Dubstepforum.com

and you've refused to do your own research.

the problem here is i don't give a shit if you change your mind or not.

i'll burn down a whole forest with a match. there's no need to hack away at one tree.

Reading the last page, I'd very much like to see the evidence too. (on how we're from another planet/galaxy)

I guess the evolution of man is just some sort of conspiracy then?

I saw a good documentary suggestion amino acids and water ended up on the planet over a long time span, delivered by meteors. The chemical response to the external system from this point [in this case the earth and it's adapting atmosphere] lead to the inadvertant evolution of humans. Uniformitarianism (and that's one of the few useful long-ism type words) then suggests that if we are to be as shallow minded to assume life only exists in our forms based on water, in a similar environment [other planet] if this sequence of events began, it would then likely follow a close path.

I think the key issue to 'anthropomorphism' is that our sequence of life adopted bilateral symmetry in an early phase, meaning many creatures we consider as sentient conveniently share our facial structures. The sad reason why people are happy to squish a spider but not a bunny

A lot of humanity is very self destructive though. Sure money was a relatively good idea, and it can't be blamed for the evils, not unlike the concepts of profit.

Anyway... People have the whole universe and their fragmented reality of 'humanity' in their mind. Some can't hack it and opt out early, but you may as well use life to install your ideas into other people's heads as if they are planets of different intelligence within their personal universe

BLAHBLAHJAH wrote:I saw a good documentary suggestion amino acids and water ended up on the planet over a long time span, delivered by meteors. The chemical response to the external system from this point [in this case the earth and it's adapting atmosphere] lead to the inadvertant evolution of humans. Uniformitarianism (and that's one of the few useful long-ism type words) then suggests that if we are to be as shallow minded to assume life only exists in our forms based on water, in a similar environment [other planet] if this sequence of events began, it would then likely follow a close path.

Horizon did a great one - "Are We The Aliens", I think. Unfortunately, they made a really good case for Panspermia using the red rain in Kerala over about 45 minutes and then completely destroyed it in the last 10.... kinda left you wondering why they'd made it at all!

What We Still Don't Know covers panspermia as well.

look into the disclosure project.

look into the bioengineering of atlantean civilization. look at the creation myths of every indigenous culture on earth.

magma wrote:then completely destroyed it in the last 10.... kinda left you wondering why they'd made it at all!

they did not completely destroy it. they provided plausible deniability for the skeptics in the crowd. this is the standard MO for any programming that challenges consensus thought. people HATE when you're pushy like me and reject plausible deniability.

parson wrote:

magma wrote:then completely destroyed it in the last 10.... kinda left you wondering why they'd made it at all!

they did not completely destroy it. they provided plausible deniability for the skeptics in the crowd. this is the standard MO for any programming that challenges consensus thought. people HATE when you're pushy like me and reject plausible deniability.

The hypothesis of panspermia doesn't contradict any well established scientific laws or theories.

Genevieve wrote:

parson wrote:

magma wrote:then completely destroyed it in the last 10.... kinda left you wondering why they'd made it at all!

they did not completely destroy it. they provided plausible deniability for the skeptics in the crowd. this is the standard MO for any programming that challenges consensus thought. people HATE when you're pushy like me and reject plausible deniability.

The hypothesis of panspermia doesn't contradict any well established scientific laws or theories.

which is why i said it expands on them.

the problem with darwinism is misinterpretation of survival of the fittest

the consensus thought is there's no good evidence for aliens. the reality is that there's a systematic coverup, and lazy, gullible population with no free time, and no long-term memory.

the entire city of phoenix saw a mothership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

then the governor said it was flares.

then he went on tv years later and said he was lying and he believes it was aliens.

parson wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

parson wrote:

magma wrote:then completely destroyed it in the last 10.... kinda left you wondering why they'd made it at all!

they did not completely destroy it. they provided plausible deniability for the skeptics in the crowd. this is the standard MO for any programming that challenges consensus thought. people HATE when you're pushy like me and reject plausible deniability.

The hypothesis of panspermia doesn't contradict any well established scientific laws or theories.

which is why i said it expands on them.

the problem with darwinism is misinterpretation of survival of the fittest

No it doesn

'Survival of the fittest', as I explained before, is not a 'scientific consensus' it is an inaccurate simplification of natural selection. The fact that it is an inaccurate simplification is the scientific consensus (as, all scientists agree that calling it 'survival of the fittest' is an inaccurate simplification) and as I mentioned before, the theory of evolution is a biological concept, panspermia is a bio-chemical concept. Panspermia does not expand on evolution. Genetics expand on evolution, panspermia is a possible answer to the question 'how did life start on Earth?'

The consensus among scientists about the origins of life on Earth is 'we don't know the origins', thus, panspermia doesn't go against the consensus, it just poses a possible answer to the question, but no one claims to know for sure. Except for you.

i think i'm going to block you

like trying to explain computers to dudes who don't believe tv is possible because they're radio repair experts

more americans believe in hominid aliens than believed in george w bush. that's a hell of a lot more votes for panspermia than just me.

nothing can be more insulting than being rigid enough to not understand and debate a metonymy. for the one who does it, not for his audience

and blocking genevieve confirms i gotta be proud when blocked too, i'll be in best company
only if it didn't happen just to feed more clicks on the "view post". if it ever happened more than just as a show off for easily impressionable kids

Genevieve wrote:Again, provide hard evidence for this?

i'll grow a mustache when parson really answers this question

ridiculous question. of course.