Why is this an impossiblity? Humans were seeded millions of years ago on Earth?

Question

Do you think it maybe possible that Humans were "seeded" here on Earth at some point ?

Stop for a moment and seriously consider this idea.Is possible ( or probable) that Humans were "seeded" here on Earth at some point in Evolutionary History?

Could it be possible that our "ancestors" could have been technologically advanced "humans" who simply ventured out into the universe and ended up on Earth?

Leaving behind a few "Settlers" here on Earth.

Maybe "Adam and Eve" were simply placed here as a"innocents" for a purpose?

Is this theory really any more extreme than the idea that in the past humans migrated to other parts of the world?

As for those who want to argue that..."space travel" is impossible, let's go with the assumption that we still don't know this is absolutely true.

I'm not looking for Fear based arguement's...I'm hoping you may consider this as a "possibility"and try to

THINK outside of the safe box that you have been taught by religion and "Science"

The theories in Science are just that "Theories" and they are disproved everyday.

What was "TRUE" scientifically 300 years ago isn't today

As for the

The "No tools " or lack of archological evidence of "advanced technology" theory...doesn't apply.

The seeding would have been the same as dropping of a group of people on a isolated island or continent...except it is a Planet instead. No technology would have been "left behind" on purpose.

The Current Evolutinary evidence has many MISSING LINKS and then there is that Nagging little problem of NO evidence of a primate to Human LINK.

So if you really look at this possiblity objectively...is it really anymore ridiclous than the "other" theories?

In some way it actually supports the Adam and Eve story and the Evolution theorie at the same time...maybe both are correct.

Adam and Eve were seeded here and then "Evolved" (at the point of "Knowledge") into "Modern Humans"...

Please before you shoot your "pat answer off the hip"...objectively consider this possiblity.

Answer 1

i dont think that it's an impossibility. sounds like a possible idea to me.

Answer 2

Yes, it's perfectly possible. There is no proof against it. There's also no proof that the creatures who put us on this planet in your theory weren't blobs of ice cream in spaceships made of frozen bat urine.

But there is no proof for your theory at all.

Which is rather the point. Possibility and truth are different things.

There IS a primate to human link. If you take the skulls of primates and line them up in order of age, you can see the process of change taking place. Yes, there are missing links - we don't have a skull from every single one of the thousands of generations of monkey before humans. That is what is meant by a missing link when you are told there is a missing link by bible-bashing gun nuts who talk about Darwinists as "varmints". h**l, we can see differences in skeletons from just 1,000 years ago - people were much shorter than we are today. This is because natural selection has made taller people more attractive sexual partners, so they have taller children. The taller you are, the more likely you are to pass on your tall genes to the next generation - and BOOM. Evolution.

But where is the proof of the theory you describe? That is objective consideration - there is no proof, therefore I cannot reasonably be expected to believe it. If you say that this is not an objective conclusion, then it is YOU who has lost objectivity.

As for your argument that the theories in science are "disproved every day" - that is what science is. Science is about disproving what came before and replacing it with something better, until that is disproved, which is why it is different from religion, which is about believing what came before regardless of proof to the contrary, and not allowing anyone to falsify your beliefs. Eventually, the scientific process of forming and then disproving theories will lead us to theories which cannot be disproved - the truth. Let's not forget that GRAVITY is only a "theory" - it's just been a theory for a very long time. Until we can actually observe gravity, though, it must remain a theory. This is what seperates a theory from a law - laws can be observed in effect (e.g. the laws of thermodynamics). Theories have lots of evidence but have not been directly observed (e.g. the theory of black holes, the theory of star formation, the theory of evolution).

Your argument is not science because it is built on no evidence, and it is not falsifyable - I cannot reasonably argue against it, because any argument I put forth can be countered by you making up whatever you want to explain why the argument I put forth is so.

For example, I put forth the argument that you have presented no proof at all, and that no proof of your theory has ever been found. You could easily say "that's because no technology was left behind" - even though you weren't there and would have no way of knowing that. You see, you are simply inventing details to support your theory in this way, therefore it is not scientific.

Until you can come up with a solid theory, with details which are corroborated by proof and evidence, then this is simply a hypothesis without proof. When you have found evidence, it is a theory. But the point is, none of us have any reason to believe this.

So, I would argue that, while possible, it isn't plausible in the least. In fact, it may even be outside the realms of possibility - so incredibly unlikely that it's just a bad idea to believe it.

Answer 3

You have no idea what you want to believe.  You mix evolution, creationism, science fiction and junk science together to come up with a hybrid of your own making.

Believe what you want, as hard as you want and shout it from the mountain tops.  It still won't make it true.

I suppose, hypothetically, nearly anything is possible, but that's really not much of an argument for any one particular thing, now is it?

Answer 4

it isn't impossible.

few things are.

it is just that there is no strong evidence supporting it.

Answer 5

I go with the chemical soup theory but as far as this question is concerned, nobody has a definite answer so alot of theories are a possibility

Answer 6

I don't know about MILLIONS of years ago, the human seeding idea has some spark of possibility since science cannot prove a negative.