Nah bro. I'm not talking about advanced alien civilisations. I don't believe that video is a real alien autopsy. Sorry.

Check out Dr. Rhawn Joseph's work. Sounds right up your alley.

Fascinating. I thought this was a troll at first (maybe it was!), and he was going to be some salivating nut job, but his thinking and mine are close, if not entirely parallel, on a number of key issues. I'll just take these two from his RationalWiki:-

Joseph argues that many of the mainstream scientific positions that he rejects, including abiogenesis and the Big Bang are actually religion masquerading as science.

Now, I agree with him 100 percent about abiogenesis, because abiogenesis is not science. There is literally nothing scientific about it. The way that science works is that you conduct experiments and then base your conclusions on those experiments. In the case of abiogenesis, science has done it the other way around. It has concluded that life originated on Earth and conducted experiments to try to prove those conclusions.

I don't agree with him about the Big Bang, unless of course he is saying it isn't the complete picture, which even most physicists would agree is true. The Wiki quote might in fact be a little bit out of date, because the Big Bang is no longer the mainstream theory. Rather, Inflationary Theory has superseded it, because the evidence shows that in its infancy, the universe was much bigger than it should have been. Now, of course, he is right that scientists are once again making assumptions (in this case "plugging holes" in a duff theory), but the fact that space is expanding means that it must have been much closer together in the distant past. This is the evidential basis on which the Big Bang sustains itself. What be believe presently might not be entirely true, but for me that one fact convinces me that we are at least on the right track.

The Big Bang is complete and total nonsense debunked in total by quantum mechanics in an accurate description of the redshift phenomenon as a photonic quantum event resulting from the variability of the dielectric constant as light moves through space plasma

No, you're talking about the Doppler Effect, and it is quite real. The Doppler Effect proves the expansion of space.

No, sorry, it doesn't. Do you want to take the red pill or the blue pill? Ari Brynjolsson's Plasma Redshift effect is beyond contention.

Clearly...

redshift is mainly a result of the expansion of space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

They aren't even the same types of redshift. Redshift is a spectral shift of the absorption lines. Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon and it follows and is dominated by electromagnetic rules.

So there are two types of redshift. One which proves the universe is expanding, and one which proves that it isn't? Gotcha.

They aren't even the same types of wave man. The "spectral image" is a Plane Wave made in distinct quantum events. It's a wavefront.Do you understand? A quantized event - a Plane wave. Do you understand the difference between the plane wave which the Spectral Image is, and the stretchy rope that you are mistakenly believing represents light?

With respect, since you do not seem to understand this basic fact, please permit me to point out that colour is an electromagnetic phenomenon which occurs because certain materials absorb different parts of the light spectrum.

What you are doing is throwing a bunch of complicated words at me which don't actually mean anything. You are unable to explain what you mean in simple terms because:-

A) You do not understand it. B) You are wrong.

It's as simple as that, really. The terms "redshift" and "blueshift" simply refer to the fact that the human retina absorbs a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum dependent upon whether a distant wave is moving towards or away from us. The point is that, since the evidence comes from the human retina, something which senses only electromagnetic radiation, then it's fucking concrete that redshift is an electromagnetic phenomenon.

In future, might I politely suggest you stick to the subjects you understand? Thanks.

Random words which are no doubt the product of a Google search don't get you around the laws of physics, I'm afraid. And neither does name-calling.

Right you are, that's why I suggest you actually learn about physics instead of reading what's been put out there for idiots

Please let me enlighten you: you don't have any argument. Putting a random bunch of words down which are vaguely related to physics isn't a viable substitute for some sort of point or argument.

My arguments are backed by actual laboratory research.

I thought I just explained that you haven't made any argument. You've just rambled sheer nonsense without any logical point holding any of it together.

He has a very good book on Astrobiology and a very good fan made video on YouTube called "Even the Gods Have Gods" its a little dated but still good.

His views on evolution startled me at first. First it sounded like he was denying it, but when I read deeper he just thinks Darwinian Evolution is wrong (i.e. that it is based entirely upon natural selection). I think that he might very well be in the right ball park with the idea that life is evolving towards something, and that whatever it is, it is already pre-programmed. The reason I believe this could be true is because science can't explain the origins of the genetic code. A code is essentially a mathematical key used to share information between specific recipients (i.e. cells, in this instance), and it does raise the question whether a code can even exist before the intent to communicate creates it (i.e. intelligence). Certainly, there are no other known examples of a naturally-occurring code, so there is that too.

The atheist Darwin crowd have become just as dogmatic, if not more so than biblical creationists.

I agree with this abundantly. Humanity has a tendency to overcompensate when it finally overthrows oppression, and this can be witnessed in the emergence of atheist "preachers" like Dawkins. The fact is that, if you want to remain within the domain of reason, you have to go agnostic. Evolution doesn't disprove God. You could just as easily argue that it proves him, and he put it there on purpose.

I'm not saying Dawkins isn't right about a lot of stuff, btw. But he does have a tendency to go over the top sometimes.

it is a theory based on available evidence, which is how science is done.

I've just explained that it isn't. Not unless you consider it to be evidence that, "Hey, we're here. We must have come from here."

P.S. Please get into the habit of reading your sources before you post them. Your link is a nonsense article. It is speculation from start to finish.

The detection of miniature black holes by the Large Hadron Collider COULD prove the existence of parallel universes and show that the Big Bang did not happen, scientists believe.

Has anybody detected a miniature black hole? Of course they haven't, because the concerned scientists who thought it might happen petitioned the European Court of Human Rights, were disproved, and their case was thrown out of court.

Stop doing hatchet jobs on my quotes please. You're obviously quite upset, and I suggest you go and calm down.

whoa, I only quoted what pertained to me link, and my comment was in jest. a little tender today?

Not at all, but you began today by calling me a bumbling idiot because you don't understand that spinning gravitational fields cause magnetism. You interpret gravitational magnetism as a "dipole" force which spits people into space. Not gonna lie: it irked me a bit.

Bro, all my original point was in that thread is that nobody on Earth is going to be doing any experiments with anti-gravity without a quantum theory of gravity which works. It was a fair point.

not at all fair, considering the first link in my op shows that the US government was pursuing antigravity and performing antigravity experiments (all claimed to be unsuccessful).

But this is just a play on words. They weren't experimenting with anti-gravity, and without even reading it, I don't believe your source proves what you say it proves. Your history of comprehending the information that you read is not good. I'm sorry if that seems unfair to you, but that has been my personal experience of conversing with you. When you were challenged, you literally began to make things up.

OK, let's just agree to differ, hey.

a pole due to gravity, a dipole due to rotation

Lol. You do not understand the concept of anti-gravity. In Einstein's equations, both mass and pressure contribute to a gravitational field. In theory, it is possible for a planetary body to exert so much negative pressure that gravity is forced to blow instead of suck. This is what anti-gravity is. It has nothing to do with the idiotic shit you keep rambling on about.

I'm done. I can't believe I was stupid enough to let you drag me back into this for the sake of your own ego.

Have fun trying to convince others that you aren't a troll.

The Earth was not barren.

Brother, I don't think you realise what the early Earth was like. The best way I can describe it is... Well... Have you heard of a place called hell?

http://www.space.com/26685-early-earth-bombardment-water-oasis.html

If Earth was getting bombarded with life spores as well as comets, meteors, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, it could explain how life was able to take a grip. What makes zero sense is the assumption that life just decided to "pop up" in that hellish environment.

That is not true.

Yes it is true. You don't understand your own source:-

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions

They tested for chemical compounds, not organic life.

That is an opinion.

No, it is corroborated by the facts.

Panspermia is an accepted theory of how life started. It is far from proven, as are alternate theories. I mean, you are entitled to your favourite theory, but you have no way to say any other currently accepted theory is wrong.

Not for sure, true. But what can be proven for sure? All I'm really trying to do is let people know that abiogenesis has no current evidential basis to support it, and it is the only one of the top few theories which has been reasonably tested. At some point, after so many failed experiments, after so many failed attempts to animate chemicals into organic matter, you have to begin thinking that maybe you're on the wrong track.

They aren't even the same types of redshift. Redshift is a spectral shift of the absorption lines. Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon and it follows and is dominated by electromagnetic rules.

So there are two types of redshift. One which proves the universe is expanding, and one which proves that it isn't? Gotcha.

They aren't even the same types of wave man. The "spectral image" is a Plane Wave made in distinct quantum events. It's a wavefront.Do you understand? A quantized event - a Plane wave. Do you understand the difference between the plane wave which the Spectral Image is, and the stretchy rope that you are mistakenly believing represents light?

With respect, since you do not seem to understand this basic fact, please permit me to point out that colour is an electromagnetic phenomenon which occurs because certain materials absorb different parts of the light spectrum.

What you are doing is throwing a bunch of complicated words at me which don't actually mean anything. You are unable to explain what you mean in simple terms because:-

A) You do not understand it. B) You are wrong.

It's as simple as that, really. The terms "redshift" and "blueshift" simply refer to the fact that the human retina absorbs a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum dependent upon whether a distant wave is moving towards or away from us. The point is that, since the evidence comes from the human retina, something which senses only electromagnetic radiation, then it's fucking concrete that redshift is an electromagnetic phenomenon.

In future, might I politely suggest you stick to the subjects you understand? Thanks.

My arguments are backed by actual laboratory research.

I thought I just explained that you haven't made any argument. You've just rambled sheer nonsense without any logical point holding any of it together.