say 'necessary'?

Why else would you believe in it? There is no evidence for it, yet you do. It seems that you perceive that there must be more out there, that it is "more than happenstance". A God-of-the-gaps argument in essence.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Carnoferox