PDA

View Full Version : Theory on the Creation of Humans


maestro wooz
11-15-2006, 02:52 PM
yeah i found this shit whilst googling for info on sir flinders petrie on mt. horeb and i stumbled across something this guy wrote for another forum. It's very very long, and he actually never finished it, but it's very well written and gives a theory for how humans came about. If you got some time, i recommend it, at least skim it. Its in the same vein as that monatomic gold thread palehorse made awhile ago, except without the monatomic gold part

"The seeds of destiny are nurtured by our roots in the past."

"I never let my schooling interfere with my learning."


I grew up as a little boy at my grandmother's feet learning about the Bible. She took me to Cathoilic mass but also sent me to a Baptist church at midday and also a Pentecostal church at nights. In short I was deeply rooted in church and churches with different styles.

As that same little boy, I was sent to New York to live with my dad back in the 70s (no, I'm not in my 40s or, 50s) where as I lolok back in retrospect, I ended up with a teacher who taught us mythology. I have no idea why, but as a bright eyed kid not long removed from the deep countrysides of St. Kitts, I sucked up the information about ancient "gods" and heros. For years after that I still kept up with such things.

Like many of us, I had also been exposed to the subtle influences of the theory of evolution. I was fashioned to think that the further back I looked into man's history, I was supposed to find only primitive behavior, backwardness and brute beasts evolving upwards to where we are today. It seemed to make sense but the more I read, the more it made no sense to me. That subtle belief was shattered everywhere I turned. I looked into Africa (which was supposed to be the most backward of them all) and saw the Pyramids, Luxor, Great Zimbabwe. In Central America there were the Pyramids there too and the mysterious Olmec peoples who came and left just as mysteriously as they came. Over in the orient was Angkhor Wat, In Asia the Sumerians, and even in the South Pacific, Easter Island. Then what about Machu Picchu in Peru, Stonehenge in England and Gilgal Rephaim in northern Israel or Baalbek in Lebanon? what about the persistence of Atlantis?

There are a countless number of ancient myths and legends from cultures long since relegated to history on Earth. Most are culture-specific, only appearing in local or regional accounts. There are, however, a good number of myths which "span the spectrum" so to speak - they appear in the tradition of virtually every major culture in history. One of these ancient common myths is that of a "fall" of humanity, from some lofty position to a lower one. For example, the Christian tradition tells of people living in a virtual paradise, who were "cast down" when they attempted to gain the knowledge of their god. This is but one example; similar myths also appear in the cultures of ancient Greece, Canaan, Akkadia, and Sumeria. What all this points to is evidence in the ancient oral traditions of a time when humanity enjoyed a state of relative technological advancement, exploring and mapping the globe as well as studying scientific principles we consider modern - among them cosmology, medical science, and architecture - only to then suffer some catastrophe (the infamous "fall") resulting in the loss of most of that information, which remained lost until advances made in the Middle Ages.

What was this "fall"? Most legends tell that humanity "fell out of grace with the gods" for attempting to learn that which their gods knew - "eating fruit from the Tree of Knowledge". Since these early humans obviously already knew such things as cosmology, astronomy, medicine, geography, etc., what could this "knowledge of the gods" be?

With this in mind, those myths I learned about began to make a different kind of sense to me. I can clearly remember the myth of Prometheus whose image is immortalized in New York City at the popular skating rink off 5th ave in Manhattan. Prometheus stole the fire (representative of immortality but another way of saying "knowledge") and brought ot down to men which angered the gods. There are myths that tell us of divine beings that came to earth and taught men secrets of heaven which eventually corrupted men with obnoxious pride thinking they were now on equal footing with God (the gods). The myths go on to tell us that for this very reason the gods sent destruction upon mankind which most of us know as the Great Flood of Noah's day.....

One very curious matter of ancient history is that the further back we go there is a startling contradiction to modern thought. It appears that older civilizations like the Sumerians and EARLY inhabitants of Egypt stood head and shoulders above those who came after them. There is this misconception that the Egyptians, for example, built a grand civilization that endured for thousands of years. That a people did reside in Egypt and raised up a majestic civilization is true but they are NOT the Egyptians we think who came much later. The later Egyptians did perform some great work but in their very writings they admit they were simply recipients and inheritors of an older culture in which many things were lost or forgotten due to a major catastrophe which cut them off from the culture they speak of. The Egyptians called that time, Zep Tepi, a time when gods allegedly walked the earth and mingled with men teaching them great things.

The Great Pyramid of Khufu is attributed to the Pharoah Cheops (Khufu) as an alleged tomb. Many people have a huge problem with that because outside of some graffiti with his name etched on the Pyramid walls, there is NO other evidence he ever had anything to do with it other than perhaps maintain it or make an attempt to associate himself with it to add to his legacy. The Egyptians recorded everything about their religion and farming, etc but there isn't a single record stating that they were responsible for building one of the Seven Wonders of the World (The Great Pyramid). There is also an extreme lack of information about Khufu's past in the archeological records.

Because of this, the great Pyramids are given a much later date of construction than should be. Yet the very Egyptians in theri own writings do NOT attribute the earlier Pyramids to their own people. If anything, what they tried to do was REPEAT such feats with miserable results as seen here:

http://www.tmgnow.com/IMAGES/oldPyramid.jpg
The Great Pyramid

http://www.tmgnow.com/IMAGES/newPyramid.jpg
A much newer Pyramid from the 12th Dynasty (of Egypt)


Now one would think it would stand to reason that the older Pyramid (of Khufu) would be of less quality and that by the later dynasties the Egyptians would have improved greatly upon what their ancestors began. Such is NOT the case. There are Pyramids all over Egypt built at a later date that sit half finished, in pieces, in ruins yet the older three Pyramids stand the test of time.

So who could have built them? The arrogance and doubtfulness of modern man and the possibility that such things could be attributed to the times when gods walked the earth totally causes them to ignore what the very Egyptians try to tell us in their writings and that is, divine beings built such things or at least showed ancient men during the the first time (another way of saying BEFORE the Great disaster (usually a flood). The funny thing is, the Egyptians are not alone in this affirmation.

Now we come to the Sumerians, a people not known to western man until the 1800s. These people existed some 5,000 years ago. What's the first thing that pops into your mind? Primitive? Cavemen? Neanderthals? Ape looking people? Far from it. Why these people are so mysterious is that they appear on the world stage ALREADY at a highly advanced state. Archeaologists and anthropogists CANNOT find any evidence they arrived at that state after centuries of gradual development. They just show up highly advanced. They appear to have been the first people with writing and they used highly advanced (for that time) tools.

They appeared in the area the Greeks called Mesopotamia which means "Land between the two rivers" which is today modern southeastern Iraq. Some speculate they migrated from the east in what is today Iran (Persia) or maybe even as far as India. They resided there for about 1,500 years before they were conquered and absorbed by the Akkadians who lived up the river. The Akkadians eventually succumbed to the Babylonians. Like in Egypt what do we find? The later Akkadians and Babylonians, while pretty advanced themselves, first of all borrowed knowledge from the Sumerians but even they were well below the standard of the Sumerians.

To add to the intrigue, they (the Sumerians) appear to have known about the 9 planets we know of today which were not all discovered by modern man until the late 1800s. How could these people know this without high powered telescopes? In fact, they also KNEW that these planets revolved around the sun, something which western man failed to realize for hundreds of years. To even make this more fascinating, they also knew of some of Jupiter's moons. Take a look at this relief of theirs:



Note the sun in the middle and 9 planets going around it. Now we have to ask ourselves how the heck these people knew these things? While modern man tries to find all kind sof other explanations, the Sumerians themselves tell us. They tell us that their civilization came about when gods known as the Annanuki came down and dwelt amongst them (sounds familiar?). The name Annanuki means, "'those who from heavens (the heavens) to earth came." The Sumerians claim that these divine creatures dabbled in genetic engineering and 'created' races of men. Somehow this act seems to tie with the great gods being angered by this because the race of men appeared to have corrupted themselves with pride. Plus there were wars amongst the Annunaki.

Now you may be clutching your bible real tight and saying, "NONSENSE!" Well open the Bible to Genesis 6 and read a similar happening. There we read that the "sons of God" (angels) cohabited with the daughters of men. Some circles believed they actually had sex with mortal women but others believed they somehow manipulated their DNA but in either direction, their association with women produced a hybrid race just as the Sumerians stated in their annals and this hybrid race polluted the earth with crimes and apparently corrupted the gene pool of mankind by introducing a bloodline not part of original creation. In other words, the act broke the reproductive order mandated in the words, "and everything begat after it's own kind."




Photo of a Sumerian relief of what may be a picture of a DNA symbol.


(the link he posted died out but ima try to find the pictures again)

Copies of a Sumerian relief that appears to show the double helix of the human DNA being held by the Annunaki. Note figure b which appears to show a human body superimposed by what appears to be a representation of DNA. In fact, it is quite interesting that to this very day, the symbol of two snakes coiled around a pole whish looks similar to a DNA strand represents medicine, biology, and healing. In fact, it was a representation of the Greek god-healer Aesculpius.

Bible believers (which I am) may still freak out about such revelations but the very Annanuki are mentioned in the Bible under the name nephilim found in (but incorrectly translated as "giants") in Genesis 6:4 and also Numbers 13:33. In fact, if you want to get closer to the name, the Bible mentions a person by the name of Anak (Annanuki) who fathered a race of giants (synonymous with the ancient nephilims) whose race-name was Anakim (Josh. 15:14).

Now it is interesting that Jesus in Matthew chapter 24 states that "as in the days of Noah" so shall it be in the days preceding hsi return. he goes on to state that one thing that was synonymous with Noah's day were marriages and if one reads Genesis 6, we read that the marriages he speaks of were between "alien" beings (angels) and mortal women. We are aware these marriages produced a hybrid race. If I lived 100 years ago and told any of you that the ancient Sumerians taught in their writings that Enki, one of the Annunuki performed genetic engineering hundred of thousands of years ago to produce a type of man, I would be run out of town. Look around now. what are scientists doing in labs and what are they capable of doing and have done? Cloned life. In other words, what the Annunuki did back in those days was perform cloning. Seems far fetched now?

Let me interrupt with some questions:
why we humans use only 10% of our massively supercharged brains, while idiot-savants can somehow access isolated regions of the remaining 90%?

why anthropologists insist we humans evolved from creatures 4,000,000 years old, even though our mitochondrial DNA proves our species is no older than 250,000 years?

why human skeletons look nothing at all like the skeletons of the creatures we supposedly evolved from? In other words, why is there still no "missing link"?

why the human gene pool contains over 4,000 serious defects, while our closest genetic relatives, chimps and gorillas (99% and 98% similarity) have none?

why those same close relatives have 48 chromosomes while we have only 46?

How did we lose two entire chromosomes in only 250,000 years?

why are we are so physically weak compared to our closest genetic relatives?

why our skin is so poorly adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth?

why Earth is the only planet or moon with a huge portion of its crust missing?

why the shattered remainder of that crust is capable of tectonic movement?

how numerous megalithic structures could be built without sophisticated equipment of any kind, when humans today cannot duplicate even small-scale versions of them?

how the ancient Sumerians could have known accurate details about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, when we only discovered them in 1781, 1846, and 1930?

What I have written so far will sound VERY far fetched to some. I know there are some who have been able to grasp what has been said so far, partly because here and there they have read or heard of bits and pieces to this story. Perhaps some have had questions and never knew the answer or had theories in mind that seemed like parts were missing.

A huge part of the problem resides in the fact that the Bible is a VERY condensed version of facts (I say "facts"). It does NOT tell the whole story nor does it care to because after its first 11 and half chapters, it goes on to focus on one specific man and his descendants and their relationship with their God. That is its focus and it sticks with it. Has anyone asked what happened to the many OTHER nations and peoples? Did they drop off the face of the earth afterGod began dealing with Abraham and his posterity?

The creation story it presents is highly condensed (I am NOT equating this with falsehod as some are inclined to do). The story in the first part of Genesis 6 is highly condensed also. This is VERY ironic because a full version of both of those stories would answer MANY questions. Incidentally fuller versions exists in the Sumerian writings (remember that Abraham came from an area that was once called Sumer) and also the church suppressed book of Enoch.

Note a VERY interesting passage in the Bible:

"And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26)

NOTE: The word "God" in this area of scripture is translated from the Hebrew word "Elohim" meaning pluarlity (Hebrew words that are plural end with the letters im like how our English words end with the letter S). Some people are inclined to explain this mystery by saying God was speaking to the Holy Spirit and Jesus (The Trinity) but that is very begging. The word "El" means God and their is INDEED a head God above all who goes by that name and is thus mentioned as such in the Bible. So no need to fear this angle doubts His existence. However, it is VERY interesting that in THIS certain passage the word used for God is in plural form (Elohim) as opposed to El which is used in other places. What the scripture is LITERALLY saying is, "And [the] gods said, Let us..." In the belief systems of the day, these gods were divine creatures but lower or below the supreme God. Christians would call them angels of some high order. Was this an act approved by the High God, El or was this done without it? Anyone's guess.

Compare the above scripture to this interpretation from the Sumerian tablets (keep in mind the Sumerians PRECEDED the writing of the Bible and it is their myths that other later peoples of the area built their own stories AND religions including the Hebrews in part):

"the Anunnaki (the Elohim or Nephilim) came to Earth some 450,000 years ago from the planet Nibiru – a member of our own solar system whose great orbit brings it to our part of the heavens once every 3,600 years. They came here in need of gold, with which to protect their dwindling atmosphere. Exhausted and in need of help in mining the gold, their chief scientist Enki suggested that they use their genetic knowledge to create the needed Primitive Workers.
When the other leaders of the Anunnaki asked: How can you create a new being? He answered:

"The being that we need already exists;
all that we have to do is put our mark on it.”

The time was some 300,000 years ago.

What he had in mind was to upgrade genetically the existing hominids, who were already on Earth from some previous creation, by adding some of the genes of the more advanced Anunnaki. That the Anunnaki, who could already travel in space 450,000 years ago, possessed the genomic science (whose threshold we have now reached) is clear not only from the actual texts but also from numerous depictions in which the double-helix of the DNA is rendered as Entwined Serpents (a symbol still used for medicine and healing).

When the leaders of the Anunnaki approved the project (as echoed in the biblical ”Let us fashion the Adam” [man]), Enki with the help of Ninharsag, the Chief Medical Officer of the Anunnaki, embarked on a process of genetic engineering, by adding and combining genes of the Anunnaki with those of the already-existing hominids.

When, after much trial and error breathtakingly described and recorded in antiquity, a “perfect model” was attained, Ninharsag held him up and shouted: “My hands have made it!”



Yes I know this throws a monkey wrench in much what we have always believed but if you look real close the stories meet at key points and while one expands the other only gathers just enough information to build an origin as it rushes off to build a story around one man and his descendants.

he interjects with some cult shit that i find far fetched, but it's worth mentioning

It's not jus tin sci-fi books anymore. And while reading this, ask yourself who might the Anti-Christ be? Could he be a cloned personality of the most wickedest evil? Far fetched? think again.


The Origins of Man
by Rich Anders

On December 27, 2002 Dr. Brigitte Boisselier, CEO of a company called Clonaid, gave a press conference in Hollywood, Florida. She stunned the world with the announcement that the first human clone had been borne one day earlier. Allegedly, the baby girl is in good health. Being the first of a kind human she is called Eve. Dr. Boisselier claimed that ten implants had been made and 5 of these resulted in normal pregnancies. 4 more births were due in January and early February.


The announcement stirred up instant controversy and opposition from just about everybody. Physicians in the race to be the first to produce clone humans denounced Clonaid and pointed out that this company has not done any research with animals nor has it published scientific papers about any such work. In view of the fact that the cloned sheep Betsy was the first positive result in 268 tries they were stunned that from 10 implants 5 would result in normal pregnancies. The ethical aspect of cloning humans was discussed publicly and scathing comments condemned Dr. Boisselier and her team.

Adding to the controversy was another aspect of this situation, which was a major blow for every respectable scientist. Dr. Boisselier has close ties to the Raeliens, a group, which in Canada has been granted status as a religion. Allegedly, this cult has more than 80,000 followers worldwide. The founder and leader of the group, Claude Vorilhon, calls himself Rael, hence the name Raeliens. He claims that in 1973 he had an encounter with extraterrestrials.

The extraterrestrials told Rael that humans originate from clones produced by aliens tens of thousands of years ago and deeded on this planet. They also told him that the time had come to produce human clones again. As Rael told on CNN the same day the plan was to first impregnate women with their own clone and have the fetus be carried through a normal pregnancy resulting in a normal birth. The clone children then would go through a normal childhood until they reached maturity at eighteen years of age.

In the second stage in biogenetic laboratories human clones would be produced who had an accelerated growth rate not only before but also and especially after coming to life. Rael said he believes that eventually fully-grown human clones could be produced in the course of several hours. He added that such clones would be just like a vehicle in need of a driver because there was no way to produce a developed spirit.

This aspect Rael considers to be an advantage because he envisions that in future the ones participating in this program could reach a kind of immortality. When a human reaches old age and/or is near death he/she would order a clone. Once this clone is fully-grown his/her mind would be transferred to the clone. When the clone reaches the stage that his/her body becomes obsolete another clone will be produced and the mind will be transferred again. And this is supposed to go on and on…

There is an important aspect to this scenario, which neither Rael nor anyone else mentioned. What if the clones could receive not only the minds of the donors of the cells they were produced from? What if the clones could receive the minds of extraterrestrials, as well? Could this planet be threatened by an invasion of alien body snatchers? Could aliens be directing and guiding the work of Clonaid in order to establish a foothold on this planet?

On December 30th 2002 in an interview with ABC Dr. Boisselier mentioned that the birth of this clone baby was the culmination of 25 years of research. This puts the start of this cloning project at about 5 years after the encounter with aliens Rael allegedly had. 5 years seems a reasonable time frame for preparing laboratories and getting the scientists qualified to do this kind of work. A 50% success rate as claimed by Dr. Boisselier is far higher than any other fertilization method in use now. Clearly, this situation needs to be watched very carefully.


back to the good shit

Modern man appeared out of nowhere about 45000 years ago. There is no biological link to other hominids that lived on this planet. About 30000 years ago the Neanderthals disappeared from the fossil record. B/94/1 Nobody knows exactly when and where modern man originated. B/100/3 Suddenly, 5500 years ago in 5 locations known as the cradles of civilization development of farming, husbandry and cities began. Religion was implemented everywhere and a political and economic structure assured the advance of civilization. A mere thousand years later the Egyptians built pyramids we would have a hard time to erect even with the means of present day technology.

Compounding the mystery of man's sudden appearance with no links to this world's past is the immense variety of racial features. It is inconceivable that in a mere 45000 years the many races populating this planet could have originated from natural selection and from influences of climate and local conditions. White man has been living in Africa and the Americas for hundreds of years. Blacks and other persons with colored skins like Arabs or Indians have been living in northern latitudes of America and Europe for hundreds of years. Not the slightest change in skin color or ethnic traits has been noticed. Anthropologists try very hard to research and to explain this situation but their efforts produced only theories that are woefully inadequate.

There are several main groups of humans: the Asians, the Red Indians of the Americas, the Arabs and the people of Indo-European origin. These groups vary dramatically amongst themselves most of all the Indo-Europeans. Therefore, we'll deal with this group because it provides the most fascinating insight into the origins of man.

On February 2, 1786 Sir William Jones addressed the Asian Society in Calcutta. He presented the startling news that a far-flung family of Indo-European languages points to a common origin of many peoples previously thought to have originated from very divers backgrounds. With this speech he uncovered the biggest enigma of anthropology. While a common linguistic background was found for approximately half this world's population ranging from India to Iceland their appearances differ dramatically.

To date nobody has been able to provide an explanation for the differences in racial traits between the peoples who have Indo-European as a common original language. Just as enigmatic is the fact that nowhere any artifacts or remnants of an Info-European culture could be found so far. By detective work based on languages it is assumed that the Indo-Europeans originated somewhere to the north of the Black Sea. From there they spread populating the lands from India to Iceland. This is as much as we know.

Looking at the mysterious origins of the Indo-Europeans under the aspect of a large scale production of humans in bio-genetic laboratories could provide the explanation anthropologists have sought so long in vain. The most important criteria are twofold: can many humans be produced in a short time and can these humans be produced with very different racial appearances?

Up to December 28, 2002 nobody would even have asked the question. Then Rael, the leader of the Raeliens, casually mentioned that in phase two of the human cloning project human clones will be produced in the course of several hours. From inception to the finished product of a human being a few short hours would be enough to do the job. Commentators on TV hardly took notice of this statement. Yet it could be the most important aspect of the cloning controversy raging today.

Nobody ever spoke and nobody probably even thought of the possibility to produce human clones in such a short time except Rael. So where does he get the idea that this would be possible? If his claim of contacts with extraterrestrials is true the source of this information is obvious. Then it is also obvious that the claim that humankind originated from clones could be true. Then it also could be true that several thousand years ago a major production facility north of the Black Sea produced wave after wave of genetically customized humans, who then were sent all over the lands. The dark skinned humans were sent to areas with a very hot climate. The white skinned humans were sent to the lands in the north with a cold climate. For climates in between humans were produced with varying shades of skin colors.

Assuming that contacts with extraterrestrials did indeed take place and assuming that the aliens told the truth about humans descending from clones there should be reports from ancient times referring to the production of humans by superior beings.

There is indeed direct reference to the production of humans in Sumerian and Babylonian traditions. The gods produced humans as servants destined to fulfill the needs of their creators. In the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh even a specific case of producing a human is reported:

This epic provides many interesting details about the time when Gilgamesh was the king of the Sumerian city of Uruk around 2500 BC. He was the child of a union between a goddess and a human. The goddess Innana, in Akkad and Babylon known as Ishtar, had given him the kingship. Over time Gilgamesh became intolerably obnoxious molesting men and women alike sexually and the human population begged the gods to do something about it. The gods then produced Enkidu fully-grown custom designed to meet the needs of Gilgamesh in every respect. This man became the close companion and lover of Gilgamesh whom he kept so busy that the rest of the population got a much- needed respite.

Genetic engineering is relatively new but it has brought very impressive results already. From cloning a human to genetically custom designing the finished product may only be a small step.

As there is very little information referring to an artificial production of humans it is necessary to investigate the very appearance of humans and the circumstances accompanying it. - Allegedly, the aliens told Rael that 25000 years ago extraterrestrials produced human clones who then were seeded all over the planet. There is no evidence that at that time extraterrestrials or humans appeared in large numbers on this planet. In the fossil record humans appear approximately 50000 years ago. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that 5500 years ago aliens who called themselves the gods invaded this planet and occupied it until about 3500 years ago.

It is interesting to note that in Japan and in Yucatan there was a human population before the gods landed. When the gods arrived about 5500 years ago they brought along or produced a new, more advanced version of humans. In both cases a dual society with different languages for the ruling class and the servants developed. The original humans became the servants of the newly arrived or produced humans and the gods.

Approximately 3500 years ago a major cataclysm struck the planet. The most violent volcanic explosion of the last ten thousand years destroyed the island of Thera. The entire Mediterranean was devastated. In Greece this event cause a huge flood remembered still as Deukalion's flood because he and his wife were the only gods to survive. For 3500 years alien gods could not exist on the surface of this planet. The cloning project of Rael and Clonaid could be an attempt to change that.

Rael said the aliens who contacted him were about 4 feet tall. It is interesting to note that one set of the gods of antiquity was quite short. There are pictures and statues of gods and goddesses and they all showed common traits the world over. The gods were not only short - 3 to 4 feet. They all had extremely short bent legs, large misshapen heads and usually were very ugly. (Ptah, Egyptian god of creation; Bes, Egyptian god of love and birth; Thor, Germanic god of thunder; Polynesian gods; Aztec Bat god; Ku or Kukalimoku, Hawaiian war god; Adena God; Maya god).

There is a second set of gods and these look like humans only better. These are the gods of Greece, the deities of Egypt etc. The solution to this mystery lies in Egypt because the good-looking gods there were called deities and they ranked below the gods. In mythologies of the near and middle East as well as Greece the younger generation of gods fought the older generation of gods and defeated them.

We know the names of the older generation of gods and they are the dwarf gods. We know the names of the younger generation of gods and they are the good-looking ones that are like humans. They are the ones who had relationships with humans and it is known that all over the ancient world children were born from unions between gods and goddesses and humans.

It is not conceivable that the older generation of gods could be the biological parents of the younger generation of gods/deities. The difference in appearance is too big. Conclusion: the first generation of gods produced the second generation of gods/deities as clones of themselves. As reported in mythologies throughout the Middle East and Greece at some point of time the second generation rebelled against the first generation, their producers, and assumed all the power. Zeus became the supreme Greek god and Amun became the supreme Egyptian god. The deities assumed "god-status" and became the gods of mythology.

In view of the above one must consider the possibility that this cloning project of Rael and Clonaid could be the preparation for an invasion of this planet by aliens who were here before. This leads to the question: "why don't these aliens not simply land as they did 5500 years ago?"

When astronauts began space flights, initially, they came back disoriented and dizzy. The Russians installed magnetic resonance systems in their space station to simulate the electromagnetic field of the planet. For whatever reason, it seems obvious that the aliens cannot tolerate the present electromagnetic field because there are no reports of aliens landing and staying here for any extended period of time other than in ancient times. This obstacle could be overcome by producing cloned humans who are used to the electromagnetic field of this planet and transferring alien spiritual energies into these beings.

Whatever the implications, Rael and Clonaid's activities need to be closely watched. Ethical and moral considerations are much less of a concern than the possibility of an alien invasion via human clones produced to give ill-intentioned extraterrestrials a foothold on our planet.

Out of the clear blue 5 ready made civilizations popped up out of seemingly thin air. Modern man can't seem to account for them because of their disbelief in spiritual things. The five "Cradles of civilizations" that sprang up were in the areas of Mesopotamia (The Sumerians), Egypt/Ethiopia, The Indus Valley (modern India), Central America into northwestern South America (Peru) and parts of the Orient (Japan). There are no traces of development, no evolution, no upward stages, nothing! Just highly advanced people. What is also interesting is that the actual enviroment inwhich they lived seemed quite different from ours today. From the Sumerian writings, men seemed to live to some ridiculous ages going well over 1,000 years and this jives with the biblical ages of early man. The living environment appeared to have been one of a lush tropical paradise condusive to growth an dnot racked with the stench of death and frailty that plagues us today. Interestingly enough there is not mention of rain despite the lush environment.

As stated before, all of these cultures have ONE other thing in common and that is, they taught that their civilizations were birthed by "the gods." We are far more aware of the Egyptians since they tend to get the most press, but recently, scientists found a nice size land mass submerged under water right off the coast of India. Preliminary findings prove what some feared and some knew already. The inhabitants were not primitive brute beasts but were highly advanced.

But where did these people go? There appeared to be an abrupt end to their existence and we have to look to subsequent generations to find out what happened. In practically every corner of this globe we find a ubiquitous story that explains it all. It's the story of some monumental catastrophe, in most cases, in the form of a great Flood. That world came to a crashing halt with a rush of water taking with it most, if not all, the inhabitants and their secrets leaving only behind hints of their magnificence and a few dazed survivors who apparently transmitted the epic story to their descendants from whom were derive.

Of note is the fact that with the advent of these societies there also seemed to have been a huge emphasis placed on religion which also seemed to have been a part of the package. What may have once been a pure simple belief in a single deity appeared to have spiraled downward into a bloody system that eventually began to include human sacrifice to an array of gods who appeared to have walked amongst men. At one point, these gods (elohim or nephilim) seemed to have been benevolent and only sought to assist man but eventually took on the mentality that they too had to be worshipped and man was to be their religious slaves.

Other stories do not mention the gods as being the catalysts but that men became full of pride because of their achievements but judging from other stories, it appears man took on this attitude from these so called gods who taught them things not meant for them.

One such civilization that has been romanced for ages is Atlantis. What makes Atlantis very interesting is that no one really knows where it is or where it was located. Year after year someone makes a claim to know where it is or where it might have been only to have another person come along and debunk their theories and present theirs and the cycle continues on. It has been believed Atlantis was sunken by some great catastrophe yet no great land mass has been found under sea in the region where it was said to have been situated. There has probably never been more buzz about a place we know little about and never found.

Despite this, the pieces of the story we have about Atlantis prove what I have been saying all along and it IS consistent with the pattern of that time which the Egyptians would probably refer to as Zep Tepi or the first time when gods walked amongst men.

A Greek man by the name of Solon the Wise heard about Atlantis from an Egyptian priest when visiting Sais. He was told not only about Atlantis. The priest also informed him about great disasters that strike a planet periodically and said it was in the course of one of those global disasters that Atlantis disappeared.

The priest said Atlantis was located outside the Pillars of Hercules, which was the name of the rocks of Gibraltar in ancient times. This puts Atlantis somewhere in the Atlantic, which could be assumed to be the name of the ocean surrounding Atlantis. The civilization had existed 9,000 years earlier according to the priest which as a side note would place it right in the ballpark area of the time of the other civilizations I mentioned up top but apparently even older. This might explain why some people feel that it was surviving Atlanteans who may have taken their advacned knowledge around the world to other peoples but that is just one theory that is merely speculative.

Solon brought the knowledge of Atlantis back to Greece and passed it on to a man named Dropides who told his grandson Critias about it. The Greeks were a curious people and loved to discuss things. They had special places for this and special people who were es-pecially good at developing schools of thoughts. Those were called philosophers. One of the most famous ones of this breed of people was Plato.

Plato conducted talks and the most famous of them is the one he held with Critias, the grandson of the provider of the information about Atlantis. There were others present and one of them, Timaeos, mentioned Atlantis in the written texts referring to that a specific discussion.

The Egyptian priest at Saiz who gave the information to Solon was impressed with the advanced civilization of the Atlanteans. This is remarkable because in those ancient times Egypt was thought to be the most advanced civilization there was. The priest mentioned that the Atlanteans were in possession of a very advanced technology. He also claimed that the Atlanteans did not fear death. Either they were immortals or they knew enough about death and the afterlife not to be scared. Most importantly, the priest told his visitor that periodically great cataclysms devastate the planet and that in the course of one such major cataclysm Atlantis disappeared. He did not say "was devastated" he said "disappeared".

The Greeks of early times that were called the Hellenes knew about a place in the Atlantic called Aea. It was said to be place where the sun always was at the center of the sky and the inhabitants of Aea were not afraid of death. It can be assumed that this Aea was to the Hellenes what Atlantis was to the Egyptians.

Many scholars assumed that Atlantis was fictitious and that Plato used the Atlantis story to present his philosophical thoughts on what a perfect society of his time should be like. Had these scholars been familiar with the mythology of ancient times they could have assumed otherwise.
.
Plato gives detailed descriptions of Atlantis as a huge island. He marvels at the power and the riches of the King. He presents a form of government, which in his time would have been ideal.
Therefore, one can see a break in the story: the information that came from the Egyptian priests tells of a huge landmass in the Atlantic Ocean "outside the Pillars of Hercules". The priest told of a highly developed civilization with very advanced technology. He also claimed that the people of Atlantis had no fear of death. - All of this was alien to the Greek mind. Therefore, it can it can be assumed that Solon got this information from someone non-Greek, the Egyptian priest. It is noteworthy that the Egyptian priest ridiculed Solon and his fellow Greeks for their lack of knowledge. Clearly, the above was alien to the Greek minds. Keep in mind the Greeks were a relatively new people while the Egyptians were older and more closely related to the earlier world that existed before the catastrophe.

Whatever we know about ancient times is documented in structures like temples, pyramids, historical accounts or mythology. There are artifacts to be found or stories of events to be learned. Nothing like this ever could be credibly linked to Atlantis. There is no sunken continent anywhere to be seen. There are no remnants of buildings that can be cross- referenced to Atlantis and there are no accounts of anything historical about Atlantis. There are no names of rulers and no information about the civilization and technology the Atlanteans possessed. Is Atlantis just a myth as many claim? Judging from the other civilizations that seem to be contemporary to Atlantis, it does appear Atlantis did indeed exist but it may have been the domain of the gods who came from heaven to earth, perhaps their private residence. I say perhaps because no one knows for sure. All we know is that according to the story, they too were wiped out.

Now we are left to ponder some things because we live in a world that has been cut off from that world. That was the world of Noah and Enoch, Gilgamesh and Vishnu. It was a time when gods walked the earth. They were the Annanuki (those from heaven who came to earth) or the Nephilims (fallen ones, angels).

They came before. Will they come again? Will their descent bring about similar results as in the past?

"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
And did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."

At this point I need to interject some things because I know some of what I have stated is really against the grain of common thinking and upsets some people's religious beliefs. This kind of stuff, to some, is considered "pagan," New Age, alternative, etc. Some call it "fringe." No matter how you look at it, some people are VERY afraid this kind of rewriting of history will shake up their snug beliefs and challenge the academic standards. To those who feel uncomfortable, this might explain a few things.

"Those trained in the sciences, accustomed to carefully crafted protocols and rigorous proof will, no doubt, question this paradigm in several ways.

There was literally no such thing as the discipline known as Archaeology in Western culture until the 1800’s. The Roman Church controlled and determined the view of the past. The scholastic world, dominated by the Church, followed docilely. Not until paleontological findings of millions of years forced that view to be reevaluated and Schliemann, a wealthy German merchant, refusing to believe that the ancient cities and peoples were legend, dug up several stages of the city of Troy (REMEMBER that for centuries this city was said to only be the stuff of myths and could NOT possibly exist), was a window into the past opened and the mythic view questioned. Scientific Archaeology, as we know it, came into existence only when academics reluctantly had to acknowledge the past being dug up and collected by amateurs in the Middle East. Archaeologists promptly came to be mistrusted and hated by the religious institutions who feared revelations that would contradict their teachings and the history of the Old Testament (where no fear is really needed).

Most in the scientific world are familiar with the scientist, Galileo, having to capitulate to the Inquisition to save his own life, dying while under house arrest for holding to a heliocentric view of the solar system, claiming to see planets through his telescope. Fewer are aware of the fact that the monk, Jordano Bruno, was burnt at the stake in Rome, through the solicitousness of the Roman Church, only thirty six years before the founding of Harvard University, for holding to the Copernican view (Copernicus was a Polish astronomer who rejected the standard European idea that the earth was the center of the universe, suggesting the sun was instead and that the earth and other planets revolved around it.[/b]) and claiming that there had to be other planets and other civilizations in the cosmos.

No one in America, literally, had a Doctorate, at the time of the founding of Harvard University, in 1636 by John Harvard. Increase Mather, a president of Harvard, as a Dissenter, was ineligible for a Doctorate from any English university because all of them were controlled by the Church. Fourteen years after the founding of Harvard, Bishop James Uusher published his “Annales Vertis et Novi Testamenti” dating the beginning of the world at 4004 B.C. One could be condemned as a heretic for contraverting this doctrine by decree of the Church in 1654 and the stricture was not removed until 1952 (!) by Pope Pius XII. The arithmetical wonder of this fact is that was only 48 years ago. Consider that almost everything written in this paper would have been branded as “heresy” and who knows how DNA research would have been branded only a short time ago.

As late as 1906, the Egyptian Exploration Fund, whose charter stated it was set up to promote archaeologists whose work would reinforce the Old and New Testament, refused to publish the discovery of an Anunnaki gold processing plant on Mount Horeb in the Sinai by Sir Flinders Petrie, the most distinguished in his field at the time. When he published privately they pulled his funding, had the book expunged from the publisher’s records and the British Library never cataloged the work --- on one of the most important discoveries in archaeology.(Sir Laurence Gardner: Bloodline Of The Holy Grail, Genesis Of the Grail Kings )

The mythic interpretation has been promulgated by religions because to recognize the Anunnaki as real would be to open the door to a radical reinterpretation of the entire phenomenon of religion and put into question the real identity of the very deity at center of their belief system. To relegate all the Anunnaki “gods” and their deeds --- except Enlil/Jehovah/Yahweh, the God of the Judeo-Christian religions, who was sublimated out of that category --- to fictional, mythic, unreal status was supremely effective to this end. It is through this millenniums-old tradition of suppression, mythization and manipulative control that the character, content and interpretation in the academic arena has been set and remains, largely, even to this day. Very few are going to make a rubber burning one-eighty over their Ph.D. thesis in Mythology. In Archaeology, Anthropology, and Paleontology, tenure tetanus prevents most from “going first” to admit they have been wrong in a turn as significant and profoundly revolutionary, perhaps even more so, than the Darwinian shock. Collegiate colitis is all too frequent just from contemplating having to contradict oneself in front of students. Peer pressure finishes off all but the isolated courageous academic or scientist here and there. Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) is proven correct again. If you want that Ph.D. diploma you will repeat what you know you are supposed to believe and say. If you want that job, that funding... The reason becomes apparent why the academic arena has attempted to ignore this forbidden archaeology and anthropology.

To this day, Anglican clergy still sit on the boards of English universities. In America, the Constitution is only a negative restraint on religious authoritarian domination Our schools of higher “learning” still parade the trappings of the medieval university on ceremonial occasions and, unfortunately, all too often still in their limitation of discussion to approved subjects. That the influence of religion on science is still virulent is manifest in the deference shown by politicians to religionists in decisions in matters of genetic research.

The ordinary scientist, although perhaps open and cognizant of the serious scientific objections that have been raised against classic Darwinian theory, is reluctant to question or reassess the evolutionary paradigm because of the erroneous fear that creationism would be the only alternative. In effect, the acceptance of the new paradigm is more difficult because it supercedes and corrects both the creationist and the Darwinian models. The Creationists were only half wrong and the Evolutionists only half right: there was a creation event but it was a genetic engineering process; there is an evolutionary process but it was not linear from the time the lightning hit the mud to us as the pinnacle of creation. It was interrupted in our regard by the Anunnaki for their own practical purposes. We shall be compelled to introduce an additional category: a genetically synthesized species."


In short, we have been conditioned to think along the lines of old Catholic approved teachings in regards to ancient history no matter if we know it or not or care to admit it. Many of us have long since concluded that ancient north Africa was not the backward place they once taught us and that people's OUTSIDE of Europe were indeed highly civilized. How many things are bing dug up and kept hush hush that actually challenges the old beliefs?

Let me back up a little to accomodate the Bible.

I pointed out earlier that the Bible is a highly condensed text. I would not go as far as some and say that it was tampered with (as in changing words intentionally to give an entrely different meaning) but, I will definitely say it was edited and that some books were intentionally left out. I say edited as in the case of Moses who it is claimed wrote the book of Genesis. Moses obviouly could not have written it as an eyewitnes because ALL of what is written in Genesis happened well before his time. Obviously waht he wrote was handed down to him and he simply compiled and edited to allegedly create the book we know today as Genesis. Obviously the part about creation and the subsequent events could have originated way back in Sumer (Sumerians) where his great ancestor, Abram, came from.

Not every book that claims to speak on biblical matters cohere with the central theme of the bible and can be proven to be books that were written to undermine the Bible, however, some books, like the Book of Enoch is a serious contender for a book that should have been included. The Catholic Church saw to it that it never made the cut but it survived in of all places, Ethiopia and is making a huge impact on modern theological thought ESPECIALLY in the area of ancient history and man's relationship with angels.

Like I have pointed out before, some in religious and evolution-belief circles would scoff at what has been written before. Those in the religious circles would argue that outside of the ancient Hebrews, ancient man was too much into idolatry and in too much spiritual darkness to be able to accomplish the feats ascribed to ancient man such as the Pyramids, Angkhor Wat, Stonehenge, etc. The Evolutionists is at a loss because according to his evolutionary model, man at that time was not supposed to be so advanced as to accomplish such things. To both sides the question then becomes, "then who did these things?" It surely was not Abraham, Moses, or Jesus of the Bible and it surely was not some bent over ape man. Then who?

What is becoming increasingly curious is that the ancient stories of gods and heros are begining to be looked at VERY seriously. Granted, stories surrounding them were embellished by later generations but there persists three stories in regards to them that just won't quit. 1) that they came from the heavens to earth. 2) that they mingled with man and during their stay did marvelous things and even mated with humans. 3)that their legacy came to an abrupt end. Modern man is left with almost no choice but to believe accordingly because the accomplishments of ancient can barely be repeated today, if at all, even with our so-called high tech equipment. It has been proven using VERY conservative numbers that no amount of non-stop man power could have erected the great Pyramid in the time frame allotted to it by modern interpretation. The Pyramid is made up of 2.5 million stones weighing 20 tons apiece. Do the math!

Let's revist the Sumerians again and their story.

"The Anunnaki (Sumerian: “those who came down from the heavens”; Old testament Hebrew, Anakeim, Nefilim, Elohim; Egyptian: Neter), an advanced civilization from the tenth planet in our solar system, splashed down in the Persian gulf area around 432,000 years ago, colonized the planet, with the purpose of obtaining large quantities of gold. Some 250,000 years ago, the recovered documents tell us, their lower echelon miners rebelled against the conditions in the mines and the Anunnaki directorate decided to create a creature to take their place. Enki, their chief scientist and Ninhursag their chief medical officer, after getting no satisfactory results splicing animal and Homo Erectus genes, merged their Anunnaki genes with that of Homo Erectus and produced us, Homo Sapiens, a genetically bicameral species, for their purposes as slaves. Because we were a hybrid we could not procreate. The demand for us as workers became greater and we were genetically manipulated to reproduce.

Eventually, we became so numerous that some of us were expelled from the Anunnaki city centers, gradually spreading over the planet. Having become a stable genetic stock and developing more precociously than, perhaps, the Anunnaki had anticipated, the Anunnaki began to be attracted to humans as sexual partners and children were born of these unions. This was unacceptable to the majority of the Anunnaki high council and it was decided to wipe out the human population through a flood. ( PLEASE compare this to Genesis chapter 6) that was predictable when Nibiru, the tenth in our solar system and the Anunnaki home planet, came through the inner solar system again (around 12,500 years ago) on one of its periodic 3600 year returns.

So in this expanded story we catch a glimpse of the condensed version in Genesis 6 which is you read the opening parts of the chapter you can tell that from the abruptness in the first 4 verses that a lot went on but not much was said. All we can gather are the essentials which matches the Sumerian account in parts. They are:

1) divine beings (sons of God or angels) mated with mortal women.
2) they produced children from their union (apparently giants)
3) the presence of these children seemed linked to increased wickedness upon the earth and this angered the High God
4) he wiped them out along with man in a great flood

So even if the Sumerian version seems too outraegous to believe, parts of it still concurs with the biblical story which due to it's condensation leaves a lot to be speculated about because to this very day, Christians and their scholars are embroiled in a bitter battle about Genesis 6. One side CANNOT accept the idea that these "sons of God" were angels because according to them, angels can't have sex so since angels cannot have sex, these cannot be angels (circular reasoning). This they base on a VERY wide interpretation found in the New Testament where Jesus states that resurrected souls in heaven will be like the angels (who do NOT marry) and somehow this group deducts out of that that angels cannot have sex BECAUSE they do not marry. This despite the fact that non-marriage has NEVER stopped anyone from having sex. So to explain the "sons of God" they simply claim that they were mere men which begs a few questions. One of them is, since when did mere men and mere women produce a race strictly of giants?

The other side says, "Yes, these were angels who went against the creative design of God and mated with humans producing an offspring OUTSIDE the creative design God intended which led to perversions on the earth and incurred his wrath. This side points to the MANY myths around the world about this very story and even the Book of Enoch which expands on the story even more.






like i said, it's very long, i wouldnt say i agree with all of it, but it's very well written, supported, and very interesting.

V4D3R
11-15-2006, 07:24 PM
Your search for answers has lead you down the wrong path. A path I strongly advocate against. The fallen ones - Anunnaki created religion and gave mankind misconeptions about the truth of God and the Sons of God. The Nakash are the ones who decive mankind for they rebelled against God to bring about means for their own agendas. They have tricked - including myself until I caught on to the real picture of what is.

The truth of what is - is that we are all apart of God and the Kingdom of Heaven is within us all- Holy Spirit.

This is the devil deceiving us that your getting into in these topics.

maestro wooz
11-15-2006, 08:11 PM
^^haha okay, i'm just putting this up there cause i think it's interesting. Your answer to all this is just that we're all part of the kingdom of god?

TurnThePage
11-15-2006, 11:50 PM
im familiar with all of this....
but ive never such a long article lol...

good post.

snapple
11-16-2006, 12:02 AM
Your search for answers has lead you down the wrong path. A path I strongly advocate against. The fallen ones - Anunnaki created religion and gave mankind misconeptions about the truth of God and the Sons of God. The Nakash are the ones who decive mankind for they rebelled against God to bring about means for their own agendas. They have tricked - including myself until I caught on to the real picture of what is.

The truth of what is - is that we are all apart of God and the Kingdom of Heaven is within us all- Holy Spirit.

This is the devil deceiving us that your getting into in these topics.

Real talk. god created man, end of story.

someguy
11-16-2006, 12:33 AM
Your search for answers has lead you down the wrong path. A path I strongly advocate against. The fallen ones - Anunnaki created religion and gave mankind misconeptions about the truth of God and the Sons of God. The Nakash are the ones who decive mankind for they rebelled against God to bring about means for their own agendas. They have tricked - including myself until I caught on to the real picture of what is.

The truth of what is - is that we are all apart of God and the Kingdom of Heaven is within us all- Holy Spirit.

This is the devil deceiving us that your getting into in these topics.question everything is all I can say, BTW, why do you call yourself a "sith" in your title? an evil starwars character? giving yourself a somewhat evil title but preaching we are all part of the holy spirit? I am confused my young patawan friend.

maestro wooz
11-16-2006, 01:10 AM
we do live in the kingdom of "god", but what is "god", and can he not exist if we weren't created by his will?

snapple
11-16-2006, 01:28 AM
god doesn't need us at all...he existed before we did.....god is the supreme soul controller of the universe

AcidPhosphate69
11-16-2006, 01:38 AM
I believe (while I know some could give a shit what I believe) is that Earth isn't mans for the taking/making as so many would like to believe. I think we were put here as an expriment of sorts, a means to an end. I mean, we're a very weak, very young, and uniquely advanced species. Man has connections with the animal kingdom but unlike animals, we're NOT adapted to our surroundings through evolution. I think we're de-evolving with technology (as I sit and type on my computer). I mean, take an ant-eater for example. It does it's job almost perfectly, which is to eat ants and pass on it's genes, thus strengthening the species with good genes. Humans have a knack for self-destruction and we question our goals from the day we begin to acknowledge the existence of said goals. As a species we thirst in the quest for knowledge like no other. An ant-eater won't question his existence, he'll do his job and preserve his own life. A man with sit and ponder things beyond our comprehension and might destroy his own life. I dunno, I think we're special in ways. God, aliens, mythical beings...whatever. There is something of great power at work in the cosmos and we may just be a pet project. Maybe I'm crazy.

maestro wooz
11-16-2006, 02:10 AM
^^nah i'm with you on that, as one of my religion teachers once put it "YOU DONT SEE ARDVARKS WITH ARDVARK 7/11'S SERVING ANT SLURPEES, DRIVING DRUNK IN ARDVARK CARS", the man was a nut but he had a point. Humans act counter to nature, good or bad. We are not like any other of "gods" creatures. Whether the annunaki built us or we really are what happens when gorillas eat shrooms, humans are very very different then every other creature on earth.

Lil' Ruger
11-16-2006, 03:52 AM
some things man are not meant to know....

Prince Rai
11-16-2006, 06:32 AM
funny how the scriptures does talk of the nephilim, but we know not much of this as all their tangible existence as such isnt here.

and btw, the Quran clearly states that extraterrestials exist.

if what the post says, is true, does it reallly undermine the God we believe in? who created whom?

My First Timbs
11-16-2006, 07:16 PM
. Man has connections with the animal kingdom but unlike animals, we're NOT adapted to our surroundings through evolution. I think we're de-evolving with technology (as I sit and type on my computer). I mean, take an ant-eater for example. It does it's job almost perfectly, which is to eat ants and pass on it's genes, thus strengthening the species with good genes.

man, just like any other animal is very well adapted for its environment.

there is no such thing a "de evolving"

evolution is nothing but a change in the genes over time... any change is "evolution"....

try to not think about evolution in terms of "progress" and "advancement".. words like that have no place in discussions about biological evolution...

My First Timbs
11-16-2006, 07:18 PM
^^nah i'm with you on that, as one of my religion teachers once put it "YOU DONT SEE ARDVARKS WITH ARDVARK 7/11'S SERVING ANT SLURPEES, DRIVING DRUNK IN ARDVARK CARS", the man was a nut but he had a point. Humans act counter to nature, good or bad. We are not like any other of "gods" creatures. Whether the annunaki built us or we really are what happens when gorillas eat shrooms, humans are very very different then every other creature on earth.

if aardvarks went down a similar evolutionary path, they too would gladly by driving to 711's and drinking slurpees.

humans are not counter nature.. we are nature

Visionz
11-16-2006, 08:40 PM
funny how the scriptures does talk of the nephilim, but we know not much of this as all their tangible existence as such isnt here.

and btw, the Quran clearly states that extraterrestials exist.

if what the post says, is true, does it reallly undermine the God we believe in? who created whom?What verses in the Quran are you referring to? I haven't made it the whole way thru yet, just curious.


It's an interesting read though I'd have to do a lot more research to have a definite oppinion of it one way or the other. I do know the Bible makes mention of Giants and women giving birth to a wicked generation of men.

For arguments sake though, say that what is mentioned is true even the creators would have The Creator so it'd wouldn't make what I do believe in any less true. Above all, there's the Most High, God, Grand Creator of us all.

There is some contradictions in what the guy was saying. There's no missing link and the age of our DNA's mitrocondria so we must've got here by experiment from a higher being than ourselves, yet he goes on to say that the Mayans and another people (I read this yesterday and am typing outta memory) were already here. If they were already here with the other race stated with the genetic fun and games, doesn't that throw off the argument w/ the missing link and the DNA?

maestro wooz
11-16-2006, 09:44 PM
if aardvarks went down a similar evolutionary path, they too would gladly by driving to 711's and drinking slurpees.

humans are not counter nature.. we are nature

i actually thought of that as i was posting, humans are nature so anything humans do is nature, but alot of the things we do run counter to the rest of nature.

I dont know how much of this you read timbs, but is there any of the stuff you read that is flat out wrong? Scientifically or anything?




There is some contradictions in what the guy was saying. There's no missing link and the age of our DNA's mitrocondria so we must've got here by experiment from a higher being than ourselves, yet he goes on to say that the Mayans and another people (I read this yesterday and am typing outta memory) were already here. If they were already here with the other race stated with the genetic fun and games, doesn't that throw off the argument w/ the missing link and the DNA?

i think that when the annunaki started creating this species there was an immediate change and there is no missing link(s) to show progression. I think, maybe, i'm getting in a little over my head at this point.

maestro wooz
11-16-2006, 09:48 PM
princerai, my view is that if you believe god created all then you believe god also created the aliens in the other universes. Theres too much out there for us to be the only living creatures, we gotta face that. If they are out there then they are just as much "gods" creatures as humans, even if they do shit out ice cream or what have you. Us being the children of some other of god's children, doesn't make us less of god's children.

Visionz
11-16-2006, 09:49 PM
^yeah see it says that one point but I swear that he says there was also a few tribes of humans that they had no hand in creating

maestro wooz
11-16-2006, 09:56 PM
yeah youre right eric, this is the whole block he talks about that in. I'm not sure if anyone's noticed, but he typed this up as about 5-6 posts so there is some disjontedness.

As there is very little information referring to an artificial production of humans it is necessary to investigate the very appearance of humans and the circumstances accompanying it. - Allegedly, the aliens told Rael that 25000 years ago extraterrestrials produced human clones who then were seeded all over the planet. There is no evidence that at that time extraterrestrials or humans appeared in large numbers on this planet. In the fossil record humans appear approximately 50000 years ago. Also, there is overwhelming evidence that 5500 years ago aliens who called themselves the gods invaded this planet and occupied it until about 3500 years ago.

It is interesting to note that in Japan and in Yucatan there was a human population before the gods landed. When the gods arrived about 5500 years ago they brought along or produced a new, more advanced version of humans. In both cases a dual society with different languages for the ruling class and the servants developed. The original humans became the servants of the newly arrived or produced humans and the gods.

Approximately 3500 years ago a major cataclysm struck the planet. The most violent volcanic explosion of the last ten thousand years destroyed the island of Thera. The entire Mediterranean was devastated. In Greece this event cause a huge flood remembered still as Deukalion's flood because he and his wife were the only gods to survive. For 3500 years alien gods could not exist on the surface of this planet. The cloning project of Rael and Clonaid could be an attempt to change that.

Rael said the aliens who contacted him were about 4 feet tall. It is interesting to note that one set of the gods of antiquity was quite short. There are pictures and statues of gods and goddesses and they all showed common traits the world over. The gods were not only short - 3 to 4 feet. They all had extremely short bent legs, large misshapen heads and usually were very ugly. (Ptah, Egyptian god of creation; Bes, Egyptian god of love and birth; Thor, Germanic god of thunder; Polynesian gods; Aztec Bat god; Ku or Kukalimoku, Hawaiian war god; Adena God; Maya god).

There is a second set of gods and these look like humans only better. These are the gods of Greece, the deities of Egypt etc. The solution to this mystery lies in Egypt because the good-looking gods there were called deities and they ranked below the gods. In mythologies of the near and middle East as well as Greece the younger generation of gods fought the older generation of gods and defeated them.

We know the names of the older generation of gods and they are the dwarf gods. We know the names of the younger generation of gods and they are the good-looking ones that are like humans. They are the ones who had relationships with humans and it is known that all over the ancient world children were born from unions between gods and goddesses and humans.

It is not conceivable that the older generation of gods could be the biological parents of the younger generation of gods/deities. The difference in appearance is too big. Conclusion: the first generation of gods produced the second generation of gods/deities as clones of themselves. As reported in mythologies throughout the Middle East and Greece at some point of time the second generation rebelled against the first generation, their producers, and assumed all the power. Zeus became the supreme Greek god and Amun became the supreme Egyptian god. The deities assumed "god-status" and became the gods of mythology.

In view of the above one must consider the possibility that this cloning project of Rael and Clonaid could be the preparation for an invasion of this planet by aliens who were here before. This leads to the question: "why don't these aliens not simply land as they did 5500 years ago?"

When astronauts began space flights, initially, they came back disoriented and dizzy. The Russians installed magnetic resonance systems in their space station to simulate the electromagnetic field of the planet. For whatever reason, it seems obvious that the aliens cannot tolerate the present electromagnetic field because there are no reports of aliens landing and staying here for any extended period of time other than in ancient times. This obstacle could be overcome by producing cloned humans who are used to the electromagnetic field of this planet and transferring alien spiritual energies into these beings.

Whatever the implications, Rael and Clonaid's activities need to be closely watched. Ethical and moral considerations are much less of a concern than the possibility of an alien invasion via human clones produced to give ill-intentioned extraterrestrials a foothold on our planet.

i pmed the guy who wrote it all to see if he ever finished it, i dont think he did though.

maestro wooz
11-16-2006, 09:57 PM
he jumps to alot of conclusions in this section and i feel his matchups probaly wouldnt work out 100% if we knew more info on what he's talking about.

Visionz
11-16-2006, 09:59 PM
princerai, my view is that if you believe god created all then you believe god also created the aliens in the other universes. Theres too much out there for us to be the only living creatures, we gotta face that. If they are out there then they are just as much "gods" creatures as humans, even if they do shit out ice cream or what have you. Us being the children of some other of god's children, doesn't make us less of god's children.true that, the mathematics of the whole situation tells me we aren't alone. If you took the rarest of rare an object here on earth and then compared its mass to the total mass of everything else that isn't that one thing here on this planet and worked that out to be a certain rati. Whatever it may be, that ratio would be nowhere near as small as the ratio of what it would be if you were to compare the life-sustaining properties of this planet to the total mass of all else that we KNOW is out there. For us to be only creatures out there who are able to question their own existence is damn near mathematically impossible.

Visionz
11-16-2006, 10:07 PM
It is interesting to note that in Japan and in Yucatan there was a human population before the gods landed. When the gods arrived about 5500 years ago they brought along or produced a new, more advanced version of humans. In both cases a dual society with different languages for the ruling class and the servants developed. The original humans became the servants o f the newly arrived or produced humans and the gods.Yeah right here is the one that kinda throws everything he said previously with the whole time limits off. Do these Mitrochondria in the DNA of Japanese different from the rest of the planet? If they do, it would support to a certain extent what he's saying even more, but if they are basically the same as everyone else on the planet then I think it discredits it.

maestro wooz
11-16-2006, 10:19 PM
i love google

http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html

Most scholars believe that people from the Asian continent came to the Japanese archipelago in two migrations. An early wave brought the Jomon culture--hunter-gatherers who made pottery--to Japan more than 10,000 years ago. A second migration began about 2,300 years ago, when the Yayoi people, entering from the Korean Peninsula, brought weaving, metalworking, and rice culture to Japan. First appearing on the southwestern island of Kyushu, by ca. A.D. 300 Yayoi culture had spread throughout most of Japan, altering all local cultures south of Hokkaido, the northernmost island. Michael F. Hammer and Satoshi Horai are examining the extent to which the Jomon did or did not contribute genetically to the modern Japanese. Current hypotheses can be classified as replacement, hybridization, or transformation. In the first, Yayoi immigrants replaced the Jomon people. Hybridization theories claim that modern Japanese are descended from both groups, in which case they should have genes deriving from both the Jomon and Yayoi people. Transformation theories posit that modern Japanese people gradually evolved from the Jomon. Hammer and Horai, based on their study of the Y chromosome, conclude that hybridization, a mixing of Jomon and Yayoi stocks, is the most likely explanation for the origin of modern Japanese.

looks like there's a couple theories on that, one which would not refute his point, if the jomon were replaced leaving no trace of the pre-alien human population, and the other, the jomon not being replaced and the mixing of the two people, would hurt his point because as far as i know i've never heard of people of japanese descent having a different dna structure.

That's just what one website says, but they look legitimate and i wouldn't classify archaeology.org as a frivulous site or anything.

Visionz
11-16-2006, 10:28 PM
looks like there's a couple theories on that, one which would not refute his point, if the jomon were replaced leaving no trace of the pre-alien human population, and the other, the jomon not being replaced and the mixing of the two people, would hurt his point because as far as i know i've never heard of people of japanese descent having a different dna structure.

That's just what one website says, but they look legitimate and i wouldn't classify archaeology.org as a frivulous site or anything.very interesting, one might even argue that the blending happened at the hands of the aliens right? It would still put humans here though before them. Did you try to search anything on the age of the mitrochondria in Japanese? It's unlikely that there'd be any real difference structurally in any way but what about age?

Visionz
11-16-2006, 10:38 PM
Recent analysis of global mitochondrial DNA diversity in humans based on complete mtDNA sequences has provided compelling evidence of a human mtDNA origin in Africa (Ingman et al. 2000). Less than 100,000 years ago, at least two mtDNA human lineages began to rapidly spread from Africa to the Old World (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001). The archaeological records attest that humans reached Japan, at the eastern edge of Asia, around 30,000 years ago (Glover 1980). At that time, Japan was connected to the Continent by both northern and southern land bridges, enabling two migratory routes. As early as 13,000 years ago, pottery appeared in Japan and Siberia for the first time in the world (Shiraishi 2002). Subsequent technical improvements gave rise to the Japanese Neolithic period known as the Jomon period, in which the population growth was considerable. Later, Continental people arrived in Japan from the Korean peninsula, initiating the Yayoi period, with this migration reaching its maximum at the beginning of the first millennium.

this paper seems to lean more to the theory of evolution in its findings. The original article seemed too long to paste here but you can read it at this link.

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/10a/1832

maestro wooz
11-16-2006, 11:26 PM
this paper seems to lean more to the theory of evolution in its findings. The original article seemed too long to paste here but you can read it at this link.

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/10a/1832

from that link,

All the theories that have been proposed up to now to explain the peopling of Japan seem insufficient to accommodate fully this complex picture.


hahaha

Visionz
11-16-2006, 11:48 PM
its like the licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop^ the world may never know, lmao

V4D3R
11-18-2006, 04:38 PM
question everything is all I can say, BTW, why do you call yourself a "sith" in your title? an evil starwars character? giving yourself a somewhat evil title but preaching we are all part of the holy spirit? I am confused my young patawan friend.

Yep - like a Sith - in my past I seeked the "Force" by other means that the "Jedi"( righteous) abhored.

But yo- in the End - VADER picked the devil up - and threw him into the pit....with his one remaining arm.

TwentyFourSeven
11-18-2006, 05:15 PM
LOL!!!

I'm the guy who wrote that article a few years back. Thanks to Maestro for inviting me here to see all that hoopla surroundng it. While I am not going to respond in any great length here as yet, I have to admit that when I wrote it I was writing it with a healthy heaping of a Christian perspective, a perspective that has since vanished. I'm sure there are some things I se differently now, but I can barely remember what I wrote so let me go back and read this thread.

maestro wooz
11-20-2006, 06:56 PM
cool cool, bump also

maestro wooz
07-24-2007, 12:52 AM
bump

WARPATH
07-24-2007, 01:52 AM
All the answers to your questions are here:

D7v_V8qSIIo

Longbongcilvaringz
07-24-2007, 12:21 PM
originally when you posted this, i skimmed through it, and never read it entirely although i was intending to. ive done the same thing again, but i will read it sometime soon.

but the very few paragraphs i read, present some problems for me (even discounting that alien bullshit)


"White man has been living in Africa and the Americas for hundreds of years. Blacks and other persons with colored skins like Arabs or Indians have been living in northern latitudes of America and Europe for hundreds of years. Not the slightest change in skin color or ethnic traits has been noticed."

doesnt his argument here seem completely flawed, he even mentioned a few sentences earlier that man first appeared 45000 year ago (out of no where according to him..). how does he expect there to be genetic change over 100's of years when it took about 50000 for the small degree of genetic change we have now to occur. i cant really be bothered getting into much greater detail as i havent read the whole thing... but it is obvious that conditions over the last hundreds of years are vastly different than those 40000 years ago. my memory is sketchy on this... but skin colour is determined by control of vitamin e intake (honestly i dont remember totally, so it could be another vitamin, either way...), 40000 years ago sun exposure was easily the main source of vitamin e for most humans (inuits are an exception - inake of fish substitutes the exposure, hence their skin colour even though they are not exposed to great amounts of sunlight). in these early times, human couldnt avoid the sun, or substitute vitamin e readily in areas where a vitamin e rich food was plentiful. hence the skin colour mutation and consequence variation.

many people erroneously that humans have evolved into different breeds (for want of a better word), and it seems as though he has also. genetically there is minute difference between the darkest african and the palest european.

anyway, ive rambled on, and said more than im sure is true... i'll refresh my memory on certain things once ive read the whole article.

his arguments are in direct contradiction with the scientific consensus on the matter also ( not that this makes him necessarily incorrect)

anyway, ill give it a proper read later

CEITEDMOFO
07-30-2007, 02:57 AM
All the answers to your questions are here:

D7v_V8qSIIo

BEST VID EVER

Cthulhu
08-03-2007, 08:28 PM
I think it's extremely racist, or at the very least, bigoted and absurd, to believe that ancient humans needed help from "gods" or "aliens" to build gigantic monuments.

maestro wooz
08-03-2007, 09:22 PM
racist? Racist? Bigoted? Because ancient civilizations were "black"? Its racist to believe aliens helped ancient civilizations because ancient civilizations were "black", WOW weve hit a new low.

Cthulhu
08-03-2007, 09:55 PM
racist? Racist? Bigoted? Because ancient civilizations were "black"? Its racist to believe aliens helped ancient civilizations because ancient civilizations were "black", WOW weve hit a new low.

No. I didn't say that. Racism isn't exclusive to black people. Maybe racism isn't the most appropriate term, since we could be talking about people of the same race as me or you or someone else. Of course, it's extremely hard to trace lineage back to either the ancient Egyptians or the Mesopotamians.

I'm saying it's rather bigoted to assume that the people of ancient times couldn't have built those things on their own. Why couldn't they have? They had mathemeticians and architects and plenty of laborers. It just took them a lot longer. They didn't erect pyramids in a year like you can do with a skycraper nowadays. It took maybe a decade to finish something like that.

whitey
08-03-2007, 10:09 PM
we are an animal like all the others on this mother. we came from ealier animals before hand. who knows we may evolve into something some day.

problem is a lot of you dont get the concept of evolution and how it works. it takes thousands...millions of years for a lot of it to happen. sorry we are not morphing into something different within your life time. (although diseases morph within your life time, you ever wonder why dieseaes that we have vaccines for come back? because they evolved.)

there are lots of examples. look into it. the canary islands are one of the greatest examples. australia too.

WU-KILLAH
08-04-2007, 03:20 AM
we are an animal like all the others on this mother. we came from ealier animals before hand. who knows we may evolve into something some day.

problem is a lot of you dont get the concept of evolution and how it works. it takes thousands...millions of years for a lot of it to happen. sorry we are not morphing into something different within your life time. (although diseases morph within your life time, you ever wonder why dieseaes that we have vaccines for come back? because they evolved.)

there are lots of examples. look into it. the canary islands are one of the greatest examples. australia too.



You're loosing your time, most of em can't handle the truth

WARPATH
08-07-2007, 02:00 PM
we are an animal like all the others on this mother. we came from ealier animals before hand. who knows we may evolve into something some day.

problem is a lot of you dont get the concept of evolution and how it works. it takes thousands...millions of years for a lot of it to happen. sorry we are not morphing into something different within your life time. (although diseases morph within your life time, you ever wonder why dieseaes that we have vaccines for come back? because they evolved.)

there are lots of examples. look into it. the canary islands are one of the greatest examples. australia too.

1. Why are still trying to press a scientific theory as fact?

2. Who's been around for a million years to verify if this theory is true?

You're loosing your time, most of em can't handle the truth

And the truth which is what?

Cthulhu
08-07-2007, 02:43 PM
1. Why are still trying to press a scientific theory as fact?

2. Who's been around for a million years to verify if this theory is true?



And the truth which is what?

It appears you don't actually understand what a THEORY actually entails in terms of science.

A scientific theory IS NOT just a bunch of guys in white coats sitting around GUESSING and making CONJECTURES about how the world works.

Theories are based upon a string of related phenomena that are OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, and FALSIFIABLE.

So, basically, yes, you can't ever be sure that a scientific theory is "true" but the basic philosophy behind science is searching for the truth based on observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusion. A good scientific theory should be held up to extreme scrutiny. It should forbid other things, but also itself be able to be proven wrong. If it does not have the possibility of being proven wrong it is not scientific and of no use. Now, just because a theory has the possibility of being proven wrong doesn't make it weak. A theory must be able to be tested over and over. While there's no divine ordinance to say that after a certain number of trials a theory is "FACT", a theory that holds up in a number of experiments can usually be accepted as factual (that's not to say a new advancement still couldn't prove it wrong, but the odds of that definately decrease).

Certain theories that are the cornerstones of observing nature and the world are regarded as "laws" and are basically unchallenged because the amount of theories built off of them are enough corroborating evidence to suggest there's no reason to doubt it. Still even these laws, such as the Law of Gravity, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, etc. COULD hypothetically be disproven if another testable theory emerged and new evidence proved the old theories wrong.

When most people use the word "theory" they actually mean either hypothesis or conjecture.

A hypothesis is an educated guess that can be tested through the scientific method. A string of related hypotheses that stand up to a number of experiments or tests become regarded as theory.

A conjecture is some times synonymous with hypothesis, but it can also have the connotation of a simple guess or estimate based on logical thinking but not hands-on testing.

so.....

Why is it pretty ridiculous to believe aliens or gods created "race" and started civilization? The thing is, there is not enough corroborating evidence to give such ideas any credence. The current scientific theories on the origins of humankind and human civilization have far more tested evidence to back them up.

Futhermore, they are much more simple than a conspiracy theory about aliens. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Huggasaurus Sex
08-07-2007, 03:17 PM
hey i've got a theory too! about 5 million years ago, a species of hominids that are closely related to modern day chimpanzees began walking on two legs instead of using all 4 limbs for locomotion. this freed up the use of its hands for manipulation of the environment. over the course of a few million years this led to smarter and smarter organisms as individuals with better toolmaking abilities and decision-making abilities spawned more offspring than their dumber brethren. complex language developed along with the more intelligent groups, greatly improving their chances of survival. by 200,000 years ago anatomically modern humans had already emerged but it wasn't until just 10,000 years ago that they figured out how to farm! once they learned that trick, well, if you don't know how important agriculture and animal domestication is to human history, i suggest you look it up (or just think really hard about what it would be like going from following herds around all your life, living day to day, versus setting up a permanent camp somewhere, planting some seeds, and reaping in more food than you and all your friends could ever possibly eat).

ya but it's just a theory. the aliens thing is pretty convincing too i dunno.

Prolifical ENG
08-07-2007, 04:46 PM
You don't have to believe that....however it is a nice story that threads things together.

WARPATH
08-07-2007, 06:30 PM
It appears you don't actually understand what a THEORY actually entails in terms of science.

A scientific theory IS NOT just a bunch of guys in white coats sitting around GUESSING and making CONJECTURES about how the world works.

Theories are based upon a string of related phenomena that are OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, and FALSIFIABLE.

So, basically, yes, you can't ever be sure that a scientific theory is "true" but the basic philosophy behind science is searching for the truth based on observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusion. A good scientific theory should be held up to extreme scrutiny. It should forbid other things, but also itself be able to be proven wrong. If it does not have the possibility of being proven wrong it is not scientific and of no use. Now, just because a theory has the possibility of being proven wrong doesn't make it weak. A theory must be able to be tested over and over. While there's no divine ordinance to say that after a certain number of trials a theory is "FACT", a theory that holds up in a number of experiments can usually be accepted as factual (that's not to say a new advancement still couldn't prove it wrong, but the odds of that definately decrease).

Certain theories that are the cornerstones of observing nature and the world are regarded as "laws" and are basically unchallenged because the amount of theories built off of them are enough corroborating evidence to suggest there's no reason to doubt it. Still even these laws, such as the Law of Gravity, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, etc. COULD hypothetically be disproven if another testable theory emerged and new evidence proved the old theories wrong.

When most people use the word "theory" they actually mean either hypothesis or conjecture.

A hypothesis is an educated guess that can be tested through the scientific method. A string of related hypotheses that stand up to a number of experiments or tests become regarded as theory.

A conjecture is some times synonymous with hypothesis, but it can also have the connotation of a simple guess or estimate based on logical thinking but not hands-on testing.

so.....

Why is it pretty ridiculous to believe aliens or gods created "race" and started civilization? The thing is, there is not enough corroborating evidence to give such ideas any credence. The current scientific theories on the origins of humankind and human civilization have far more tested evidence to back them up.

Futhermore, they are much more simple than a conspiracy theory about aliens. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Way to go Bill Nye the science guy.

You think your the only person that read the first chapter in every science book ever written. It's okay, there's probably somebody here that needed to read that.

hey i've got a theory too! about 5 million years ago, a species of hominids that are closely related to modern day chimpanzees began walking on two legs instead of using all 4 limbs for locomotion. this freed up the use of its hands for manipulation of the environment. over the course of a few million years this led to smarter and smarter organisms as individuals with better toolmaking abilities and decision-making abilities spawned more offspring than their dumber brethren. complex language developed along with the more intelligent groups, greatly improving their chances of survival. by 200,000 years ago anatomically modern humans had already emerged but it wasn't until just 10,000 years ago that they figured out how to farm! once they learned that trick, well, if you don't know how important agriculture and animal domestication is to human history, i suggest you look it up (or just think really hard about what it would be like going from following herds around all your life, living day to day, versus setting up a permanent camp somewhere, planting some seeds, and reaping in more food than you and all your friends could ever possibly eat).

ya but it's just a theory. the aliens thing is pretty convincing too i dunno.

That's the most ridiculous theory I ever heard. Next thing your gonna tell me it's your nature to fling shit with your bare hands at your fellow man.

I really don't have to think hard about what life would be like following herds, seeing how i've been studying how my ancestors did it and were able to produce enough protein to pro-create enough warriors to keep the savage U.S. government at bay for over 60 years during the indian wars. All the way up until point when they agreed to have peace --just long enough to trickle in and leave our babies bleeding in the snow.

But you guys don't want a history lesson, you want a science lesson:


The fossil record doesn't support evolution. There aren't enough transitional fossils across the board to even keep the theory floating. My First Timbs can come in this thread and verify that for me, or maybe he won't because that'll hurt his book sales.

There are however enough dick riders to jump on the next mans nuts. I'll bet my testicles on that one.

Huggasaurus Sex
08-07-2007, 08:39 PM
I really don't have to think hard about what life would be like following herds, seeing how i've been studying how my ancestors did it and were able to produce enough protein to pro-create enough warriors to keep the savage U.S. government at bay for over 60 years during the indian wars. All the way up until point when they agreed to have peace --just long enough to trickle in and leave our babies bleeding in the snow.

peace has been and always will be a losing proposition. it occurs in isolated places, for short periods of time, among relatively small groups of people. in the real world, the powerful dominate and the weak die off. that's evolution.

but to be fair, the native americans never really had much of a chance. corn isn't nearly as suitable for agriculture as wheat and barley, which the europeans had access to. and have you ever tried taming buffalo?! not nearly as easy as domesticating cows and horses, which again the europeans had access to. so with poorer agricultural resources, native americans were at a tremendous disadvantage. they were doomed from the moment they crossed the bering strait.

The fossil record doesn't support evolution. There aren't enough transitional fossils across the board to even keep the theory floating.
wow. i mean if you've never actually studied fossil evidence for human evolution, then what's wrong with saying you simply don't know enough to take a stance one way or the other?

whitey
08-07-2007, 08:48 PM
slippy you just got owned by like 5 dudes.

Cthulhu
08-07-2007, 10:21 PM
Way to go Bill Nye the science guy.

You think your the only person that read the first chapter in every science book ever written. It's okay, there's probably somebody here that needed to read that.



That's the most ridiculous theory I ever heard. Next thing your gonna tell me it's your nature to fling shit with your bare hands at your fellow man.

I really don't have to think hard about what life would be like following herds, seeing how i've been studying how my ancestors did it and were able to produce enough protein to pro-create enough warriors to keep the savage U.S. government at bay for over 60 years during the indian wars. All the way up until point when they agreed to have peace --just long enough to trickle in and leave our babies bleeding in the snow.

But you guys don't want a history lesson, you want a science lesson:


The fossil record doesn't support evolution. There aren't enough transitional fossils across the board to even keep the theory floating. My First Timbs can come in this thread and verify that for me, or maybe he won't because that'll hurt his book sales.

There are however enough dick riders to jump on the next mans nuts. I'll bet my testicles on that one.

lol I guess it's better to just be ignorant and blindly follow mythology and propaganda just because it says it's true instead of observing the world around you and making conclusions based on what you can test.

WARPATH
08-08-2007, 10:27 AM
peace has been and always will be a losing proposition. it occurs in isolated places, for short periods of time, among relatively small groups of people. in the real world, the powerful dominate and the weak die off. that's evolution.

but to be fair, the native americans never really had much of a chance. corn isn't nearly as suitable for agriculture as wheat and barley, which the europeans had access to. and have you ever tried taming buffalo?! not nearly as easy as domesticating cows and horses, which again the europeans had access to. so with poorer agricultural resources, native americans were at a tremendous disadvantage. they were doomed from the moment they crossed the bering strait.


wow. i mean if you've never actually studied fossil evidence for human evolution, then what's wrong with saying you simply don't know enough to take a stance one way or the other?

The wicked dominate. That how the west was won. Had nothing to do with who was the better soldier. Germ warfare and terrorism, no amount of bullshit grammar school propaganda can hide the truth.


As far as your fossil comment, i've studied the fossil evidence. It's evident to me that your mind lacks scope and imagination. Somebody handed you a test, and you quoted from the text. When i'm in school, I re-write the test.


slippy you just got owned by like 5 dudes.

Ok monkey boy. Here's a banana. http://www.dosometalking.com/images/banana.gif


lol I guess it's better to just be ignorant and blindly follow mythology and propaganda just because it says it's true instead of observing the world around you and making conclusions based on what you can test.

That's why i'm always testing. Your speaking to scientist, not some conspiracy theorist or superstitious cave man.

Maybe you should to start utilizing more of your senses in your observation methods.

Cthulhu
08-08-2007, 11:30 AM
The wicked dominate. That how the west was won. Had nothing to do with who was the better soldier. Germ warfare and terrorism, no amount of bullshit grammar school propaganda can hide the truth.


As far as your fossil comment, i've studied the fossil evidence. It's evident to me that your mind lacks scope and imagination. Somebody handed you a test, and quoted from the text. When i'm in school, I re-write the test.




Ok monkey boy. Here's a banana. http://www.dosometalking.com/images/banana.gif




That's why i'm always testing. Your speaking to scientist, not some conspiracy theorist or superstitious cave man.

Maybe you should to start utilizing more of your senses in your observation methods.
Wow that's interesting coming from someone so willing to believe in a crackpot conspiracy theory who also trivialized the use of science a couple of posts ago.

WARPATH
08-08-2007, 11:35 AM
Wow that's interesting coming from someone so willing to believe in a crackpot conspiracy theory who also trivialized the use of science a couple of posts ago.

What's more crackpot than thinking you came from a monkey?

And where did I trivialize the use of science?

whitey
08-08-2007, 12:26 PM
What's more crackpot than thinking you came from a monkey?

And where did I trivialize the use of science?


Haha, whats so hard IN believing that? Look around you dude, where did anything come from? It came from ealier stuff before it, why are we so different?

Just because you are unwilling to believe we came from another animal, we are just that, another animal. Look what humans do on an everyday basis, just because we have larger brains and can do more complex things doesnt mean we are still not animals. We are the only ones on the planet that kill because we like it, we kill when its not needed, we kill to exterminate others because we dont like them. We do way more foul shit than monkeys. It should be the monkeys not wanting to believe they are related to us mayne.

Ghost In The 'Lac
08-08-2007, 12:33 PM
All you motherfuckers need to do, is go out, buy the first print of Origin of Species, sit down, and read the whole thing, let Darwin explain himself how perfect his theory is.

As for missing links, well obviously the author hasnt read Origin of species, otherwise he would no that the higher form, in the case of man, when homo-sapian devolped language, would use this new skill to eliminate all lower competitive forms. Therefore making any chance of finding records of it totally dependant on finding complete fossilised examples of a previous man. Due to the imperfection of the geological record, and that all the odds are alwyas stcked against bones being preserved, finding this record f a "missing link" is near impossible.

And also, if an intermiedate species of human, i.e somewhere between current state and ape-men, then it would just be classed as a seperate species, it would be near impossible to infer that it was a middle missing link of man.

Huggasaurus Sex
08-08-2007, 02:06 PM
The wicked dominate. That how the west was won. Had nothing to do with who was the better soldier. Germ warfare and terrorism, no amount of bullshit grammar school propaganda can hide the truth.

'wicked' is a word used by the weak to make the powerful feel guilty for their superiority. the concepts of good and evil exist only as a tool to influence others. sorry cap, i don't make the rules. i observe them. you can call me and others with similar beliefs wicked in order to justify your preconceived notions, but that doesn't change reality.

When i'm in school, I re-write the test.you'd have to cos that's the only way your wacky ass answers would ever be 'correct.'

Cthulhu
08-08-2007, 02:43 PM
What's more crackpot than thinking you came from a monkey? All right. Don't even talk to me. You clearly have no idea what the hell evolution is or how it works if you think it means "man came from monkeys."







What's more crackpot than believing man came from monkeys? I can list it:

Believing a god or gods plopped man on earth completely formed
Believing woman came from a man's rib
Believing humans are some how a different entity all together and not related to any animals.
Believing "Good" and "Evil" are absolutes, not subjective terms
Making up myths and conspiracy theories for the origin of the world and human civilization.
Distrusting observable and testable evidence because it shatters your preconcieved notions and ignorance that justify your prejudices.

whitey
08-08-2007, 03:22 PM
I feel like Know The Ledge is experiences its age of enlightenment. I haven't seen this many people putting forth worthwhile well thought arguments ummm ever, in this section. Props.

WARPATH
08-08-2007, 06:47 PM
All you motherfuckers need to do, is go out, buy the first print of Origin of Species, sit down, and read the whole thing, let Darwin explain himself how perfect his theory is.

As for missing links, well obviously the author hasnt read Origin of species, otherwise he would no that the higher form, in the case of man, when homo-sapian devolped language, would use this new skill to eliminate all lower competitive forms. Therefore making any chance of finding records of it totally dependant on finding complete fossilised examples of a previous man. Due to the imperfection of the geological record, and that all the odds are alwyas stcked against bones being preserved, finding this record f a "missing link" is near impossible.

And also, if an intermiedate species of human, i.e somewhere between current state and ape-men, then it would just be classed as a seperate species, it would be near impossible to infer that it was a middle missing link of man.

So you agree then, the darwin theory of evolution will never be proven as a fact, and therefore can never be held up as real science.

'wicked' is a word used by the weak to make the powerful feel guilty for their superiority. the concepts of good and evil exist only as a tool to influence others. sorry cap, i don't make the rules. i observe them. you can call me and others with similar beliefs wicked in order to justify your preconceived notions, but that doesn't change reality.

you'd have to cos that's the only way your wacky ass answers would ever be 'correct.'

Who are you refering to as the powerful and superior. Would you agree that a baby bleeding in the snow is an act of evil? So you have no problem with killing children then, am I correct?


All right. Don't even talk to me. You clearly have no idea what the hell evolution is or how it works if you think it means "man came from monkeys."







What's more crackpot than believing man came from monkeys? I can list it:

Believing a god or gods plopped man on earth completely formed
Believing woman came from a man's rib
Believing humans are some how a different entity all together and not related to any animals.
Believing "Good" and "Evil" are absolutes, not subjective terms
Making up myths and conspiracy theories for the origin of the world and human civilization.
Distrusting observable and testable evidence because it shatters your preconcieved notions and ignorance that justify your prejudices.


Since when were monkeys allowed to have opinions?

I feel like Know The Ledge is experiences its age of enlightenment. I haven't seen this many people putting forth worthwhile well thought arguments ummm ever, in this section. Props.

Here, have fun pawing at your screen for awhile.


http://www.dosometalking.com/images/banana.gif

Cthulhu
08-08-2007, 07:17 PM
So you agree then, the darwin theory of evolution will never be proven as a fact, and therefore can never be held up as real science.



Who are you refering to as the powerful and superior. Would you agree that a baby bleeding in the snow is an act of evil? So you have no problem with killing children then, am I correct?





Since when were monkeys allowed to have opinions?



Here, have fun pawing at your screen for awhile.


http://www.dosometalking.com/images/banana.gif

These are some of the stupidest replies I've ever heard.

1.) Darwin's theory of evolution IS real science. Every respectable scientist accepts it as a plausible theory. There are no scientific theories that are proven as facts insofar as there's some divine voice saying "this is true." It's all based on what holds up to the scrutiny. If it's pretty solid in the face of experimentation, then it's pretty safe to trust it as truth. This goes for things that are obviously "true" as well, such as gravity, conservation of energy and mass, etc. Unlike religion, science does not say that theories and laws are immovable mandates that must never be questioned. You can trust what you want. Go ahead and believe that humans somehow ended up on earth exactly as we are now, but there's no evidence to support that. On the other hand, you can draw a conclusion based on mountains and mountains of corroborating documents and stop being a superstitious fool.

2.) Good and Evil are subjective terms. The universe is indifferent, so yeah, a baby bleeding in the snow doesn't amount to much in the whole scheme of things. Does that mean I think it's ok to kill babies? Certainly not. You can acknowledge that life essentially has no meaning (beyond untestable speculation) and that "Good" and "Evil" are within the eye of the beholder, while still feeling compassion for the defenseless, and disgust at acts of violence. It really bugs me when people think that atheists are morally bankrupt or they think that any conduct is acceptable. People develop their values and morality based on cultural and societal standards as well as personal experience. From the perspective of the universe as a whole, there is nothing to say that killing a baby is evil, but from a personal perspective, I would consider that a deplorable act.

3.) That's great. You had no retort so you resorted to a childish insult and attempted to trivialize something you don't understand.

Like it or not, you came from a monkey*, bitch.








* "monkey" in this context means an early bipedal primate probably related to the modern chimpanzee.

Huggasaurus Sex
08-08-2007, 07:46 PM
Who are you refering to as the powerful and superior? Would you agree that a baby bleeding in the snow is an act of evil? So you have no problem with killing children then, am I correct?

-i'm referring to you. everyone reading this. we're all descended from the most powerful people that have ever lived. all of us share a great (to the nth degree) grandfather who lived probably no more than a few thousand years ago (link (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/yu-rc092904.php)). he was a survivor and so were all his children, children's children and so on. these people survived because they were stronger, more intelligent, and just generally better adapted to whatever environment they encountered than all the untold billions who fathered dead-end lineages. our ancestors did whatever it took to survive and reproduce. they lied, cheated, stole and murdered -- they were pretty much the most wicked motherfuckers anyone's ever seen. and i'll bet that if they had spotted a baby belonging to one of their enemies bleeding in the snow, they'd finish it off and go rape its mother.

so the question you should be asking shouldn't be about me killing children, but why is it that you yourself are descended from such evil people?

V4D3R
08-08-2007, 07:56 PM
Scientists that base all their years of studying and research will never acknowledge the facts that Darwin was wrong. A lot the theories are based on conjured up things based on Darwin claiming we evolved from apes.

The most plausible - even though most ares till in denial - is the Sitchin facts.
We have proof that extra-terrestrials are/have/will be here.

Mankind is so primitive and dumbed down that they can't phantom something that we ourselves ponder on doing one day- seeding another planet.

Races of people make sense when you consider:

1- Not all apes on the earth are the same skin color

2- Extra-Terrestrials are not dumbed down human beings - no - they have over a million years of brain and evolution of their consciousness on us - to the point they don't even deal with that part of the brain unless dealing with lower level forms of life such as ourselves.

3 - Take a look at your history. Why in the fuck were so many different ancient cultures around the world - talking/writing/drawing/singing about these beings/"gods". If you mention coincidence - I will slap the fuck outta you.


There are too many dumbed down brain washed mofokas salting these forums and wasting my fuccin time - the truth is in your heart - not your mind.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WU-KILLAH http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?p=867229#post867229)
You're loosing your time, most of em can't handle the truth

Cthulhu
08-08-2007, 08:05 PM
Scientists that base all their years of studying and research will never acknowledge the facts that Darwin was wrong. A lot the theories are based on conjured up things based on Darwin claiming we evolved from apes.

The most plausible - even though most ares till in denial - is the Sitchin facts.
We have proof that extra-terrestrials are/have/will be here.

Mankind is so primitive and dumbed down that they can't phantom something that we ourselves ponder on doing one day- seeding another planet.

Races of people make sense when you consider:

1- Not all apes on the earth are the same skin color

2- Extra-Terrestrials are not dumbed down human beings - no - they have over a million years of brain and evolution of their consciousness on us - to the point they don't even deal with that part of the brain unless dealing with lower level forms of life such as ourselves.

3 - Take a look at your history. Why in the fuck were so many different ancient cultures around the world - talking/writing/drawing/singing about these beings/"gods". If you mention coincidence - I will slap the fuck outta you.


There are too many dumbed down brain washed mofokas salting these forums and wasting my fuccin time - the truth is in your heart - not your mind.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WU-KILLAH http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?p=867229#post867229)
You're loosing your time, most of em can't handle the truth




Where is the evidence of this beyond your own conjectures?

Why are there beliefs in gods? Simple. Humans are in need of affirmation, and before it was possible to explain natural phenomena through science, religion was used. Furthermore, religion served the function of uniting people and establishing codes of conduct.

V4D3R
08-08-2007, 08:25 PM
Let me break it down for you dumb fuckers.

Races of people make sense when you consider:

1- Not all apes on the earth are the same skin color

2- Extra-Terrestrials are not dumbed down human beings - no - they have over a million years of brain and evolution of their consciousness on us - to the point they don't even deal with that part of the brain unless dealing with lower level forms of life such as ourselves.

3 - Take a look at your history. Why in the fuck were so many different ancient cultures around the world - talking/writing/drawing/singing about these beings/"gods". If you mention coincidence - I will slap the fuck outta you.

in 1 - I mention this because the Sitchin theory has ancient texts for reference - in particular the auto-biography of a deity named Enki/Ptah the one that held the caduceus first - something most of you "scientists" use as your stamp of approval on "scientific" shit.

Sitchinites (followers of Sitchin's works) - know that he is on to something when it comes to proving the existence of a race of beings that came to earth and made mankind in their own image( sons of god in Genesis 6).

Those of you that don't believe in this theory are basically followers of some religion.

The xtian will say that the anunnaki are the fallens ones spoken of in the bible:
Facrt is that the church of christians are the most notorious mass killers in the history of this planet. Now the real scenario - spoken about thousands of years ago by one named Enki- is that like us human-beings- aliens have good and bad intentions. People rather visualize this Hollywood aliens with common agendas. Thats not the case.

When Enki needed workers because his were complaining - him ans his sister came up with the brainchild to create a primitive obedient worker. The human DNA/RNA map is pretty simple to a being with millions of years of history when you think about how complex theirs must be.

Enki states that he used different species of beings on this planet to create the first adams. He specifically chose 3 beings that resembled anunnaki - bi-pedal and walked up-right. I can think of 3 beings to suit this claim- the orangutan, the chimpazee, and the gorilla. The first has a reddish tint to it's skin, the chimp has mixed skin colors- some are dark - some white, and gorilla's are black skinned.

**Now I know some of you will want to debate this- but - facts are facts- it was written long ago**

Now for #2-

This is a species of being that was already inter-mingled with other species of this galaxy - Enki's son Marduk is half Draconian (reptilian species from Draco constellation). His skin was green they say. He was a hot-headed fellow that loved to dominate even his own blood - his brothers and sisters all competed to have their section of the earth - they raised armies of humans to fight each other- but the key in this is how they used religion and technology to make themselves seem god-like to our primitive earlier humans- even you religious fanatics nowadays - would fall prostrate to the ground if I had a fiery rod and glow around me.

They used religion - Enki also created the first messiah. The reason he created this messiah was because at one point - Niburu was returning and Enlil did not want to save humankind from the impeding destruction caused by the gravitational pull of Niburu on the earth. Out of the batches of Adapa's( Adapa is the second "Adam"), their was an albino named Galzu, this albino studied under Enki and was one of his favorite humans. After his death- which deeply saddened Enki, he had rec curing dreams about the little fellow- the fellow would tell Enki that the Creator of All does not want humanity to perish in the flood and calamity caused by Niburu's arrival- so Enki taught another human- ( well call him Zizu for short). Yes you bible thumpers call him Noah. Enki even divulges why and how he created a savior for mankind.

Some call him Horus, some call him Melchizedek, some call him Khrishna, some call him Jesus. But the original - I dont know who the original messiah is - nor do I care, because they all had the simple message of this-

The Creator( Kingdom of God) ( Heaven) is within us all. We are all one with the creator and each other.

Cthulhu
08-08-2007, 08:59 PM
Let me break it down for you dumb fuckers.



in 1 - I mention this because the Sitchin theory has ancient texts for reference - in particular the auto-biography of a deity named Enki/Ptah the one that held the caduceus first - something most of you "scientists" use as your stamp of approval on "scientific" shit.

Sitchinites (followers of Sitchin's works) - know that he is on to something when it comes to proving the existence of a race of beings that came to earth and made mankind in their own image( sons of god in Genesis 6).

Those of you that don't believe in this theory are basically followers of some religion.

The xtian will say that the anunnaki are the fallens ones spoken of in the bible:
Facrt is that the church of christians are the most notorious mass killers in the history of this planet. Now the real scenario - spoken about thousands of years ago by one named Enki- is that like us human-beings- aliens have good and bad intentions. People rather visualize this Hollywood aliens with common agendas. Thats not the case.

When Enki needed workers because his were complaining - him ans his sister came up with the brainchild to create a primitive obedient worker. The human DNA/RNA map is pretty simple to a being with millions of years of history when you think about how complex theirs must be.

Enki states that he used different species of beings on this planet to create the first adams. He specifically chose 3 beings that resembled anunnaki - bi-pedal and walked up-right. I can think of 3 beings to suit this claim- the orangutan, the chimpazee, and the gorilla. The first has a reddish tint to it's skin, the chimp has mixed skin colors- some are dark - some white, and gorilla's are black skinned.

**Now I know some of you will want to debate this- but - facts are facts- it was written long ago**

Now for #2-

This is a species of being that was already inter-mingled with other species of this galaxy - Enki's son Marduk is half Draconian (reptilian species from Draco constellation). His skin was green they say. He was a hot-headed fellow that loved to dominate even his own blood - his brothers and sisters all competed to have their section of the earth - they raised armies of humans to fight each other- but the key in this is how they used religion and technology to make themselves seem god-like to our primitive earlier humans- even you religious fanatics nowadays - would fall prostrate to the ground if I had a fiery rod and glow around me.

They used religion - Enki also created the first messiah. The reason he created this messiah was because at one point - Niburu was returning and Enlil did not want to save humankind from the impeding destruction caused by the gravitational pull of Niburu on the earth. Out of the batches of Adapa's( Adapa is the second "Adam"), their was an albino named Galzu, this albino studied under Enki and was one of his favorite humans. After his death- which deeply saddened Enki, he had rec curing dreams about the little fellow- the fellow would tell Enki that the Creator of All does not want humanity to perish in the flood and calamity caused by Niburu's arrival- so Enki taught another human- ( well call him Zizu for short). Yes you bible thumpers call him Noah. Enki even divulges why and how he created a savior for mankind.

Some call him Horus, some call him Melchizedek, some call him Khrishna, some call him Jesus. But the original - I dont know who the original messiah is - nor do I care, because they all had the simple message of this-

The Creator( Kingdom of God) ( Heaven) is within us all. We are all one with the creator and each other.


Wow....you are a nutcase. You're so delusional it's not even worth my energy to try to pick apart the abundance of logical fallacies and outright lies, but there was one sentence that really caught my eye:


**Now I know some of you will want to debate this- but - facts are facts- it was written long ago**

So I guess it MUST be true because it was written long ago, right? I guess Zeus and all the Olympian gods were real too because they were written about long ago. I guess the Bible is real because it was written long ago and claims to be true. I guess it's true that you can turn lead into gold because that was written long ago. I guess it's true that diseases are caused by an imbalance in one of the four humors and bleeding is a good way to cure that. I guess plagues are caused by the wrath of god, so whenever there's a new sickness we should whip ourselves with cat-o-ninetails and carry crosses on our backs in a big procession of humilty and agony.

whitey
08-08-2007, 09:33 PM
Let me break it down for you dumb fuckers.



in 1 - I mention this because the Sitchin theory has ancient texts for reference - in particular the auto-biography of a deity named Enki/Ptah the one that held the caduceus first - something most of you "scientists" use as your stamp of approval on "scientific" shit.

Sitchinites (followers of Sitchin's works) - know that he is on to something when it comes to proving the existence of a race of beings that came to earth and made mankind in their own image( sons of god in Genesis 6).

Those of you that don't believe in this theory are basically followers of some religion.

The xtian will say that the anunnaki are the fallens ones spoken of in the bible:
Facrt is that the church of christians are the most notorious mass killers in the history of this planet. Now the real scenario - spoken about thousands of years ago by one named Enki- is that like us human-beings- aliens have good and bad intentions. People rather visualize this Hollywood aliens with common agendas. Thats not the case.

When Enki needed workers because his were complaining - him ans his sister came up with the brainchild to create a primitive obedient worker. The human DNA/RNA map is pretty simple to a being with millions of years of history when you think about how complex theirs must be.

Enki states that he used different species of beings on this planet to create the first adams. He specifically chose 3 beings that resembled anunnaki - bi-pedal and walked up-right. I can think of 3 beings to suit this claim- the orangutan, the chimpazee, and the gorilla. The first has a reddish tint to it's skin, the chimp has mixed skin colors- some are dark - some white, and gorilla's are black skinned.

**Now I know some of you will want to debate this- but - facts are facts- it was written long ago**

Now for #2-

This is a species of being that was already inter-mingled with other species of this galaxy - Enki's son Marduk is half Draconian (reptilian species from Draco constellation). His skin was green they say. He was a hot-headed fellow that loved to dominate even his own blood - his brothers and sisters all competed to have their section of the earth - they raised armies of humans to fight each other- but the key in this is how they used religion and technology to make themselves seem god-like to our primitive earlier humans- even you religious fanatics nowadays - would fall prostrate to the ground if I had a fiery rod and glow around me.

They used religion - Enki also created the first messiah. The reason he created this messiah was because at one point - Niburu was returning and Enlil did not want to save humankind from the impeding destruction caused by the gravitational pull of Niburu on the earth. Out of the batches of Adapa's( Adapa is the second "Adam"), their was an albino named Galzu, this albino studied under Enki and was one of his favorite humans. After his death- which deeply saddened Enki, he had rec curing dreams about the little fellow- the fellow would tell Enki that the Creator of All does not want humanity to perish in the flood and calamity caused by Niburu's arrival- so Enki taught another human- ( well call him Zizu for short). Yes you bible thumpers call him Noah. Enki even divulges why and how he created a savior for mankind.

Some call him Horus, some call him Melchizedek, some call him Khrishna, some call him Jesus. But the original - I dont know who the original messiah is - nor do I care, because they all had the simple message of this-

The Creator( Kingdom of God) ( Heaven) is within us all. We are all one with the creator and each other.



HAHA wow.

Ghost In The 'Lac
08-09-2007, 12:41 AM
A lot the theories are based on conjured up things based on Darwin claiming we evolved from apes.



Youre a ignorant mf man, DARWIN NEVER ONCE CLAIMED OR IMPLIED WE CAME FROM APES. Other people started saying that after Darwin released his book.

He never even mentions the evolution of man in Origin of Species, but you wouldnt know that, cus youve never read it!

Ya'll are too scared to read Origin of Species, youre all hung up on this "evolution" word, Darwin doesnt even use that word more than 3 times in his book, its all about Natural Selection thru desirable characteristics in the struggle for life.

Huggasaurus Sex
08-09-2007, 01:22 AM
Let me break it down for you dumb fuckers.

...[some of the most crazy wacked out, unsubstantitated garbage you'll ever read]...

The Creator( Kingdom of God) ( Heaven) is within us all. We are all one with the creator and each other.

i find it amazing that we can both arrive at the same spiritual outlook through totally different means. but i encourage you to drop the whole "alien reptile-gods from the draco constellation are our creators" business and just apply some logic. it's way more satisfying.

V4D3R
08-09-2007, 02:51 AM
Ok scientist.

Then explain what science can't pinpoint and call the missing link?

Why did 200 plus gene sequences mysteriously appear in the homo species?

We went from ape to homo-erectus ( cro-magnon & neanderthal ) and then to sapien instantly.

clear evidence that a particular gene, MGC8902, which encodes for a protein of unknown function, has the largest number of copies (212) in humans, compared to other primates
Science Vol. 313. no. 5791, pp. 1304 - 1307

Extreme gene duplication is a major source of evolutionary novelty. A genome-wide survey of gene copy number variation among human and great ape lineages revealed that the most striking human lineage–specific amplification was due to an unknown gene, MGC8902, which is predicted to encode multiple copies of a protein domain of unknown function (DUF1220). Sequences encoding these domains are virtually all primate-specific, show signs of positive selection, and are increasingly amplified generally as a function of a species' evolutionary proximity to humans, where the greatest number of copies (212) is found. DUF1220 domains are highly expressed in brain regions associated with higher cognitive function, and in brain show neuron-specific expression preferentially in cell bodies and dendrites.
Magdalena C. Popesco,1,2,3* Erik J. MacLaren,1,2,3*http://www.sciencemag.org/math/link//dagger.gif Janet Hopkins,1,2,3 Laura Dumas,1,3 Michael Cox,1,2,3 Lynne Meltesen,1,4 Loris McGavran,1,4 Gerald J. Wyckoff,5 James M. Sikela1,2,3
1 Human Medical Genetics, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
2 Neuroscience Programs, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
3 Department of Pharmacology, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
4 Department of Pathology, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
5 Division of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA.
* These authors contributed equally to this work.
http://www.sciencemag.org/math/dagger.gif Present address: Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA, UK.

V4D3R
08-09-2007, 02:55 AM
Here's a reason why scientists don't like Mr. Sitchin - they can't answer that question I asked you.

Sensational Human Genome Discovery
THE CASE OF ADAM’S ALIEN GENES

In whose image was The Adam – the prototype of modern humans, Homo sapiens – created?
The Bible asserts that the Elohim said: “Let us fashion the Adam in our image and after our likeness.” But if one is to accept a tentative explanation for enigmatic genes that humans possess, offered when the deciphering of the human genome was announced in mid-February, the feat was decided upon by a group of bacteria!
“Humbling” was the prevalent adjective used by the scientific teams and the media to describe the principal finding – that the human genome contains not the anticipated 100,000 - 140,000 genes (the stretches of DNA that direct the production of amino-acids and proteins) but only some 30,000+ -- little more than double the 13,601 genes of a fruit fly and barely fifty percent more than the roundworm’s 19,098. What a comedown from the pinnacle of the genomic Tree of Life!
Moreover, there was hardly any uniqueness to the human genes. They are comparative to not the presumed 95 percent but to almost 99 percent of the chimpanzees, and 70 percent of the mouse. Human genes, with the same functions, were found to be identical to genes of other vertebrates, as well as invertebrates, plants, fungi, even yeast. The findings not only confirmed that there was one source of DNA for all life on Earth, but also enabled the scientists to trace the evolutionary process – how more complex organisms evolved, genetically, from simpler ones, adopting at each stage the genes of a lower life form to create a more complex higher life form – culminating with Homo sapiens.

The “Head-scratching” Discovery
It was here, in tracing the vertical evolutionary record contained in the human and the other analyzed genomes, that the scientists ran into an enigma. The “head-scratching discovery by the public consortium,” as Science termed it, was that the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree.
How did Man acquire such a bunch of enigmatic genes?
In the evolutionary progression from bacteria to invertebrates (such as the lineages of yeast, worms, flies or mustard weed – which have been deciphered) to vertebrates (mice, chimpanzees) and finally modern humans, these 223 genes are completely missing in the invertebrate phase. Therefore, the scientists can explain their presence in the human genome by a “rather recent” (in evolutionary time scales) “probable horizontal transfer from bacteria.”
In other words: At a relatively recent time as Evolution goes, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria…

An Immense Difference
Now, at first glance it would seem that 223 genes is no big deal. In fact, while every single gene makes a great difference to every individual, 223 genes make an immense difference to a species such as ours.
The human genome is made up of about three billion neucleotides (the “letters” A-C-G-T which stand for the initials of the four nucleic acids that spell out all life on Earth); of them, just a little more than one percent are grouped into functioning genes (each gene consists of thousands of "letters"). The difference between one individual person and another amounts to about one “letter” in a thousand in the DNA “alphabet.” The difference between Man and Chimpanzee is less than one percent as genes go; and one percent of 30,000 genes is 300.
So, 223 genes is more than two thirds of the difference between me, you and a chimpanzee!
An analysis of the functions of these genes through the proteins that they spell out, conducted by the Public Consortium team and published in the journal Nature, shows that they include not only proteins involved in important physiological but also psychiatric functions. Moreover, they are responsible for important neurological enzymes that stem only from the mitochondrial portion of the DNA – the so-called “Eve” DNA that humankind inherited only through the mother-line, all the way back to a single “Eve.” That finding alone raises doubt regarding that the "bacterial insertion" explanation.

A Shaky Theory
How sure are the scientists that such important and complex genes, such an immense human advantage, was obtained by us --“rather recently”-- through the courtesy of infecting bacteria?
“It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,” said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.
“We did not identify a strongly preferred bacterial source for the putative horizontally transferred genes,” states the report in Nature. The Public Consortium team, conducting a detailed search, found that some 113 genes (out of the 223) “are widespread among bacteria” – though they are entirely absent even in invertebrates. An analysis of the proteins which the enigmatic genes express showed that out of 35 identified, only ten had counterparts in vertebrates (ranging from cows to rodents to fish); 25 of the 35 were unique to humans.
“It is not clear whether the transfer was from bacteria to human or from human to bacteria,” Science quoted Robert Waterson, co-director of Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center, as saying.
But if Man gave those genes to bacteria, where did Man acquire those genes to begin with?

The Role of the Anunnaki
Readers of my books must be smiling by now, for they know the answer.
They know that the biblical verses dealing with the fashioning of The Adam are condensed renderings of much much more detailed Sumerian and Akkadian texts, found inscribed on clay tablets, in which the role of the Elohim in Genesis is performed by the Anunnaki – “Those Who From Heaven to Earth Came.”
As detailed in my books, beginning with The 12th Planet (1976) and even more so in Genesis Revisited and The Cosmic Code, the Anunnaki came to Earth some 450,000 years ago from the planet Nibiru – a member of our own solar system whose great orbit brings it to our part of the heavens once every 3,600 years. They came here in need of gold, with which to protect their dwindling atmosphere. Exhausted and in need of help in mining the gold, their chief scientist Enki suggested that they use their genetic knowledge to create the needed Primitive Workers. When the other leaders of the Anunnaki asked: How can you create a new being? He answered: "The being that we need already exists;
all that we have to do is put our mark on it.”
The time was some 300,000 years ago.
What he had in mind was to upgrade genetically the existing hominids, who were already on Earth through Evolution, by adding some of the genes of the more advanced Anunnaki. That the Anunnaki, who could already travel in space 450,000 years ago, possessed the genomic science (whose threshold we have now reached) is clear not only from the actual texts but also from numerous depictions in which the double-helix of the DNA is rendered as Entwined Serpents (a symbol still used for medicine and healing) -- see illustration ‘A’ below.
When the leaders of the Anunnaki approved the project (as echoed in the biblical ”Let us fashion the Adam”), Enki with the help of Ninharsag, the Chief Medical Officer of the Anunnaki, embarked on a process of genetic engineering, by adding and combining genes of the Anunnaki with those of the already-existing hominids.
When, after much trial and error breathtakingly described and recorded in antiquity, a “perfect model” was attained, Ninharsag held him up and shouted: “My hands have made it!” An ancient artist depicted the scene on a cylinder seal (illustration ‘B’).
And that, I suggest, is how we had come to possess the unique extra genes. It was in the image of the Anunnaki, not of bacteria, that Adam and Eve were fashioned.

A Matter of Extreme Significance
Unless further scientific research can establish, beyond any doubt, that the only possible source of the extra genes are indeed bacteria, and unless it is then also determined that the infection (“horizontal transfer”) went from bacteria to Man and not from Man to bacteria, the only other available solution will be that offered by the Sumerian texts millennia ago.
Until then, the enigmatic 223 alien genes will remain as an alternative – and as a corroboration by modern science of the Anunnaki and their genetic feats on Earth.
ZECHARIA SITCHIN
http://www.sitchin.com/images/dna1.jpg (http://www.sitchin.com/images/dna1.jpg) http://www.sitchin.com/images/adam1.jpg (http://www.sitchin.com/images/adam1.jpg) illustration A
illustration B

© Z. Sitchin

Huggasaurus Sex
08-09-2007, 09:37 AM
...unless it is then also determined that the infection (“horizontal transfer”) went from bacteria to Man and not from Man to bacteria, the only other available solution will be that offered by the Sumerian texts millennia ago.
really? you're defending a statement like that?!

the human genome wasn't fully sequenced until May of last year. so what you're saying is that a gap in our understanding of our genes can ONLY be explained by accepting the Sumerian creation story as fact? cmon man, don't dress up that garbage in here and try to pass it off as knowledge. go do your homework.

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 10:29 AM
These are some of the stupidest replies I've ever heard.

1.) Darwin's theory of evolution IS real science. Every respectable scientist accepts it as a plausible theory. There are no scientific theories that are proven as facts insofar as there's some divine voice saying "this is true." It's all based on what holds up to the scrutiny. If it's pretty solid in the face of experimentation, then it's pretty safe to trust it as truth. This goes for things that are obviously "true" as well, such as gravity, conservation of energy and mass, etc. Unlike religion, science does not say that theories and laws on earth exactly as we are now, but there's no evidence to support that. On the other hand, you can draw a conclusion based on mountains and mountains of corroborating documents and stop being a superstitious foare immovable mandates that must never be questioned. You can trust what you want. Go ahead and believe that humans somehow ended up ol.

2.) Good and Evil are subjective terms. The universe is indifferent, so yeah, a baby bleeding in the snow doesn't amount to much in the whole scheme of things. Does that mean I think it's ok to kill babies? Certainly not. You can acknowledge that life essentially has no meaning (beyond untestable speculation) and that "Good" and "Evil" are within the eye of the beholder, while still feeling compassion for the defenseless, and disgust at acts of violence. It really bugs me when people think that atheists are morally bankrupt or they think that any conduct is acceptable. People develop their values and morality based on cultural and societal standards as well as personal experience. From the perspective of the universe as a whole, there is nothing to say that killing a baby is evil, but from a personal perspective, I would consider that a deplorable act.

3.) That's great. You had no retort so you resorted to a childish insult and attempted to trivialize something you don't understand.

Like it or not, you came from a monkey*, bitch.








* "monkey" in this context means an early bipedal primate probably related to the modern chimpanzee.

1. There's evidence of creation all around you. It's too bad your so blind you can't see it.

2. Your a sick fuck. People like you should be locked away. Children our innocent, you disgust me.

3. I use a form of communitcation you monkey minded being can grasp.


Like it or not, you came from a monkey not me. Silly ass, why the hostile language? Your monkey emotions are starting to become exposed.






-i'm referring to you. everyone reading this. we're all descended from the most powerful people that have ever lived. all of us share a great (to the nth degree) grandfather who lived probably no more than a few thousand years ago (link (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/yu-rc092904.php)). he was a survivor and so were all his children, children's children and so on. these people survived because they were stronger, more intelligent, and just generally better adapted to whatever environment they encountered than all the untold billions who fathered dead-end lineages. our ancestors did whatever it took to survive and reproduce. they lied, cheated, stole and murdered -- they were pretty much the most wicked motherfuckers anyone's ever seen. and i'll bet that if they had spotted a baby belonging to one of their enemies bleeding in the snow, they'd finish it off and go rape its mother.

so the question you should be asking shouldn't be about me killing children, but why is it that you yourself are descended from such evil people?

You were descended from evil people, that enslave and killed for simple pleasures.

I was descended from people who tried to maintain peace with other cultures. Who slayed the wicked only as a last resort. I descended from a people that doesn't need to distort history and make up monkey theories to ease their trouble minds over their savagery.

Huggasaurus Sex
08-09-2007, 10:59 AM
--->done

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 11:14 AM
cthulusonned x2


:cheerlie:

Cthulhu
08-09-2007, 11:55 AM
1. There's evidence of creation all around you. It's too bad your so blind you can't see it.

2. Your a sick fuck. People like you should be locked away. Children our innocent, you disgust me.

3. I use a form of communitcation you monkey minded being can grasp.


Like it or not, you came from a monkey not me. Silly ass, why the hostile language? Your monkey emotions are starting to become exposed.








You were descended from evil people, that enslave and killed for simple pleasures.

I was descended from people who tried to maintain peace with other cultures. Who slayed the wicked only as a last resort. I descended from a people that doesn't need to distort history and make up monkey theories to ease their trouble minds over their savagery.

Did you even read my post? I said I would never kill an innocent being. However, I also know that concepts of "innocence", "good", "evil", etc. are all human inventions. You act like there's some divine moral order handed down by some omnipotent force, and that's not the case. The universe doesn't give a shit if you kill an infant. Humans operate through the values of their society and upbringing. Why do you think honor killings occur among Yazidi Kurds?

You obviously can't grasp the way the world works without relying on a spiritual crutch.

I don't condone killing innocents. I would NEVER kill an infant or a child or any defenseless human.

But look at the universe as a whole.

Humans are not even a wave, and probably less than a ripple in the cosmic sea.

Do you realize just how insignificant we are? You have to be pretty selfish to think humans or any life on earth has some kind of importance to the rest of the universe.

Until Yaweh, Krishna, Zeus, Xenu, reptillian aliens, or the Wizard of Oz comes down from heaven to tell me I'm wrong, I have no reason to believe there is any power beyond subatomic particles that react to form matter.

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 12:07 PM
Did you even read my post? I said I would never kill an innocent being. However, I also know that concepts of "innocence", "good", "evil", etc. are all human inventions. You act like there's some divine moral order handed down by some omnipotent force, and that's not the case. The universe doesn't give a shit if you kill an infant. Humans operate through the values of their society and upbringing. Why do you think honor killings occur among Yazidi Kurds?

You obviously can't grasp the way the world works without relying on a spiritual crutch.

I don't condone killing innocents. I would NEVER kill an infant or a child or any defenseless human.

But look at the universe as a whole.

Humans are not even a wave, and probably less than a ripple in the cosmic sea.

Do you realize just how insignificant we are? You have to be pretty selfish to think humans or any life on earth has some kind of importance to the rest of the universe.

Until Yaweh, Krishna, Zeus, Xenu, reptillian aliens, or the Wizard of Oz comes down from heaven to tell me I'm wrong, I have no reason to believe there is any power beyond subatomic particles that react to form matter.

I agree. We are insignificant, but that doesn't mean we're not important.

My "spirtual clutch" gives me insight that you lack.

You claim you would never kill a child, but in your line of thinking, killing children is subjective. It wouldn't bother you to kill a child- Therefore you take no responsibility for your actions in regards to a child's life. Killing children as you see fit for your survival, or looking away from child killers is not outside your realm of thought. Therefore, to me- you are a child killer.

"The Universe" cares and it can swallow you alive if it wants to. Rest assured, the Wizard is hear and i'm telling you it is wrong.

whitey
08-09-2007, 12:32 PM
I agree. We are insignificant, but that doesn't mean we're not important.

My "spirtual clutch" gives me insight that you lack.

You claim you would never kill a child, but in your line of thinking, killing children is subjective. It wouldn't bother you to kill a child- Therefore you take no responsibility for your actions in regards to a child's life. Killing children as you see fit for your survival, or looking away from child killers is not outside your realm of thought. Therefore, to me- you are a child killer.

"The Universe" cares and it can swallow you alive if it wants to. Rest assured, the Wizard is hear and i'm telling you it is wrong.


Lay off the kool-aid.


Bring something on your side of the debate to disprove what we are saying, not just mumbo jumbo about semantics and putting meaningless banana pictures up like a little kid.

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 01:39 PM
Lay off the kool-aid.


Bring something on your side of the debate to disprove what we are saying, not just mumbo jumbo about semantics and putting meaningless banana pictures up like a little kid.

I've debated every point made so far. You guys can band together all you want, you still don't have nothing but a bullshit therory that science can never prove as fact.

Wait maybe here's somthing you can understand:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b81/slippydapimp/221374817_1df837a4b8_o.jpg

Monkey Porn. Be a good little monkey and go play with yourself for a little while. Run a long now.

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 05:59 PM
when someone is getting it handed to them they lash out on everyone :)


Somebody needs to put the monkeys back in thier cages. I just can't stand cheer leading monkeys.

whitey
08-09-2007, 06:03 PM
So are you on the alien bandwagon or you have something different? Or you have nothing and just don't want to believe in natural selection?

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 06:06 PM
So are you on the alien bandwagon or you have something different? Or you have nothing and just don't want to believe in natural selection?

I'm on some other shit, but don't feel bad I just have different sources for knowledge. I couldn't began to get you to understand it over a message board using yellow text, but I can steer you out of your current rut of thinking.

whitey
08-09-2007, 06:16 PM
The tread is the theory of creation of humans, drop your knowledge.

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 06:29 PM
The tread is the theory of creation of humans, drop your knowledge.

There was a certain point in history where people got together and started telling each other they were wrong.

Then people started telling other people their origins.

To make it easier, people came up with theories they could agree on.

But then somebody that didn't forget thier origin told those people they were full of shit.

And around and around we go.

I could give you my theory on where you came from, but the truth is, I don't know where you came from. You tell me you evolved from a monkey, so for all I know you evolved from a monkey over millions of years. But I think somebody told you that, and you like that idea so you ran with it.

But don't tell me I came from a monkey, because I know where my ancestors originated from.

I can't tell you my creation story, because what would be the point? Your going to tell me i'm some crazy person that believes in fairy tales, or even worse- God. Just the same way that i'm telling you, your crazy for believing you evolved from a monkey.

Maybe you did evolve from a monkey, that's cool.

whitey
08-09-2007, 06:34 PM
Like how Native Americans had creation stories, and greeks had their stories about zues and all this and that, and ect ect with other peoples? You believe a story such as that?

Do you believe the earth is the center of the universe? and the Sun and everything in it roates around the earth?

living_undead
08-09-2007, 06:37 PM
I definitely believe that the land on Earth is a giant turtle.
and we grew out of his back.
evolution? yeah right.

Cthulhu
08-09-2007, 06:44 PM
There was a certain point in history where people got together and started telling each other they were wrong.

Then people started telling other people their origins.

To make it easier, people came up with theories they could agree on.

But then somebody that didn't forget thier origin told those people they were full of shit.

And around and around we go.

I could give you my theory on where you came from, but the truth is, I don't know where you came from. You tell me you evolved from a monkey, so for all I know you evolved from a monkey over millions of years. But I think somebody told you that, and you like that idea so you ran with it.

But don't tell me I came from a monkey, because I know where my ancestors originated from.

I can't tell you my creation story, because what would be the point? Your going to tell me i'm some crazy person that believes in fairy tales, or even worse- God. Just the same way that i'm telling you, your crazy for believing you evolved from a monkey.

Maybe you did evolve from a monkey, that's cool.
All right, just hear me out a sec. I'm tired of the insult match this has become. You have a right to speak your opinion, and I'll respect it, but just hear me out here.

You are acting like all creation stories are relative. But that's not the case. And you still don't have a grasp on what "theory" means in a scientific context. Theory doesn't mean just some random guess. It's a set of tested hypotheses. Right now, scientific research fully supports the theory of evolution. In fact, there's no possible way of denying it outside of pure ignorance. You can truly prove that evolution happens. There's absolutely no alternative to that at the moment.

Now, with the whole thing about apes. Apparently this bothers you. I don't know why humans have a problem acknowledging they came from animals, but whatever. Saying you came from a monkey is pretty inaccurate. You can say you know where your ancestors came from all you want, but no matter how far you claim you can trace your ancestry, you're going to reach a point of no records. Man's evolution from great apes didn't happen overnight. It wasn't magical. It happened over the course of a million years. So, no humans aren't monkeys, but humans and other great apes have a common ancestor. This is provable by DNA. Did you know that there's only one chromosomal difference between the DNA strand of a chimpanzee and that of a human?

People try to shoot a hole through the argument by saying the fossil record isn't complete. You don't need a full fossil record to draw the conclusion that a series of species of ape gave rise to humans.

So in summary, it's absolutely positive that evolution occurs, just as much as its positive that gravity is caused by planetary rotation. The things that are uncertain are exact mechanisms that cause it and exact fossil records between certain species.

maestro wooz
08-09-2007, 07:26 PM
best bump of a thread ever

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 07:36 PM
Like how Native Americans had creation stories, and greeks had their stories about zues and all this and that, and ect ect with other peoples? You believe a story such as that?

Do you believe the earth is the center of the universe? and the Sun and everything in it roates around the earth?

I don't believe a story. I know where my ancestors came from.

I know that the earth rotates around the sun and the sun gives us energy to live.

I don't know why your trying to stereo type native americans as primitive cave people that didn't have knowledge of basic earth science. It just shows your ignorance.

V4D3R
08-09-2007, 07:48 PM
If you want to see how every creation story around every corner and neck of the woods on Earth is relative to each other - don't be ignorant and take a comprehensive read of all the different religions. I can tell some of you have not given a serious analytical look to finding the parallel stories that happened all over the world. Pertaining to the biblical flood, the Dragon/Niburu/Wormwood/Planet X/The Destroyer, and of course- our creation.

But first deal with this cat.

Originally Posted by V4D3R http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?p=870613#post870613)
...unless it is then also determined that the infection (“horizontal transfer”) went from bacteria to Man and not from Man to bacteria, the only other available solution will be that offered by the Sumerian texts millennia ago.


really? you're defending a statement like that?!

the human genome wasn't fully sequenced until May of last year. so what you're saying is that a gap in our understanding of our genes can ONLY be explained by accepting the Sumerian creation story as fact? cmon man, don't dress up that garbage in here and try to pass it off as knowledge. go do your homework.

Why is it that your trying to mince words when this is the fact right here actually.

How sure are the scientists that such important and complex genes, such an immense human advantage, was obtained by us --“rather recently”-- through the courtesy of infecting bacteria?
“It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,” said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.
“We did not identify a strongly preferred bacterial source for the putative horizontally transferred genes,” states the report in Nature. The Public Consortium team, conducting a detailed search, found that some 113 genes (out of the 223) “are widespread among bacteria” – though they are entirely absent even in invertebrates. An analysis of the proteins which the enigmatic genes express showed that out of 35 identified, only ten had counterparts in vertebrates (ranging from cows to rodents to fish); 25 of the 35 were unique to humans.And the funny thing is how Enki describes how they introduced bovine to this planet and certain fish and grains.

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 08:14 PM
Cthulhu (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/member.php?u=57019)
All right, just hear me out a sec. I'm tired of the insult match this has become. You have a right to speak your opinion, and I'll respect it, but just hear me out here.

You are acting like all creation stories are relative. But that's not the case. And you still don't have a grasp on what "theory" means in a scientific context. Theory doesn't mean just some random guess. It's a set of tested hypotheses. Right now, scientific research fully supports the theory of evolution. In fact, there's no possible way of denying it outside of pure ignorance. You can truly prove that evolution happens. There's absolutely no alternative to that at the moment.


And your acting like you can read my mind. The worst insult i've thrown your way is maybe monkey boy.

Just so we're clear this the definintion of theory as I understand it:

noun: a belief that can guide behavior

Example: "The architect has a theory that more is less"noun: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomenaExample: "A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory" Cthulhu (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/member.php?u=57019)
Now, with the whole thing about apes. Apparently this bothers you. I don't know why humans have a problem acknowledging they came from animals, but whatever. Saying you came from a monkey is pretty inaccurate. You can say you know where your ancestors came from all you want, but no matter how far you claim you can trace your ancestry, you're going to reach a point of no records. Man's evolution from great apes didn't happen overnight. It wasn't magical. It happened over the course of a million years. So, no humans aren't monkeys, but humans and other great apes have a common ancestor. This is provable by DNA. Did you know that there's only one chromosomal difference between the DNA strand of a chimpanzee and that of a human?


I have no problem with thinking you evloved from a monkey over millions of years. Your replies might as well serve as evidence of that.

Why do you think you need to teach me biology. I got an A in college level biology, your not teaching me anything I don't already know. I could teach you a few things though.


Cthulhu (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/member.php?u=57019)
People try to shoot a hole through the argument by saying the fossil record isn't complete. You don't need a full fossil record to draw the conclusion that a series of species of ape gave rise to humans.




I'm sorry, but you do need a complete record. It's called science. The fossil record isn't complete because your missing link doesn't exist. They don't even exist for species all the way across the board.

science:








noun: ability to produce solutions in some problem domainExample: "The sweet science of pugilism" Patrick J. Conaway
No transitional fossils had been found at the time Darwin

published Origin of Species, and this led to much criticism of his

work by fellow scientists. Darwin attributed this lack of evidence

to the limited ability of early science to explore the planet, and he

assured his critics that these blanks would be filled by future

scientific discoveries. Had he been right, by now we should be
literally drowning in transitional fossils, but the dirty little secret of
science is that there are no transitional fossils. None. Nada. Zero.
Zip. Zilch. Of all the multiplied millions of fossils discovered since










the time of Darwin, not one can be labeled as a transitional fossil.





The gaps which separate species: dog/fox, rat/mouse

etc. are utterly trivial compared with, say, that between

a primitive terrestrial mammal and a whale or a

primitive terrestrial reptile and an Ichthyosaur; and

even these relatively major discontinuities are trivial
alongside those which divide major phyla such as
molluscs and arthropods. Such major discontinuities
simply could not, unless we are to believe in miracles,
have been crossed in geologically short periods of time
through one or two transitional species occupying
restricted geographical areas. Surely, such transitions
must have involved long lineages including many
collateral lines of hundreds or probably thousands of
transitional species.
To suggest that the hundreds, thousands or possibly
even millions of transitional species which must have
existed in the interval between vastly dissimilar types
were all unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas
and having very small population numbers is verging










on the incredible! (Denton, p.193)





To the sceptic, the proposition that the genetic
programmes of higher organisms, consisting of
something close to a thousand million bits of
information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in
encoded form countless thousands of intricate
algorithms controlling, specifying and ordering the
growth and development of billions of cells into the
form of a complex organism, were composed by a
purely random process is simply an affront to reason.
But to the Darwinist the idea is accepted without a
ripple of doubt—the paradigm takes precedence!
(Denton, p.351)



Cthulhu (http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/member.php?u=57019)
So in summary, it's absolutely positive that evolution occurs, just as much as its positive that gravity is caused by planetary rotation. The things that are uncertain are exact mechanisms that cause it and exact fossil records between certain species.


If your asolutley positive evolution occurs then why are you uncertain of the exact mechanisms that cause it? Sounds like magic to me.

whitey
08-09-2007, 08:44 PM
I don't believe a story. I know where my ancestors came from.

I know that the earth rotates around the sun and the sun gives us energy to live.

I don't know why your trying to stereo type native americans as primitive cave people that didn't have knowledge of basic earth science. It just shows your ignorance.


Your putting words in my mouth. I never said anything like that. I was asking what you believed. Did you get insulted because I lumped native american creation theories and the Greek gods like Zeus? Like you find the greek creation theory ubsurd? Or did you just infer because I believe in natural selection that I must think Native Americans are primitive cave people? Because I said neither. You think im some dumb white guy who looks down on others because they arent white?

Native Americans were smart people in terms of being able to live off the land, build things, survive ect. I dont think anyone who lives in a concreteless and metaless society are primative cave people, everyone just didnt have access to the raw materials, domesticable animals, suitable farmland, domesticable crops, good weather. They have to be even smarter to be able to survive on what they have.



Now that we got that out of the way, what makes your ancestors come from a different place than mine?



And here is an example of what im talking about. The creation theory of the Aztecs...

Aztec


The mother of the Aztec creation story was called Coatlique (the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes). She was created in the image of the unknown, decorated with skulls, snakes, and lacerated hands. There are no cracks in her body and she is a perfect monolith (a totality of intensity and self-containment, yet her features were square and decapitated). Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars. Then one day Coatlique found a ball of feathers, which she tucked into her bosom. When she looked for it later, it was gone, at which time she realized that she was again pregnant. Her children, the moon and stars did not believe her story. Ashamed of their mother, they resolved to kill her. A goddess could only give birth once, to the original litter of divinity and no more. During the time that they were plotting her demise, Coatlique gave birth to the fiery god of war, Huitzilopochtli. With the help of a fire serpent, he destroyed his brothers and sister, murdering them in a rage. He beheaded Coyolxauhqui and threw her body into a deep gorge in a mountain, where it lies dismembered forever. The natural cosmos of the Indians was born of catastrophe. The heavens literally crumbled to pieces. The earth mother fell and was fertilized, while her children were torn apart by fratricide and then scattered and disjointed throughout the universe.


I have more of other peoples/cultures, if need be. But your saying something like that, is where humanity came from?

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 08:55 PM
Your putting words in my mouth. I never said anything like that. I was asking what you believed. Did you get insulted because I lumped native american creation theories and the Greek gods like Zeus? Like you find the greek creation theory ubsurd? Or did you just infer because I believe in natural selection that I must think Native Americans are primitive cave people? Because I said neither. You think im some dumb white guy who looks down on others because they arent white?

Native Americans were smart people in terms of being able to live off the land, build things, survive ect. I dont think anyone who lives in a concreteless and metaless society are primative cave people, everyone just didnt have access to the raw materials, domesticable animals, suitable farmland, domesticable crops, good weather. They have to be even smarter to be able to survive on what they have.



Now that we got that out of the way, what makes your ancestors come from a different place than mine?



And here is an example of what im talking about. The creation theory of the Aztecs...

Aztec


The mother of the Aztec creation story was called Coatlique (the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes). She was created in the image of the unknown, decorated with skulls, snakes, and lacerated hands. There are no cracks in her body and she is a perfect monolith (a totality of intensity and self-containment, yet her features were square and decapitated). Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars. Then one day Coatlique found a ball of feathers, which she tucked into her bosom. When she looked for it later, it was gone, at which time she realized that she was again pregnant. Her children, the moon and stars did not believe her story. Ashamed of their mother, they resolved to kill her. A goddess could only give birth once, to the original litter of divinity and no more. During the time that they were plotting her demise, Coatlique gave birth to the fiery god of war, Huitzilopochtli. With the help of a fire serpent, he destroyed his brothers and sister, murdering them in a rage. He beheaded Coyolxauhqui and threw her body into a deep gorge in a mountain, where it lies dismembered forever. The natural cosmos of the Indians was born of catastrophe. The heavens literally crumbled to pieces. The earth mother fell and was fertilized, while her children were torn apart by fratricide and then scattered and disjointed throughout the universe.


I have more of other peoples/cultures, if need be. But your saying something like that, is where humanity came from?

I already told you what I found offensive:


Do you believe the earth is the center of the universe? and the Sun and everything in it roates around the earth?


Your correlating my knowledge of my ancestors origins with ubsurdity, in an effort to discredit me within our small internet community.

In regards to your Aztec story in relation to my knowledge of the creation of my ancestors:

It's nothing like that. I have no knowledge of when and where the Aztec were created nor do I claim to possess that knowledge. That's just as absurd as you claiming humanity's evolution from primates.

Prolifical ENG
08-09-2007, 09:06 PM
http://i.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/0707/ping.pong/images/TE(9).jpg

whitey
08-09-2007, 09:39 PM
I already told you what I found offensive:



Your correlating my knowledge of my ancestors origins with ubsurdity, in an effort to discredit me within our small internet community.

In regards to your Aztec story in relation to my knowledge of the creation of my ancestors:

It's nothing like that. I have no knowledge of when and where the Aztec were created nor do I claim to possess that knowledge. That's just as absurd as you claiming humanity's evolution from primates.


It wasn't ment to belittle your intellegence. I was using it to show thats what people once believed. And science disproved that, but there were lots of people that didn't want to believe it.

That ties into natural selection and evolution and people just not wanting to believe it because they were so hung up on their prioer believes that seemed to be the be all and end all.

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 09:57 PM
Whitey-
Native Americans were smart people in terms of being able to live off the land, build things, survive ect. I dont think anyone who lives in a concreteless and metaless society are primative cave people, everyone just didnt have access to the raw materials, domesticable animals, suitable farmland, domesticable crops, good weather.


Native americans did have access to:

raw materials, domesticable animals, suitable farmland, crops, and good weather.

Some native cultures were agrarian, and according to some historians most of north and south american continents' people of pre-history were moving to agrarian cultures before foreign diseases wiped out most of the population.

There were all kinds different cultures and lifestyles. Ones that didn't take a heavy toll on the earth.

whitey
08-09-2007, 10:02 PM
Native americans did have access to:

raw materials, domesticable animals, suitable farmland, crops, and good weather.

Some native cultures were agrarian, and according to some historians most of north and south american continents' people of pre-history were moving to agrarian cultures before foreign diseases wiped out most of the population.

There were all kinds different cultures and lifestyles. Ones that didn't take a heavy toll on the earth.


You would be a good person to read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond


Id think you'd learn alot. Ive been touting that book a lot in here, but honestly, put it in amazon or yahoo or something and just read the summary and see if your interested.

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 10:06 PM
It wasn't ment to belittle your intellegence. I was using it to show thats what people once believed. And science disproved that, but there were lots of people that didn't want to believe it.

That ties into natural selection and evolution and people just not wanting to believe it because they were so hung up on their prioer believes that seemed to be the be all and end all.


Just because some people use to believe that:


The earth was the center of universe, and everything rotated around it.


Doesn't mean all people believed that, or that native people believed that way.

LIke I siad in a different thread. There was a whole continent of people here with advanced knowledge in earth science. The things scientists are just now realizing, other people have known for a millennium.


It's similar to your belief in darwins theory of evolution:

I'm telling you it's bullshit, and your still telling me the earth is flat.

WARPATH
08-09-2007, 10:08 PM
You would be a good person to read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond


Id think you'd learn alot. Ive been touting that book a lot in here, but honestly, put it in amazon or yahoo or something and just read the summary and see if your interested.

Sounds intriquing.

Heavy-Mental
08-10-2007, 07:43 PM
Let me break it down for you dumb fuckers.


in 1 - I mention this because the Sitchin theory has ancient texts for reference - in particular the auto-biography of a deity named Enki/Ptah the one that held the caduceus first - something most of you "scientists" use as your stamp of approval on "scientific" shit.

Sitchinites (followers of Sitchin's works) - know that he is on to something when it comes to proving the existence of a race of beings that came to earth and made mankind in their own image( sons of god in Genesis 6).

Those of you that don't believe in this theory are basically followers of some religion.

The xtian will say that the anunnaki are the fallens ones spoken of in the bible:
Facrt is that the church of christians are the most notorious mass killers in the history of this planet. Now the real scenario - spoken about thousands of years ago by one named Enki- is that like us human-beings- aliens have good and bad intentions. People rather visualize this Hollywood aliens with common agendas. Thats not the case.

When Enki needed workers because his were complaining - him ans his sister came up with the brainchild to create a primitive obedient worker. The human DNA/RNA map is pretty simple to a being with millions of years of history when you think about how complex theirs must be.

Enki states that he used different species of beings on this planet to create the first adams. He specifically chose 3 beings that resembled anunnaki - bi-pedal and walked up-right. I can think of 3 beings to suit this claim- the orangutan, the chimpazee, and the gorilla. The first has a reddish tint to it's skin, the chimp has mixed skin colors- some are dark - some white, and gorilla's are black skinned.

**Now I know some of you will want to debate this- but - facts are facts- it was written long ago**

Now for #2-

This is a species of being that was already inter-mingled with other species of this galaxy - Enki's son Marduk is half Draconian (reptilian species from Draco constellation). His skin was green they say. He was a hot-headed fellow that loved to dominate even his own blood - his brothers and sisters all competed to have their section of the earth - they raised armies of humans to fight each other- but the key in this is how they used religion and technology to make themselves seem god-like to our primitive earlier humans- even you religious fanatics nowadays - would fall prostrate to the ground if I had a fiery rod and glow around me.

They used religion - Enki also created the first messiah. The reason he created this messiah was because at one point - Niburu was returning and Enlil did not want to save humankind from the impeding destruction caused by the gravitational pull of Niburu on the earth. Out of the batches of Adapa's( Adapa is the second "Adam"), their was an albino named Galzu, this albino studied under Enki and was one of his favorite humans. After his death- which deeply saddened Enki, he had rec curing dreams about the little fellow- the fellow would tell Enki that the Creator of All does not want humanity to perish in the flood and calamity caused by Niburu's arrival- so Enki taught another human- ( well call him Zizu for short). Yes you bible thumpers call him Noah. Enki even divulges why and how he created a savior for mankind.

Some call him Horus, some call him Melchizedek, some call him Khrishna, some call him Jesus. But the original - I dont know who the original messiah is - nor do I care, because they all had the simple message of this-

The Creator( Kingdom of God) ( Heaven) is within us all. We are all one with the creator and each other.




tru indeed.

Sitchens work is held to be a credible theory or fact. All of the Sumerian tablets show the helix and gentic connection. All of the ancient societies had a relationship with the higher cosmos. All of the societies spoke on fallen angels/ beings from above.

The truth is behind us, you need to look deeper into the histoory of this planet and civilizations. All of the bible stories come from the Sumerians. All of sitchens thoughts/views fill in where scientist stay away from... and also fill in the holes where the Bible doesnt account on.

you all need to connect the dots, we are near to these answers and things will come 2 surface soon.

Sitchens story is far better than the rib story.

peace.

Cthulhu
08-10-2007, 09:55 PM
I love how Slippy continually cloaks his thin arguments in ad hominem attacks. But fuck it. No use preaching to the blind. He apparently knows exactly where his ancestors came from, even though he doesn't care to enlighten us what that entails.

WARPATH
08-13-2007, 08:57 PM
I love how Slippy continually cloaks his thin arguments in ad hominem attacks. But fuck it. No use preaching to the blind. He apparently knows exactly where his ancestors came from, even though he doesn't care to enlighten us what that entails.

:lmao::point: :'(

Cthulhu
08-13-2007, 11:32 PM
:lmao::point: :'(

Thanks for proving my point.

WARPATH
08-16-2007, 02:33 PM
Thanks for proving my point.

Which is:

Your being a crybaby now?

Your welcome.

Cthulhu
08-16-2007, 05:26 PM
Which is:

Your being a crybaby now?

Your welcome.You proved my point that you only know how to use ad hominem arguments because you have very little to back up your illogical opinions.

WARPATH
08-16-2007, 05:28 PM
You proved my point that you only know how to use ad hominem arguments because you have very little to back up your illogical opinions.

What's illogical? Show me. Otherwise, quit your emotional responses.

whitey
08-16-2007, 06:19 PM
Hah, slip you act like SUNNY WINTERS or something bro. You bring nothing but dissagrements, then when other people bring facts or atleast something decent to banter with you just reduce yourself to personal attacks.

Bring something to the table son.

WARPATH
08-16-2007, 06:33 PM
Hah, slip you act like SUNNY WINTERS or something bro. You bring nothing but dissagrements, then when other people bring facts or atleast something decent to banter with you just reduce yourself to personal attacks.

Bring something to the table son.

And what is everyone else bringing?

A scientific theory that will not stand the test of time.

and........

What?

You want my knowledge on the creation of humans? Why? so you can disagree?

You evolved from monkeys into homonids into humans. I'm cool with that. I respect that. But your monkey nature lacks the respect I need to share knowledge with you.

Cthulhu
08-17-2007, 09:44 PM
What's illogical? Show me. Otherwise, quit your emotional responses.

There's no one in this thread being emotional but you, sport.

WARPATH
08-20-2007, 02:45 PM
There's no one in this thread being emotional but you, sport.
:stroke:

whitey
08-20-2007, 02:58 PM
And what is everyone else bringing?

A scientific theory that will not stand the test of time.

and........

What?

You want my knowledge on the creation of humans? Why? so you can disagree?

You evolved from monkeys into homonids into humans. I'm cool with that. I respect that. But your monkey nature lacks the respect I need to share knowledge with you.



Hah, monkey nature, thats funny.


Since the other thread got closed, ill bring respond to the gravity thing since I didnt get a chance to before.


My point with that is, where do you draw the line in science? You except rational college educated scientists when it comes to gravity (I know it was newton, not the point) but you say no to evolution although all signs point to it? Do you just pick and choose what science you want to believe in depending on if it clashes with your beliefs? How does that work? Do you think fossils are real? Dinosaurs? Ect?

WARPATH
08-20-2007, 03:11 PM
Hah, monkey nature, thats funny.


Since the other thread got closed, ill bring respond to the gravity thing since I didnt get a chance to before.


My point with that is, where do you draw the line in science? You except rational college educated scientists when it comes to gravity (I know it was newton, not the point) but you say no to evolution although all signs point to it? Do you just pick and choose what science you want to believe in depending on if it clashes with your beliefs? How does that work? Do you think fossils are real? Dinosaurs? Ect?

I respect scientists but not all scientists. "Western" scientists strive to disprove the existence of what they consider "super natural."

The theory of evolution doesn't clash with my beliefs. I just don't believe some of the explanations-or theories that are currently excepted by the mainstream.

Gravity, Physics, Mathamatics. I've studied all these things. These are laws that govern our universe, yet the theory of evoultion wants to bend these laws that govern are natural world.

Now try answer this question from the previous thread:

What effect does gravity play in the theory of evolution?

Longbongcilvaringz
08-20-2007, 03:37 PM
haha, will it ever end?

i respect the fact that vader actually put what he thinks out there.

instead of constantly saying evolution is wrong for this reason or that, say what you actually think.

your prepared to give criticism, why not let others constructively criticise what you think?

i understand that this thread will be met with more irrelevent shit about gravity and monkeys.

i think we should all give up and let it die, proponents of evolution have said all they want to.... and vader has said what he wanted to about the matter,

yet slippy your still yet to say anything, and id have to say thats how it will stay.

let this shit die.

WARPATH
08-20-2007, 03:56 PM
haha, will it ever end?

i respect the fact that vader actually put what he thinks out there.

instead of constantly saying evolution is wrong for this reason or that, say what you actually think.

your prepared to give criticism, why not let others constructively criticise what you think?

i understand that this thread will be met with more irrelevent shit about gravity and monkeys.

i think we should all give up and let it die, proponents of evolution have said all they want to.... and vader has said what he wanted to about the matter,

yet slippy your still yet to say anything, and id have to say thats how it will stay.

let this shit die.

The criticism is never constructive.

The theory of evolution, in regards to the creation of human beings is bullshit.

Criticize away.

Huggasaurus Sex
08-20-2007, 04:56 PM
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x75/Humanface_Huggah/ihrttrolling.jpg

WARPATH
08-20-2007, 05:09 PM
I'm not trolling, I've shared enough of my knowledge on the subject in the past. Experience tells me people can't handle the truth.

Huggasaurus Sex
08-20-2007, 06:53 PM
i'm ready for the truth so give it. how were human beings created?

WARPATH
08-20-2007, 07:06 PM
i'm ready for the truth so give it. how were human beings created?

The truth is, nobody knows the truth.

End thread.

whitey
08-20-2007, 10:37 PM
The criticism is never constructive.

The theory of evolution, in regards to the creation of human beings is bullshit.

Criticize away.


So lets get this straight,according to you just the creation of humans through evolution is bullshit?


How about everything else on this planet?

whitey
08-20-2007, 10:49 PM
Now try answer this question from the previous thread:

What effect does gravity play in the theory of evolution?


Hah, I think you are trying to pick apart an argument that is not being made. Like I said before, I am relating the two in terms of scientific theories accepted by scientists. Its like yea apples and oranges can't be compaired on the micro scale because they are two different things, as evolution and gravity are, but on the macro scale of things apples and oranges are both fruits, as evolution and gravity both pertain to modern science. My point to what Im getting at is I think you dont believe evolution because it doesnt fit your pre-existing beliefs.


That is to suggest, say you started with a blank slate. You knew nothing of the creation of humans from any direction. And someone posed to you two options, those being...the explanation of however you believe we got here, (which idk since you dont seem to be willing to reveal it), and the theory of evolution backed by most credible scientists all over the world, and you had to choose. In an honest manor, I think you would pick evolution.

Just like most people that believe in religion (or some sort of system as such) today, they were brought up on it, it was implanted in them as truth from a young age, and nothing can come before that. And when something like evolution contradicts what you believe, in this case how we got here, it is tossed aside as bullshit, because if you were to believe it, your world as you know it would come crumbling down.



Does that answer your question?



(P.S. I had TWO bananas today, they were really good)

Dirk Daring
08-21-2007, 12:03 PM
the truth is out there

WARPATH
08-21-2007, 12:05 PM
So lets get this straight,according to you just the creation of humans through evolution is bullshit?


How about everything else on this planet?

You mean animals and plants? It's bullshit.


Hah, I think you are trying to pick apart an argument that is not being made. Like I said before, I am relating the two in terms of scientific theories accepted by scientists. Its like yea apples and oranges can't be compaired on the micro scale because they are two different things, as evolution and gravity are, but on the macro scale of things apples and oranges are both fruits, as evolution and gravity both pertain to modern science. My point to what Im getting at is I think you dont believe evolution because it doesnt fit your pre-existing beliefs.


That is to suggest, say you started with a blank slate. You knew nothing of the creation of humans from any direction. And someone posed to you two options, those being...the explanation of however you believe we got here, (which idk since you dont seem to be willing to reveal it), and the theory of evolution backed by most credible scientists all over the world, and you had to choose. In an honest manor, I think you would pick evolution.

Just like most people that believe in religion (or some sort of system as such) today, they were brought up on it, it was implanted in them as truth from a young age, and nothing can come before that. And when something like evolution contradicts what you believe, in this case how we got here, it is tossed aside as bullshit, because if you were to believe it, your world as you know it would come crumbling down.



Does that answer your question?



(P.S. I had TWO bananas today, they were really good)

No you didn't answer my question because:

You lack the ability to think critically.



What effect does gravity play in the theory of evolution? What role does it play on the the evolutionary fitness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29) of an organism?

Black Man
08-21-2007, 12:54 PM
The truth is, nobody knows the truth.

End thread.

Somebody knows...just because you may not know doesn't mean it's universally unknown.

Longbongcilvaringz
08-21-2007, 12:56 PM
bananas are great.

WARPATH
08-21-2007, 02:21 PM
Somebody knows...just because you may not know doesn't mean it's universally unknown.

I'm not nobody, i'm sombody. Your a white guy that likes to pretend he's black. Nuff siad.

Black Man
08-21-2007, 02:36 PM
I'm not nobody, i'm sombody. Your a white guy that likes to pretend he's black. Nuff siad.

Truth is, you don't know the truth. Simple as that.

WARPATH
08-21-2007, 02:49 PM
Truth is, you don't know the truth. Simple as that.

I know where I came from. That's about as truthful as it gets.


But if you have a theory on the creation of humans, please tell us how black men are your gods.

whitey
08-21-2007, 02:52 PM
You mean animals and plants? It's bullshit.

Okay, again let me get this straight, life has been around on this planet for atleast 3.5 billion years and maybe even 4 billion, yet nothing is related? and everything was placed here or "created" seperatly? is that what you are saying here?




No you didn't answer my question because:

You lack the ability to think critically.



What effect does gravity play in the theory of evolution? What role does it play on the the evolutionary fitness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29) of an organism?

No, thats not the case. To be honest I have no problem in saying I do not know what relation gravity has to evolution, if any. I dont side step problems I cant answer. Can you tell me?

Huggasaurus Sex
08-21-2007, 02:54 PM
Truth is, you don't know the truth. Simple as that.I'm not nobody, i'm sombody. Your a white guy that likes to pretend he's black. Nuff siad.

:lmao:

WARPATH
08-21-2007, 03:08 PM
Okay, again let me get this straight, life has been around on this planet for atleast 3.5 billion years and maybe even 4 billion, yet nothing is related? and everything was placed here or "created" seperatly? is that what you are saying here?


No, i'm not saying anything at all- except that everything is related. DNA is proof of that.




No, thats not the case. To be honest I have no problem in saying I do not know what relation gravity has to evolution, if any. I dont side step problems I cant answer. Can you tell me?


There are several anomolies that come from the theory of evolution:

Gravity keeps everything down on earth, yet we have birds that evolved to put physics to their advantage. Start there when thinking in terms of gravity and evolution.

The other is the elemental stressors that help the natural selection process. There are too many different kinds of evolution stemming from the same stressors. It's completely defiant of physics, and what we know about modern biology.


One person mentioned heavier meats sacks, when thinking in terms of gravity and it's effect.

Heavier animals are the exact oppisite of flying animals.

Bats fly, yet I don't see the mice in my house jumping across the ledges.

Black Man
08-21-2007, 03:21 PM
I know where I came from. That's about as truthful as it gets.


But if you have a theory on the creation of humans, please tell us how black men are your gods.

The mouth of wisdom only opens to the ears of understanding.

I don't have a theory, I know.

Black Man
08-21-2007, 03:24 PM
No, i'm not saying anything at all- except that everything is related. DNA is proof of that.





There are several anomolies that come from the theory of evolution:

Gravity keeps everything down on earth, yet we have birds that evolved to put physics to their advantage. Start there when thinking in terms of gravity and evolution.

The other is the elemental stressors that help the natural selection process. There are too many different kinds of evolution stemming from the same stressors. It's completely defiant of physics, and what we know about modern biology.


One person mentioned heavier meats sacks, when thinking in terms of gravity and it's effect.

Heavier animals are the exact oppisite of flying animals.

Bats fly, yet I don't see the mice in my house jumping across the ledges.

You may not see mice jumping across ledges but you can squirrels "flying" from tree limbs.

Huggasaurus Sex
08-21-2007, 03:37 PM
the evolution of flight has more to do with the density of the atmosphere than gravity. birds could not fly on the moon (even if they had birdie spacesuits) because without an atmosphere they'd never be able to create the lift to stay airborne.

There are too many different kinds of evolution stemming from the same stressors.
who are you to decide how many evolutionary paths are "too many"? and if all stressors resulted in the exact same evolutionary paths, well, that's not much evolution now is it?

WARPATH
08-21-2007, 06:30 PM
the evolution of flight has more to do with the density of the atmosphere than gravity. birds could not fly on the moon (even if they had birdie spacesuits) because without an atmosphere they'd never be able to create the lift to stay airborne.


who are you to decide how many evolutionary paths are "too many"? and if all stressors resulted in the exact same evolutionary paths, well, that's not much evolution now is it?

so are you starting to see the irony in this line of thought?

Are you saying birds don't have to adhere to the laws of gravity?

WARPATH
08-21-2007, 06:33 PM
You may not see mice jumping across ledges but you can squirrels "flying" from tree limbs.

A sqirrels is not a mouse, and neither is bat. They may all be rodents, but who's higher on the evolutionary chain and what were the stressors that caused them to branch out?

When you figure that out break it down by region for me. Then we'll be getting somewhere.

Huggasaurus Sex
08-21-2007, 07:06 PM
so are you starting to see the irony in this line of thought?

Are you saying birds don't have to adhere to the laws of gravity?

:{ yes that's what i'm saying. i'm saying birds are magic. i don't know how they got here. no one does. but i can say with 100% certainty that they did not evolve from dinosaurs. that's what i'm saying.





:dead:

Cthulhu
08-21-2007, 07:10 PM
so are you starting to see the irony in this line of thought?

Are you saying birds don't have to adhere to the laws of gravity?

If that's what you got out of his reply, then you must be a fucking idiot.

whitey
08-21-2007, 08:54 PM
:{ yes that's what i'm saying. i'm saying birds are magic. i don't know how they got here. no one does. but i can say with 100% certainty that they did not evolve from dinosaurs. that's what i'm saying.





:dead:


im saying they did. what it do?

Longbongcilvaringz
08-22-2007, 01:16 PM
haha, now your all discussing fucking mice flying?

lets keep this thread going round and round as long as possible.

it get more and more ridiculous the more posts are made.

slippy if you KNOW where you come from, then accept that everyone here KNOWS that evolution is correct.

so obviously they cant be convinced by your flying arguments, the same way that you can't be convinced that evolution makes sense.


fish can fly....

Cthulhu
08-22-2007, 10:56 PM
haha, now your all discussing fucking mice flying?

lets keep this thread going round and round as long as possible.

it get more and more ridiculous the more posts are made.

slippy if you KNOW where you come from, then accept that everyone here KNOWS that evolution is correct.

so obviously they cant be convinced by your flying arguments, the same way that you can't be convinced that evolution makes sense.


fish can fly....

Pigs too

My First Timbs
08-26-2007, 04:11 PM
www.acalltosanity.com

Treazon
08-26-2007, 07:59 PM
lol nice plug dude... id prolly buy that if i could find it on ebay or if my paypal account didnt get hacked

WARPATH
08-31-2007, 12:59 PM
If that's what you got out of his reply, then you must be a fucking idiot.

Are those questions to hard for you? Is that why you resorted to name calling? Try and stay on the subject.

maestro wooz
08-07-2008, 03:53 AM
bump for the first couple pages

Longbongcilvaringz
08-07-2008, 04:13 AM
wizdom

WARPATH
08-08-2008, 06:05 PM
haha, now your all discussing fucking mice flying?

lets keep this thread going round and round as long as possible.

it get more and more ridiculous the more posts are made.

slippy if you KNOW where you come from, then accept that everyone here KNOWS that evolution is correct.

so obviously they cant be convinced by your flying arguments, the same way that you can't be convinced that evolution makes sense.


fish can fly....

Knowing is not the same as thinking you know.