A personal theory of the gods

[Mad Jasmine]

Hi there,

A pagan that I know personally thinks of the gods as archytypes, and nothing more. Most people believe the gods are these remarkable spirit beings that dwell in the earth and up in the clouds, who talk to us in dreams. Maybe both of these ideas might be right as the gods could very well exist as archytypes and elementals NOW but it's too simplistic an idea and I think the gods are more than that.

The "gods" were real and they existed. They were flesh and blood people who were not human like us but they resembled us. They were scientists and explorers, they had sophisticated technology, they travelled through space and originally they came from a different star. They colonised our planet, as well as Mars and the moon, before we appeared. We're products of their creation, they gave us some of their own DNA and pieces of animals. Humanity is a genetically engineered creature, and we regarded them as gods because they were our makers. Those people have something to do with the gods of myth and legend that we know of. Where are they now? It seems that the "gods" themselves either left, returning to where they came from, or still live in canals of the earth or most likely they're all dead.

I conclude this because of so much material I've read from alternative science, archeology, human history and natural history books, articles and videos. Humans didn't naturally evolve from apes, there is no real evidence to suggest that in any way. Humans just suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Mainstream history has too many holes, it explains nothing. There are those who believe in the evolution dogma and those from whatever religion who believe that the gods are just magical deities.

I follow the path of Wodenism. To me the gods themselves are in the blood now where an element of them exists, (because they gave us their biological essence at the dawn of time). That divine "god" quality will often rise in some individuals in some parts of time. I'm not denying there isn't an unknown supernatural realm, as I've experienced things I can't explain. But regarding human origins and the gods, this has nothing to do with the paranormal.

A lot of important finds have been covered up because it doesn't tally with the mainstream view of human-ape- ...
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/darwinism.1.html
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/arcoverups.html
http://www.mcremo.com/mysterious.htm
http://www.alternativescience.com/

[Toby Stimpson]

With respect...I dont think i agree with your theory. Especially the idea that humans did not eveolve from apes, and just 'appeared.' Modern science has painstakingly scoured the world looking for any kind of evidence, and since science is based on rational reasoning...they do not just make things up. The idea of Gods being as ancient scientists is an interesting one, and could be likely as we engineer creatures all the time. But at the same time, it is completly false to say that your version of events is soemhow more reasonable because what real evidence is there? You say theres no evidence in history pointing to evoluntion of man, and you conclude this from watching several videos, reading several books and alternative science books. What real evidence is there in these things to come to a rational explanation? The same things have been said by such groups such as Scientology, the raelians, and a very notable figure called Erik Von Danigan....however, it is so easy to link a few things in the world and then say that it leads to some kind o Alien Gods theory. Now, I will say I do enjoy Eric Von Danigan's theories...they certainly are interesting...but you cant say here that there is no evidence to say Humans didnt evolve becasue thats just wrong. I mean there is a certain amount of absolute belief in evolution really, and that may not be the best thjing becasue peopel dont question and find the answers for their own...but to call it polarize iot by saying people either believe (with negetive conontations) an evolution dogma, OR magical deities (again a hint of negetive conontation) is quite ridiculous to say.

Personally how I come to terms with the whole creationism (in any form and you propose a form of intelligent design creationism) and evolution is that i just dont. I eprsonally used to believe that a God just created a set of chain reactiosn that inevitably lead to creatures they would correspond with. But now Im beginning to realize that perhaps Gods acted more as teachers and guides...or even were deified humans. But thats just me. I wouldn dare take that a step further and present things that are not credible to begin with and then defame other people in some ways.

Interesting post though!

Namaste

Tobias

[Mad Jasmine]

Sorry to hurt your feelings for having an opinion that differs from the masses. Is that what this subforum is about, discussing thoughts, ideas, opinions and theories? Or can we only talk about things we can all agree on?
There is no real evidence to say humans evolved from apes, it's only dogma. The theory can't explain the idea any further itself, and Darwin himself didn't believe this either. Did you read the links I gave or just brush them aside? Why is it "wrong" to point out flaws in Darwinism? How does this darwin theory tally with your creationism view or whatever it is you said you believed? The "gods" definately were teachers because they showed us things we didn't know, such as how to farm, domesticate animals and plants, work with metal and use written language. We're not part of the evolution kingdom and we didn't evolve from beasts. A lower species cannot grow into higher species, but life CAN and does devolve (reverse evolution).

[Toby Stimpson]

Sorry to hurt your feelings for having an opinion that differs from the masses. Is that what this subforum is about, discussing thoughts, ideas, opinions and theories? Or can we only talk about things we can all agree on?
There is no real evidence to say humans evolved from apes, it's only dogma. The theory can't explain the idea any further itself, and Darwin himself didn't believe this either. Did you read the links I gave or just brush them aside? Why is it "wrong" to point out flaws in Darwinism? How does this darwin theory tally with your creationism view or whatever it is you said you believed? The "gods" definately were teachers because they showed us things we didn't know, such as how to farm, domesticate animals and plants, work with metal and use written language. We're not part of the evolution kingdom and we didn't evolve from beasts. A lower species cannot grow into higher species, but life CAN and does devolve (reverse evolution).


First, you didnt hurt my feelings. I disagree with you strongly but I very much appreciate you bruinging your thoughts here! :). Second, I dont believe in creationism...as for what i have learned and experianced I cannot justifiably say that a God who may be part human archetype or a god who chooses to appear as a human archetype can create us. They are gods becasue they are higher beings than us, but at the same time my spirituality teaches me that the only thing the Gods want and do is to either defend the universe (whether mythologically or literilly, I doubt literilly) or act as Gurus, becasue they have gone before us. But I dont believe they created us. Ultimatly I am a monotheist...and believe that God did create the universe, but Bod to me isnt personal...he isnt a God, he isnt even a he...its what lies beyond what physical and even spiritual realms can teach us.

Thirdly, yes I did look at your links and read them. I find the flaw that they try to gather a lot of things that wouldnt necessarily go tgether, to try to prove a point. Or they just dont prove a point, and instead look at theories from about 100 years ago. Evolution was first proposed as a theory by Darwin, thats the main thing here...and as time went on this theory seemed more and more plausible as evidence was found.

The main flaws I can see with your websies is that a) they speculate, they say "evidence is taken" and on one it goes onto talk about the Sphinx controversy...but at the same time, they dont tell you how these findings were found. You would think they would have more information on the dating techniques, and processes by which they found their data....but alas they dont. theres also a striking flaw in that if they tests the rock of lets say the sphinx and perhaps only looked at certain layers of the rock...ofcourse it will be 9,000 years old becasue you'll be looking at the age of the rock...bot the actual structure it's self.

B). One website is only a plug for a tv show with actually no eal evidence on there.

C) The entire feel of the two artciles is very conspiracy type in how it's written. IF they were really refuting facts and had soemthing valuable to contribute, they would dsiagree with the already established 'facts' and then with evidence go through the theory to reality step by step process. They dont...they simply refuke facts and then blame those who have spent a lot of time finding evidence or studying as hiding soemthing, which leads to this paranoid sort of mindset that "if they are refuking us...then they must be hiding soemthing...which means we are right" which Im sory I dont agree with and cant accept as evidence.

D) Theres a LOT of juumping to conclusions. I mean i've read the "life suddenly appeared and that shows extraterrestrial involvement"...and Im sorry, Im still rather disatisfied afterwards in even seeing the links.

Now also, you said that lower beings cannot evolve into higher beings....errr, yes they can. We see it all the time. Certain inds of insects adapt to poisons all the time, is that not evolution? Human lifespans have been increased over the past 100 years...si that not effectivly changing into a higher lifeform? And also...how can you, with justification ignore fossil records?

Quite frankly, and youre not hurting my feelings, i do quite enjoy a good debate...but Im just noit wayed by thsi evidence. People who disagree with you are not soemhow forcing you to believe in what the masses feel...which is quite frankly an overdramatic statement.

Namaste

Tobias

[skilly-nilly]

A lower species cannot grow into higher species, but life CAN and does devolve (reverse evolution).

I find this a little sweeping. If 'life' can't evolve then where do you posit anything came from?

Even the single celled beings had to evolve from somewhere, then leading to organizational cell groups with organelles, multi-celled beings with specific organs, sexual reproduction, backbones, warm blood, et al.

Or do you think that the space-faring 'gods' created everything from a blank-slate Earth? And how do you think the space-faring 'gods' came into being wherever they came from? If they were created, then where did their creators come from......it had to start somewhere, neh?

[exodustruth]

Hi there,

A People that I know personally thinks of the gods as archytypes, and nothing more. Most people believe the gods are these remarkable spirit beings that dwell in the earth and up in the clouds, who talk to us in dreams. Maybe both of these ideas might be right as the gods could very well exist as archytypes and elementals NOW but it's too simplistic an idea and I think the gods are more than that.

The "gods" were real and they existed. They were flesh and blood people who were not human like us but they resembled us. They were scientists and explorers, they had sophisticated technology, they travelled through space and originally they came from a different star. They colonised our planet, as well as Mars and the moon, before we appeared. We're products of their creation, they gave us some of their own DNA and pieces of animals. Humanity is a genetically engineered creature, and we regarded them as gods because they were our makers. Those people have something to do with the gods of myth and legend that we know of. Where are they now? It seems that the "gods" themselves either left, returning to where they came from, or still live in canals of the earth or most likely they're all dead.

I conclude this because of so much material I've read from alternative science, archeology, human history and natural history books, articles and videos. Humans didn't naturally evolve from apes, there is no real evidence to suggest that in any way. Humans just suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Mainstream history has too many holes, it explains nothing. There are those who believe in the evolution dogma and those from whatever religion who believe that the gods are just magical deities.

I follow the path of Wodenism. To me the gods themselves are in the blood now where an element of them exists, (because they gave us their biological essence at the dawn of time). That divine "god" quality will often rise in some individuals in some parts of time. I'm not denying there isn't an unknown supernatural realm, as I've experienced things I can't explain. But regarding human origins and the gods, this has nothing to do with the paranormal.

A lot of important finds have been covered up because it doesn't tally with the mainstream view of human-ape- ...
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/darwinism.1.html
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/arcoverups.html_____ (http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/arcoverups.html)
http://www.mcremo.com/mysterious.htm
http://www.alternativescience.com/

Perhaps you should read the belial point theory...

http://churchofsatan.tv/belial.html

[SilentDreams]

You really do have an interesting and different view of the Gods. It's not one that I agree with but I can see that you've really thought this out. It would make much sense to me if I didn't disagree with you on evolution. I just don't see how there is this severe "lack" of evidence which you seem to believe there is.

But it's nice that you're willing to share your theories with us and it does give me something to ponder.

[ancestral_lee]

Hi there,



I conclude this because of so much material I've read from alternative science, archeology, human history and natural history books, articles and videos. Humans didn't naturally evolve from apes, there is no real evidence to suggest that in any way. Humans just suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Mainstream history has too many holes, it explains nothing. There are those who believe in the evolution dogma and those from whatever religion who believe that the gods are just magical deities.

We did evolve from apes, 200 years of scientific evidence backs it up. there is now an ever increasing bank of known human ancestors right from Lucy the Australopithecus, including thee newly discovered so called ‘Lucy’s baby’ which is a step forward in time to another in time and evolution. Human evolution aside we have documented quite well the evolution of many fossil groups, such as the terrestrialisation of amphibians from fishes, the evolution of whales from land animals etc. ive just done my BSC in palaeontology, take it from me that over the past three years ive read a LOT of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals.


There is no real evidence to say humans evolved from apes, it's only dogma. The theory can't explain the idea any further itself, and Darwin himself didn't believe this either. Did you read the links I gave or just brush them aside? Why is it "wrong" to point out flaws in Darwinism? How does this Darwin theory tally with your creationism view or whatever it is you said you believed? The "gods" definitely were teachers because they showed us things we didn't know, such as how to farm, domesticate animals and plants, work with metal and use written language. We're not part of the evolution kingdom and we didn't evolve from beasts. A lower species cannot grow into higher species, but life CAN and does devolve (reverse evolution).

Any further than itself? What do you mean? After 200 years, evolution has stood the rigours of the scientific process, sure the finer points and mechanisms have been tweaked, but evolution is as close to scientific fact as you can get. It happens. Its been backed up by 10000’s of scientific tests and studies. There is no standing counter argument or hypothesis that has scientific evidence to support it.

Your use of higher and lower species belies a misunderstanding of what evolution is. It isn’t a lader climb to perfection, its adaptation to the environment. So although fish evolve to live on land, several groups of animals have gone back to water, this isn’t a step down, it’s a step across in order to adapt and survive.

[covenofkeys]

are we not all gods?-we have the power to give life, or take it away...etc etc

[Amelserru_halqu]

When we look at the man behind the curtain we see the illusion and the man, what we miss is the curtain.

[Tabbykitty]

Hey Jasmine,

Read ur theory and found it interesting. Just to let ya know, I did my own research into the history of man, I too don't believe man evolved from apes. And I also believe that we were descended from aliens that colonised this planet and that many of those we regard as 'gods' were really these alien colonists. No, I don't think we are a genetically engineered creatures with semi-animal DNA.

Drop me a line sometime if u are interested. We can discuss findings about this subject.

[David19]

I don't believe the gods 'were aliens' or that we 'didn't evolve from apes', 'cause to me scientists know more about it, than some people posting on the internet and creating sites.

Plus, this whole alien thing seems to have started with Erich von Daniken and Zechariah Sitchin, whose ideas have been completly discredited, this site, http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/ is by an actual Sumerianologist, who completly discredits Sitchin's 'theories' that Sumerian 'mythology' prove the that the gods 'are aliens' and that they 'came to earth', and this article (http://skepdic.com/vondanik.html)on Skeptic's dictionary (http://skepdic.com/), discredits Erich Von Daniken.

To me, and this is just a personal opinion, while i don't rule out that aliens probably do exist, it's a huge universe afterall, i don't think they came to earth, or at least if they did, i don't think they're the gods, also, why do so many people think that aliens, who can fly around in spaceships, enter hyperspace, have all this advanced technology, etc would come to earth to help humanity, and teach them, look at history, any time, a technologically advanced society came into contact with one with less technology, they've always been the conqueror, it's always ended in blood, e.g. Spain and South America and Mexico, etc, Britain and other European powers and Africa, etc.

Also, why would they leave?, would they let a bunch of humans outsmart them?, etc.

To me, i think the aliens idea is kind of like Scientology.

[Toby Stimpson]

Hey Jasmine,

Read ur theory and found it interesting. Just to let ya know, I did my own research into the history of man, I too don't believe man evolved from apes. And I also believe that we were descended from aliens that colonised this planet and that many of those we regard as 'gods' were really these alien colonists. No, I don't think we are a genetically engineered creatures with semi-animal DNA.

Drop me a line sometime if u are interested. We can discuss findings about this subject.

How did you come to this theory though....I mean have you ignored the other replis to this post?

[Tabbykitty]

How did you come to this theory though....I mean have you ignored the other replis to this post?

Hi Galadraal,

my post was in direct reply to Jasmine's original post on her beliefs. It is merely to state that I believe in something somewhat similar. This is a personal view.

Tabbykitty

[plumedsnake]

also, why do so many people think that aliens, who can fly around in spaceships, enter hyperspace, have all this advanced technology, etc would come to earth to help humanity, and teach them, look at history, any time, a technologically advanced society came into contact with one with less technology, they've always been the conqueror, it's always ended in blood, e.g. Spain and South America and Mexico, etc, Britain and other European powers and Africa, etc.
.

By the same token, why would the superpowerful Gods who are so much more advanced than us and do all those superpowerful things bother themselves with humanity at all. why has our apparent intercourse with gods not ended in conquest and blood etc.

[Mad Jasmine]

are we not all gods?-we have the power to give life, or take it away...etc etc

There are elements within our blood passed down from these god people, when we were made by them. Each of us has a higher self we try to aspire to be and we also have the capability to learn, making us different than all the other animals. Humans have the potential to grow in spirit and this has happened to some individuals.

[Mad Jasmine]

First, you didnt hurt my feelings. I disagree with you strongly but I very much appreciate you bruinging your thoughts here! :). Second, I dont believe in creationism...as for what i have learned and experianced I cannot justifiably say that a God who may be part human archetype or a god who chooses to appear as a human archetype can create us. They are gods becasue they are higher beings than us, but at the same time my spirituality teaches me that the only thing the Gods want and do is to either defend the universe (whether mythologically or literilly, I doubt literilly) or act as Gurus, becasue they have gone before us. But I dont believe they created us. Ultimatly I am a monotheist...and believe that God did create the universe, but Bod to me isnt personal...he isnt a God, he isnt even a he...its what lies beyond what physical and even spiritual realms can teach us.

Thirdly, yes I did look at your links and read them. I find the flaw that they try to gather a lot of things that wouldnt necessarily go tgether, to try to prove a point. Or they just dont prove a point, and instead look at theories from about 100 years ago. Evolution was first proposed as a theory by Darwin, thats the main thing here...and as time went on this theory seemed more and more plausible as evidence was found.

The main flaws I can see with your websies is that a) they speculate, they say "evidence is taken" and on one it goes onto talk about the Sphinx controversy...but at the same time, they dont tell you how these findings were found. You would think they would have more information on the dating techniques, and processes by which they found their data....but alas they dont. theres also a striking flaw in that if they tests the rock of lets say the sphinx and perhaps only looked at certain layers of the rock...ofcourse it will be 9,000 years old becasue you'll be looking at the age of the rock...bot the actual structure it's self.

B). One website is only a plug for a tv show with actually no eal evidence on there.

C) The entire feel of the two artciles is very conspiracy type in how it's written. IF they were really refuting facts and had soemthing valuable to contribute, they would dsiagree with the already established 'facts' and then with evidence go through the theory to reality step by step process. They dont...they simply refuke facts and then blame those who have spent a lot of time finding evidence or studying as hiding soemthing, which leads to this paranoid sort of mindset that "if they are refuking us...then they must be hiding soemthing...which means we are right" which Im sory I dont agree with and cant accept as evidence.

D) Theres a LOT of juumping to conclusions. I mean i've read the "life suddenly appeared and that shows extraterrestrial involvement"...and Im sorry, Im still rather disatisfied afterwards in even seeing the links.

Now also, you said that lower beings cannot evolve into higher beings....errr, yes they can. We see it all the time. Certain inds of insects adapt to poisons all the time, is that not evolution? Human lifespans have been increased over the past 100 years...si that not effectivly changing into a higher lifeform? And also...how can you, with justification ignore fossil records?

Quite frankly, and youre not hurting my feelings, i do quite enjoy a good debate...but Im just noit wayed by thsi evidence. People who disagree with you are not soemhow forcing you to believe in what the masses feel...which is quite frankly an overdramatic statement.

Namaste

Tobias

I understand that you don't agree with me on this. Not many people do and the normal reaction to this is pretty negative. I don't believe in the Darwinist theory of evolution. It doesn't explain how humans emerged from these ape men and also there is no "missing link" to be found apart from guessing. We're told to accept this idea and there is nothing wrong with looking for answers elsewhere. Human beings (as pointed out by Lloyd Pye in "Everything You Know is Wrong - book one: Human Origins") discusses in detail where the evolution theory is wrong.

Life forms on earth have grown and adapted naturally, but doesn't explain how humans developed from it. How can wild animals produce an intelligent thinking species with mental and physical traits so much more different to them? Humans lifespans were shorter 100 years ago because of certain malnutrition and the effects of the Industrial Revolution. Before that period most people had long lifespans. There are people who live in parts of the world who have always had very long lives because they eat pure food and breath in fresh air and dwell in wild surroundings. It's the environment that determines human growth and health.

Believing that human life appeared because of intelligent design is just a good theory as any other. There is more evidence to show that there are many things you can't explain but it points to there being an advanced presence on earth a very long time ago. You can find flaws in these theories but there are also greater flaws in the Darwin theory which you can't see or don't want to know.

[ancestral_lee]

By the same token, why would the superpowerful Gods who are so much more advanced than us and do all those superpowerful things bother themselves with humanity at all. why has our apparent intercourse with gods not ended in conquest and blood etc.


dunno if you are playing devils advocat here or not... my view is that its because many of th ods were human at som point. the mighty dead, old ancestors who have become deified.

[Mad Jasmine]

I find this a little sweeping. If 'life' can't evolve then where do you posit anything came from?

Even the single celled beings had to evolve from somewhere, then leading to organizational cell groups with organelles, multi-celled beings with specific organs, sexual reproduction, backbones, warm blood, et al.

Or do you think that the space-faring 'gods' created everything from a blank-slate Earth? And how do you think the space-faring 'gods' came into being wherever they came from? If they were created, then where did their creators come from......it had to start somewhere, neh?


I was referring to human beings when I said that a higher species cannot just come from lifeforms. There has to be some interference there,not from nature itself but from another intelligence.
No I think wild animals did form naturally on earth, but humans did not. Domestic animals and plants also didn't "evolve" from Mother Earth's womb.
My personal opinion of the gods is just it - personal. Do you believe in evolution or creationism by supernatural beings?

[Mad Jasmine]

To me, and this is just a personal opinion, while i don't rule out that aliens probably do exist, it's a huge universe afterall, i don't think they came to earth, or at least if they did, i don't think they're the gods, also, why do so many people think that aliens, who can fly around in spaceships, enter hyperspace, have all this advanced technology, etc would come to earth to help humanity, and teach them, look at history, any time, a technologically advanced society came into contact with one with less technology, they've always been the conqueror, it's always ended in blood, e.g. Spain and South America and Mexico, etc, Britain and other European powers and Africa, etc.

Also, why would they leave?, would they let a bunch of humans outsmart them?, etc.

To me, i think the aliens idea is kind of like Scientology.

You all mention Erich von Daaniken (I didn't) but he's done a lot of research and had his reputation on the line. People laughed at him everywhere, instead of actually looking at the findings and reading the puzzles he mentioned. You don't have to accept the alien-gods theory but why drink the evolution dogma without question? isn't that the same thing as believing in the flat earth? once people did and they executed those who said otherwise.

With regards to your questions, I think it's a lot deeper than that. Those gods were not just technologically superior but also spiritually advanced. They created us, so why wouldn't they teach us anything. We have the cpacity to learn. To answer your question about why the gods "left" would end up with me discussing further theories and ideas which will take time. Personally I don't think they abandoned us.

[plumedsnake]

dunno if you are playing devils advocat here or not... my view is that its because many of th ods were human at som point. the mighty dead, old ancestors who have become deified.

I was only extending his argument, not making one of my own.

[plumedsnake]

I was referring to human beings when I said that a higher species cannot just come from lifeforms. There has to be some interference there,not from nature itself but from another intelligence.
No I think wild animals did form naturally on earth, but humans did not. Domestic animals and plants also didn't "evolve" from Mother Earth's womb.
My personal opinion of the gods is just it - personal. Do you believe in evolution or creationism by supernatural beings?


To say that human beings just can't come from lifeforms is as sweeping and presumptious as saying that they can. We cannot say either way until we have full knowledge of the powers of nature itself. Nature is still very vast and mysterious to us. We are in no position to blurt out what she can or cannot do.
Look what you gone and done!! You've made me start talking about nature again and I formed a weak-willed resolution a couple of weeks back to not discuss Nature on this forum.

[skilly-nilly]

I was referring to human beings when I said that a higher species cannot just come from lifeforms. There has to be some interference there,not from nature itself but from another intelligence.
No I think wild animals did form naturally on earth, but humans did not. Domestic animals and plants also didn't "evolve" from Mother Earth's womb.
My personal opinion of the gods is just it - personal. Do you believe in evolution or creationism by supernatural beings?

There are 2 ways to interpret what you're saying here:

1) Humankind is wholly different from all other animals, and was the creation of alien visitors. There are 2 problems with this viewpoint:
a) How were the aliens then created? That is, the creation of humans is explained with this device but not the creation of the aliens.
and
b) How do you then explain the obvious design similarities--spines, blood cells, organs, etc--between animals and humans if they are not related?

2) Starting from the animal template, aliens inserted 'human-ness' into the Earth-based animal. This works better, but then an explanation has to be found for the formation of the Earth-based complex animal that the alien-ness is injected into; so you are left with the same questions:
a) How did the chemical soup produce living cells?
and
b) How do you get from single living cells to complex organisms?
I answer these questions with evolution. If you choose against evolution as a means of producing complex life-forms then you have to have another theory that performs the same mechanism. If your choice is God-the-Engineer (or Alien Tinker-toys) then I reply:

"Knees!" :nyah:

If the world's living beings are outright constructs, then why are so many of the mechanisms so cobbled together? To me, belief in intelligent design (supported by the amazing elegance of eyes and the shoulder-elbow-wrist mechanism, not to mention kidneys) falls apart with the crashingly bad design of knees.....and why give us an appendix??? Practice for surgeons?

My personal belief is that The Great God blew life into the chemical soup and left Gaia in charge. I don't believe that She does much tweaking but that She leaves the mechanism to work on its own most of the time. In the same way that we can hold and regulate our breath, but we don't consciously breathe--we just let the CO2 triggers etc do their job.

I don't believe 'in' evolution in the sense that it's some static end-point; I believe that the Earth changes through the joint processes of evolution and natural selection.

How do you think change is accomplished?

[omar]

We did not evolve from the ape! We came from homoerectus,cromagnan & neanderthal man,not apes. If we where created in the image of God & are co-creators with God,then we are gods.

[Mad Jasmine]

We did evolve from apes, 200 years of scientific evidence backs it up. there is now an ever increasing bank of known human ancestors right from Lucy the Australopithecus, including thee newly discovered so called ‘Lucy’s baby’ which is a step forward in time to another in time and evolution. Human evolution aside we have documented quite well the evolution of many fossil groups, such as the terrestrialisation of amphibians from fishes, the evolution of whales from land animals etc. ive just done my BSC in palaeontology, take it from me that over the past three years ive read a LOT of scientific papers from peer reviewed journals.

Wild animals are a seperate issue regarding this because the earth formed its own flora and fauna until the "gods" intervened. Lucy isn't proof that we descended from apes, all it does is add to the record of beastmen. Where exactly do human beings come into it? There is such a thing in Darwinism called the missing link, and it's still not proven where and how humans actually stemmed from the ape. A lot of these "scientific" teachings only feed out it's own dogma. Having a BSC in palaentology doesn't mean anything, as you can have more degrees and just question the Darwin theory results in your own downfall. Why do you suppose many of the researchers who disagree with the Darwin theory (I'm not just talking about creationists or ancient astronaut theoriests) lose everything and have their work and evidence censored?




Any further than itself? What do you mean? After 200 years, evolution has stood the rigours of the scientific process, sure the finer points and mechanisms have been tweaked, but evolution is as close to scientific fact as you can get. It happens. Its been backed up by 10000’s of scientific tests and studies. There is no standing counter argument or hypothesis that has scientific evidence to support it.

Only 200 years of dogmatic thinking without daring to question it or bring in other theories about mankind's origins. Darwin didn't agree with the theory of evolution of human/ape later, but this neatly keeps everyone in line. Egyptology is another that fascistly controls it's dogma, squashing anything who dares to say the pyramids are older.


Your use of higher and lower species belies a misunderstanding of what evolution is. It isn’t a lader climb to perfection, its adaptation to the environment. So although fish evolve to live on land, several groups of animals have gone back to water, this isn’t a step down, it’s a step across in order to adapt and survive.

When you and others of your belief mentions evolution you always bring animals into it because its easy and helps you. But you and Darwinism hasn't explained or proven that humans emerged from this.

[Mad Jasmine]

To say that human beings just can't come from lifeforms is as sweeping and presumptious as saying that they can. We cannot say either way until we have full knowledge of the powers of nature itself. Nature is still very vast and mysterious to us. We are in no position to blurt out what she can or cannot do.
Look what you gone and done!! You've made me start talking about nature again and I formed a weak-willed resolution a couple of weeks back to not discuss Nature on this forum.

Isn't it natural or human nature to query objectively our origins without being forced to swallow this dusty old Victorian belief system?

[Mad Jasmine]

There are 2 ways to interpret what you're saying here:

1) Humankind is wholly different from all other animals, and was the creation of alien visitors. There are 2 problems with this viewpoint:
a) How were the aliens then created? That is, the creation of humans is explained with this device but not the creation of the aliens.
and
b) How do you then explain the obvious design similarities--spines, blood cells, organs, etc--between animals and humans if they are not related?


Answer

a) You're asking me how people on other worlds and "gods" are made: "if they didn't come from apes also then how can they be alive"? that's what you're asking. These gods, or people from another star looked like us, however they were physically better, more beautiful and stronger. They were also spiritually advanced as well as technologically. To have been possible, these people must've lived and thought in harmony with the cosmos, and not just individually but as a whole. They were driven by urges of discovery, exploration, creativity and they had a lot of abilities that put us in the shade. So therefore I don't think theses people evolved from apes, or reptiles or fish. Such complex creatures would be of the spiritual and "magical" energies. Not evolved, but formed from the elemetal.

b) There are no similarities between the anmals and us. There are big differences. Yes there are -if you read my first post where I said the "gods" made us using their dna and also that of animals dna- to create the human being. We're capable of growing into advanced people like the "gods" but sometimes we need to be shown how. Getting back to your question, the ape is covered in hair, its nails and hair grows at a limit, the skeleton and muscle is very different, while humans have hair on the head that grow at a maximum length, for what purpose in nature? we're not built to live on a world like this at close proximity to the sun, where our skin is sensitve. We can't see in the dark, we have weaker senses than the animals, but had to use our brains in order to learn how to surivive. It doesn't sound like a creature the earth would just give birth to, because if you look at all the other wild animals, they physically adapt. Humans don't, we have to make our own clothing to protect ourselves, cook our food, use tools and also more.


2) Starting from the animal template, aliens inserted 'human-ness' into the Earth-based animal. This works better, but then an explanation has to be found for the formation of the Earth-based complex animal that the alien-ness is injected into; so you are left with the same questions:
a) How did the chemical soup produce living cells?
and
b) How do you get from single living cells to complex organisms?
I answer these questions with evolution. If you choose against evolution as a means of producing complex life-forms then you have to have another theory that performs the same mechanism. If your choice is God-the-Engineer (or Alien Tinker-toys) then I reply:

"Knees!" :nyah:

Wild animals again.


If the world's living beings are outright constructs, then why are so many of the mechanisms so cobbled together? To me, belief in intelligent design (supported by the amazing elegance of eyes and the shoulder-elbow-wrist mechanism, not to mention kidneys) falls apart with the crashingly bad design of knees.....and why give us an appendix??? Practice for surgeons?

Why do humans have missing dna while wild animals do not? Why do humans have so many genetic defects more than any other species?


My personal belief is that The Great God blew life into the chemical soup and left Gaia in charge. I don't believe that She does much tweaking but that She leaves the mechanism to work on its own most of the time. In the same way that we can hold and regulate our breath, but we don't consciously breathe--we just let the CO2 triggers etc do their job.

I don't believe 'in' evolution in the sense that it's some static end-point; I believe that the Earth changes through the joint processes of evolution and natural selection.

How do you think change is accomplished?

How can you believe in a great deity as well as Darwinism?

[Mad Jasmine]

We did not evolve from the ape! We came from homoerectus,cromagnan & neanderthal man,not apes. If we where created in the image of God & are co-creators with God,then we are gods.

There is no evidence that we came from neanderthal or the others. Your science has been desperately looking for the misisng link but can't find one. Homo Sapiens merely appeared from nowhere. Humans existed alongside neanderthals. Human skeletons found in various parts of the world, dating from before the supposed Darwin estimaton, have been discovered but surpressed.

[skilly-nilly]

Answer

My personal gease is to respond to mis-statements about the mechanism of evolution, I think because there is always a chance that the op will respond rationally and with scientific fact.

Mostly, sadly, this is not the case; as it is not the case here. My personal out is to leave the discussion when mules are cited. The argument of ever-growing hair (however specious) is a new one in my experience but, since it is as wildly off-the-point as mules, I'm bowing out.

[Toby Stimpson]

There is no evidence that we came from neanderthal or the others. Your science has been desperately looking for the misisng link but can't find one. Homo Sapiens merely appeared from nowhere. Humans existed alongside neanderthals. Human skeletons found in various parts of the world, dating from before the supposed Darwin estimaton, have been discovered but surpressed.

Where?.....show us this evidence...surely you must have a scientific journal or website to show these things. Where did you hear about these? See its so easy to say such sweeping remarks and not ofer real tangible proof...but its quite another hting if such proof do not exist. As far as I am concerned your theory is bollocks...and you have yp til now shown no credible or rational evidence. Really how dare you coem here and start spewing this in the manner you are. its one thing to start to offer a theory and poffer evidence...but you have no given any credible evidence so far and until you do...I am unconcviened. And that has nothing to do with so called Scietific Dogma....personally I think you have wound yourself up in an irrational dogma also...but thats just me.

Namaste :)

Tobias

[ancestral_lee]

well, im no longer willing to bang my head against a wall which is what i will be doing with mad jasmine.

being a palaeontologist means i have studied the fossil evidence for human evolution, right the way from Aethiopithecus, to Australopithecus, and several Homo intermediates between Homo habilis and Homo sapiens.

mad jasmine, if you wish to live in your own little intellectual dark age thats great, but please dont be so narrow minded and eceitful as to say there is no evidence. do a google search on human evolution and it will show you the fossil evidence, there, in front of your eyes.

one thing, care to explain why humans and chimpanzees (apes) share 98% of thier DNA?

lee

[plumedsnake]

Answer

a) You're asking me how people on other worlds and "gods" are made: "if they didn't come from apes also then how can they be alive"? that's what you're asking. These gods, or people from another star looked like us, however they were physically better, more beautiful and stronger. They were also spiritually advanced as well as technologically. To have been possible, these people must've lived and thought in harmony with the cosmos, and not just individually but as a whole. They were driven by urges of discovery, exploration, creativity and they had a lot of abilities that put us in the shade. So therefore I don't think theses people evolved from apes, or reptiles or fish. Such complex creatures would be of the spiritual and "magical" energies. Not evolved, but formed from the elemetal.

b) There are no similarities between the anmals and us. There are big differences. Yes there are -if you read my first post where I said the "gods" made us using their dna and also that of animals dna- to create the human being. We're capable of growing into advanced people like the "gods" but sometimes we need to be shown how. Getting back to your question, the ape is covered in hair, its nails and hair grows at a limit, the skeleton and muscle is very different, while humans have hair on the head that grow at a maximum length, for what purpose in nature? we're not built to live on a world like this at close proximity to the sun, where our skin is sensitve. We can't see in the dark, we have weaker senses than the animals, but had to use our brains in order to learn how to surivive. It doesn't sound like a creature the earth would just give birth to, because if you look at all the other wild animals, they physically adapt. Humans don't, we have to make our own clothing to protect ourselves, cook our food, use tools and also more.

?


What I'm interested in now is how you propose that human beings are to rise to this state of alien superiority. How do we close down the animal parts of our dna and enhance the alien parts so that we too may become 'physically better, more beautiful and stronger'.

[Mad Jasmine]

Where?.....show us this evidence...surely you must have a scientific journal or website to show these things. Where did you hear about these? See its so easy to say such sweeping remarks and not ofer real tangible proof...but its quite another hting if such proof do not exist. As far as I am concerned your theory is bollocks...and you have yp til now shown no credible or rational evidence. Really how dare you coem here and start spewing this in the manner you are. its one thing to start to offer a theory and poffer evidence...but you have no given any credible evidence so far and until you do...I am unconcviened. And that has nothing to do with so called Scietific Dogma....personally I think you have wound yourself up in an irrational dogma also...but thats just me.

Namaste :)

Tobias

The above highlighted comments from you shows that my personal theory has annoyed you. I won't talk to anyone who gets slightly abusive and thinks I'm wrong because you think you're right. This subforum is about debating different things, I was hoping that you would be able to continue without resorting to attack.

I've enjoyed debating my theory of our origins and have argued with each person. Show me your proof. Show me how we came from neanderthals. There is none, and its a fact that according to Darwinists they found no species that bridge the gap between human and apes. The theory that humans come from apes is a theory but one which is dogmatic and brandishes itself as true. Very much like the fundementalist religions who think their book is truth because it says so in the pages. My personal theory is different to the mainstream one.

I could root out the papers and books that don't agree with Darwinism but I've done a few so far already.

Michael A Cremo ( writer of "Forbidden Archeology" books)
Richard Milton "The Facts of Life: shattering the myths of Darwinism"
look at writings by Virginia Steen-McIntyre, especially "Surpressed evidence for ancient man in Mexico"
works by Will Hart
There is more too but I'm going to leave it there for now.

[Mad Jasmine]

well, im no longer willing to bang my head against a wall which is what i will be doing with mad jasmine.

being a palaeontologist means i have studied the fossil evidence for human evolution, right the way from Aethiopithecus, to Australopithecus, and several Homo intermediates between Homo habilis and Homo sapiens.

mad jasmine, if you wish to live in your own little intellectual dark age thats great, but please dont be so narrow minded and eceitful as to say there is no evidence. do a google search on human evolution and it will show you the fossil evidence, there, in front of your eyes.

one thing, care to explain why humans and chimpanzees (apes) share 98% of thier DNA?

lee

I already have explained why we share some animal dna. The "gods" created us using some of their blood and also native animals' blood (we also share genes with a banana!) to complete the work, and fulfil a succesful living being who could reside on earth while containing the potential abilities of our makers. We've just been able to survive, while animals have the bodies to adapt to their rough environments.
Being through the system doesn't really mean anything when it comes to thinking about new ideas and turning to other evidence. There is no evidence we come from apes, and those websites are part of the machine that keeps the Darwin myth going. Having knowledge of animal fossiles makes no difference, because you still can't find where and how humans exactly came from apes.

[Mad Jasmine]

What I'm interested in now is how you propose that human beings are to rise to this state of alien superiority. How do we close down the animal parts of our dna and enhance the alien parts so that we too may become 'physically better, more beautiful and stronger'.

I don't think its a matter of "closing down" as there are steps to take. There would need to be a spiritual progress mainly. Some people have been able to do that on their own, which takes many years, but as a whole this could take a very long time, possibly centuries. At the moment the majority of people are trapped in a void. People might have to be encouraged to develope a certain way first.

[David19]

While i think everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, i still have a problem with the alien thing, and this is just me, i'm not trying to change your own personal beliefs, but if aliens did come here, then wouldn't there be evidence of spaceships, advanced technology, etc.

Archeologist's have found things that they've considered advanced for the time period (e.g. Egypt, i think, was very good at mathmatics, and both the Egyptians and Sumerians were great at astrology (the Sumerians and Babylonians (and those 2 cultures are different) invented it actually), but nothing to indicate advanced beings that can fly around the universe, etc.

Also, if these aliens created us, then why haven't they got back in touch, maybe, if this theory is right, these 'aliens' just don't give a crap about us, etc.

I hope this doesn't sound rude, 'cause i'm not trying to be, but i'm just trying to give an opinion :).

[Mad Jasmine]

While i think everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, i still have a problem with the alien thing, and this is just me, i'm not trying to change your own personal beliefs, but if aliens did come here, then wouldn't there be evidence of spaceships, advanced technology, etc.

Archeologist's have found things that they've considered advanced for the time period (e.g. Egypt, i think, was very good at mathmatics, and both the Egyptians and Sumerians were great at astrology (the Sumerians and Babylonians (and those 2 cultures are different) invented it actually), but nothing to indicate advanced beings that can fly around the universe, etc.

Also, if these aliens created us, then why haven't they got back in touch, maybe, if this theory is right, these 'aliens' just don't give a crap about us, etc.

I hope this doesn't sound rude, 'cause i'm not trying to be, but i'm just trying to give an opinion :).

No you don't sound rude.

There has been strange artifacts, plenty of anomolies and curiosities from pre-historic times that have been found but isn't openly discussed. Mainstream historians and archeologists are silent on these findings and it takes a few open-minded researchers to question it. Most of the items have been known to "disappear" from view and never shown to the public. When I get more time during the week I'll post some sources and links for you about that.
The people who made us probably "left" for a reason, not because they stopped caring about us but because of something else.

[Vincent Verthaine]

Excuse the discordian for interupting for a sec,but I'm just curious.
In your reseach,mad jasmine,does it say which "gods" we supposedly came from,and from where?
Intersting theroy,by the way.

[ClarissaMoon]

Where?.....show us this evidence...surely you must have a scientific journal or website to show these things. Where did you hear about these? See its so easy to say such sweeping remarks and not ofer real tangible proof...but its quite another hting if such proof do not exist. As far as I am concerned your theory is bollocks...and you have yp til now shown no credible or rational evidence. Really how dare you coem here and start spewing this in the manner you are. its one thing to start to offer a theory and poffer evidence...but you have no given any credible evidence so far and until you do...I am unconcviened. And that has nothing to do with so called Scietific Dogma....personally I think you have wound yourself up in an irrational dogma also...but thats just me.

Namaste :)

Tobias


To Galadraal,

I've been reading this thread with great interest and believe everyone is entitled to their opinion. Although I'm not sure about the alien gods theory of Mad Jasmine, it's still interesting and gives food for thought.

Not everyone will agree or share the same view and so far the thread has flowed to a point where the original poster is discussing some indepth idea. Your latest reaction to Mad Jasmine is really uncalled for as, to me, you come across as rude, loutish and aggressive.

Have you given any proof over what you believe in? From your logic then, are you saying that all deities don't exist because there's no evidence? If you don't like some of the personal views of many then I suggest you don't bother posting to them. Perhaps you need to meditate more often and learn manners.

[Toby Stimpson]

To Galadraal,

I've been reading this thread with great interest and believe everyone is entitled to their opinion. Although I'm not sure about the alien gods theory of Mad Jasmine, it's still interesting and gives food for thought.

Not everyone will agree or share the same view and so far the thread has flowed to a point where the original poster is discussing some indepth idea. Your latest reaction to Mad Jasmine is really uncalled for as, to me, you come across as rude, loutish and aggressive.

Have you given any proof over what you believe in? From your logic then, are you saying that all deities don't exist because there's no evidence? If you don't like some of the personal views of many then I suggest you don't bother posting to them. Perhaps you need to meditate more often and learn manners.



My dear, although I appreciate your sentiment, please look back earlier in the thread. I offered my manners in a very respectvul way when replying to this interesting theory. However, I am afraid I do not give respect to soemone who time and again ignores many other members of this site and does not offer rational evidence to support their theories. I also do not respect those who set themselves up as a 'correct' individual with the conspiracy logic that "these people disagree with me, in which case they are wrong and I am right becaseu they are trying to hide the truth." I would very much agree with you that manners are always in call for, however I recieved a LOT of good karma from that one post, more so than my respectful ones. But again, I appreciate the sentiment :).



The above highlighted comments from you shows that my personal theory has annoyed you. I won't talk to anyone who gets slightly abusive and thinks I'm wrong because you think you're right. This subforum is about debating different things, I was hoping that you would be able to continue without resorting to attack.

I've enjoyed debating my theory of our origins and have argued with each person. Show me your proof. Show me how we came from neanderthals. There is none, and its a fact that according to Darwinists they found no species that bridge the gap between human and apes. The theory that humans come from apes is a theory but one which is dogmatic and brandishes itself as true. Very much like the fundementalist religions who think their book is truth because it says so in the pages. My personal theory is different to the mainstream one.

I could root out the papers and books that don't agree with Darwinism but I've done a few so far already.

Michael A Cremo ( writer of "Forbidden Archeology" books)
Richard Milton "The Facts of Life: shattering the myths of Darwinism"
look at writings by Virginia Steen-McIntyre, especially "Surpressed evidence for ancient man in Mexico"
works by Will Hart
There is more too but I'm going to leave it there for now.

Please do root them out, as it will only help your own case in open discussion. I fully expectd you to give me bad karma, but a tender age of twenty means nothing becasue you dont know anything about me other than my age. Now, personally I think you have the entire situation wrong. I stated my opinion after repeatd posts of you not giving any evidence what so ever...in the case of artifacts disapearing etc,. You never offer a link, you never offer a name for us to google....you just say sweeping statements to supposedly support your idea. I also do not enjoy soemone stating that other religions are dogmatic and what not, especially when to me you seem to be as dogmatic as anyone else.

I reject your hypothesis mostly becaseu you are not giving us credible evidence bar books that support a conspiracy hypothesis and links to PLUGS for tv shows. My dear,m credible evidence includes scientificaly sound concrete examples...stating that things just disapear or is swept under the carpet becasue they dont fit doesnt help us becasue it is a paranoid statement.

Other flaws that Im finding is that you are contiunally mixing up facts. Homo Sapiens Sapiens did not come from Neanderthals...Neanderthals has thus far been shown to have been an entirely similar but different species that was around at the same time as early man.

Now even if I could agree that man did not evolve from preman...I still am questionable as to where your other part of your theory coems from. After all, who says that these beings you call Gods are Aliens. How can you leep from "man must not have evolved" to "man must have been created by aliens"? Even taking into account various artistic representations of flying disks and what not...who is to say these flying disks or flaming chariots are starships...who is to say they are not depictions of Meteors...or shooting stars? or even Planets?

I just looked up one of the books you just listed, it didnt coem up but a similar book did: http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Race-Extraterrestrial-Origins-Species/dp/1591430186/sr=1-1/qid=1159712286/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9081040-1736154?ie=UTF8&s=books

Now Im still feeling a little...unsatisfied. The link says "Reveals the messages coded in the pyramids left by the ancients concerning impending Earth changes at the end of the Mayan calendar" Since scietists know very little about the mayan people bar what they are able to find aroudn the Mayan cities and the intact Mayan calander...what really can be shown?

As for my own theory...I dont even think you read my theory. So Ill repeat. my own theory states that what we call God is an amalgam of the underlying energy of the Universe (and all dimensions connected), an illusion that we percieve to be real...and all beings current and not current in the spectrum. I follow a Hindu and a Buddhist concept called Maya, which says that what we percieve to be true in regards to the world aroudn us is an illusion, created by the Ultimate. sometiems this is depicted in a dream like state of the Ultimate dreaming the universe. Now the Ultimate to me is a mix. Its an impersonal thing with no attricutes what so ever. It is represented by higher beings that we would call Gods, and in Buddhism these beinbgs are called Bodhisattvas (who have a different function than in Hinduism). These beings act as guides...teachjers, and mythologically as defenders. I believe them to be no different than us, but in that they have power becasue they have the ability and understanding of maya to affect both the illusion they find themselves in and our perceptions of that illusion. The ultimate goal is to achieve an awareness of the relatity behind the illusion...and become part of what would be called God. In Buddhism the goal is similar in that we become part of the enlightened club..which is similar to Moksha. Now, I am constantly challenging my point of view with everything. With philospohy...with 'reality' and chalening it sao that both my personal udnerstanding can grow...but that i dont get caught up in soemthing that doesnt make sense to me. I believe in religious pluralism in that a lot of the times when you look at religions...the Gods act as teachers...Jesus Christ, Allah (sending messenger), Dionysus...Thoth teaching the alphebet, Kwan Yin teaching compassion. Now that i can agree with...but when looking at the basis of what a god is....you will see that half of what we percieve them to be is reflected from our own personalities. I think if there were other intelligent sentient cultures of beings on this planet, then their Gods would reflect them in physical nature but also in cultural norms. The Gods are a guidepost to us...we reflect them a lot if religion is central to your culture....but they also reflect a lot of us and our cultural state.

Please do drag some more evidence up...soemthing that we can read...not just a plug for a book.

[ArmanenPriest]

We did not evolve from the ape! We came from homoerectus,cromagnan & neanderthal man,not apes. If we where created in the image of God & are co-creators with God,then we are gods.

I too believe that we did not originate from apes.
However there is no evidence of any neanderthal genes in the modern gene pool,Cro Magnon yes but not neanderthal.
I for one view the gods as archetypes in the Jungian sense but that does not make them any less real. They are encoded in our DNA.
Therefore different peoples have different gods that are encoded within their DNA.As long as a people survives biologically their gods survive and whilst their gods survive the people survive.It is a two way relationship between a people and their gods.

[Vincent Verthaine]

So where do atheists come from?

[Toby Stimpson]

So where do atheists come from?

Maybe athiests are the Gods own peopel they sent to earth to hide in a volcano in hawaii and then get educated from us true believers?

[Mad Jasmine]

Excuse the discordian for interupting for a sec,but I'm just curious.
In your reseach,mad jasmine,does it say which "gods" we supposedly came from,and from where?
Intersting theroy,by the way.

"Research"? It's my theory.
Your question sounds rather simplistic and there's no saying what particular gods made us.

Hoping not to confuse anyone I need to explain the following. Firstly the gods of myths and legends by name and pantheon are distortions of what happened of our historic memory. In a way they're creations but we didn't make them up out of thin air. You can have a memory of a deceased beloved and write about how special they were, you could also enhance them and invent pieces to excaggerate their qualities but in generations time (or centuries) that person would be perceived as being of supernatural magic abilites.
Deities we know like Diana, Apollo, Isis, Freya, Thor, ect. are semi-invented figures of symbols of who we are (our highest selves) and also archytypes of the folk soul of each peoples. But again these gods have a tangible origin.
Secondly all these gods of myth and legend were originally based upon our pre-historic memories of our makers, who were these alien flesh and blood god-people. They had so much influence on our lives back then and they were recorded by our ancestors, and by all humans all over the world. They couldn't really explain how technologically advanced the gods were, so they used to describe them as being very powerful, flying on chariots pulled by winged beasts, talking through mirrors, weapons that vapourise instantly, ect.
Have you ever read the Vedic literature? It describes ancient technology of the gods. Have you heard of the Vril? Also do you know of the Bock saga and it's Atlantis story?

[Mad Jasmine]

So where do atheists come from?

Atheists come from the same source we do. :lol:
It doesn't matter if people don't believe in gods or anything. My theory is also supported by people I've mentioned and also others like Alan E Alford who look for clues to support it.

[Mad Jasmine]

I too believe that we did not originate from apes.
However there is no evidence of any neanderthal genes in the modern gene pool,Cro Magnon yes but not neanderthal.
I for one view the gods as archetypes in the Jungian sense but that does not make them any less real. They are encoded in our DNA.
Therefore different peoples have different gods that are encoded within their DNA.As long as a people survives biologically their gods survive and whilst their gods survive the people survive.It is a two way relationship between a people and their gods.

Exactly. Each peoples have their gods that are symbols of who they are but also originally the story of these gods were based on godlike people that were real. The Saxon kings were descendants of Woden/Odin, ect. After we were created by them, later on the god-people soon mated with humans, producing a certain lineage that existed very much in ancient nobility. No one ever asks the question about why we just appeared from apes, I mean physically we're so much different.
I also forgot to point out earlier that human sexuality is different to that of apes. Apes become sexual at certain times of the year in order to breed, while humans don't. Humans are sexual at any time of the year and they breed any time of the year. Humans may have 98% in common with the genes of apes but so do domestic dogs with foxes. That 2% msakes a huge difference. Apes might be trained to use tools and a lot of animals use tools anyway, but it never made them intelligent. So the stuff about us being from apes is very wishy-washy and flawed. For an ape to leave the forest and extend in the open savvannah will leave them vulnerable, not make them more intelligent.
The human physically isn't built to survive a wilderness of ferocious animals and terrain on its own, as its two-legged movement won't run very fast, no hair on the body for protection, no tusks or sharp teeth for self defence... The earth has always produced animals that worked in their environment. Surely the developing ape should've grown fangs, been able to run at full speeds and develope a massive bulk??? So that leaves us with the thought that Darwin's theory of humans evolving from apes is wrong, as this theory doesn't question the problems. Its a dogma, just as bad as the inquisistion, with blind followers who won't question it but they mock those who do.

[ClarissaMoon]

My dear, although I appreciate your sentiment, please look back earlier in the thread. I offered my manners in a very respectvul way when replying to this interesting theory. However, I am afraid I do not give respect to soemone who time and again ignores many other members of this site and does not offer rational evidence to support their theories. I also do not respect those who set themselves up as a 'correct' individual with the conspiracy logic that "these people disagree with me, in which case they are wrong and I am right becaseu they are trying to hide the truth." I would very much agree with you that manners are always in call for, however I recieved a LOT of good karma from that one post, more so than my respectful ones. But again, I appreciate the sentiment :).

Yes I read the entire thread, and I don't need to look back at it again. Mad Jasmine hasn't ignored anyone that you've been describing. She responded to nearly every single person who posted here asking questions about her theory. She also provided sources and names that you like to batter. You're not exactly a die-hard sceptic, but you come across as a believer in One God and yet YOU haven't given any proof to show that your spirituality is right.

Also look at the title again "A personal theory of the gods", and I can't see where MJ has gone about saying she's right and you're wrong. How is expressing one's theory about the universe doing any harm? YOU are the one who's been saying that you're correct and she isn't, and it matters not how many karma you've got. This forum has a dense clique of which you're part of so you're bound to win up favours.

She also hasn't been getting "wound up" as it's you yourself who foamed at the mouth on this thread. Now in your latest post you backtracked on your rude behaviour and trying to make yourself sound nice by calling everyone "My Dear". It sounds more patronising than friendly. I think you should've atleast showed some respect to MJ instead of shouting out tantrums like - "Bollocks!" and "How dare you come here spewing this.."!

Message forums are for expressing views and ideas, but maybe a baby such as you can't handle it. Regardless of the fact you disagree with MJ it is afterall her thread and it is HER OWN opinion. Or do you want people who rock the official boat to F-off?

[skilly-nilly]

So the stuff about us being from apes is very wishy-washy and flawed. The earth has always produced animals that worked in their environment. Surely the developing ape should've grown fangs, been able to run at full speeds and develope a massive bulk??? So that leaves us with the thought that Darwin's theory of humans evolving from apes is wrong, as this theory doesn't question the problems. Its a dogma, just as bad as the inquisistion, with blind followers who won't question it but they mock those who do.

You can create any theory you wish to, but you can't defend it by arguing against evolution unless you understand evolution. Clearly you don't understand evolution. Now you don't have to understand evolution and you can choose (as you obviously have) to not know anything about how the theory works, but then I think you shouldn't use your terribly flawed view of evolution as an argument for your own wild theorizing.

Humans are not "from apes"; humans and other hominids (the great apes) come from a common proto-primate ancestor. Not that I expect you to agree, but if you are going to make a statement I feel that you should phrase that statement correctly. Let me show you what I mean:

"Darwin's theory of humans evolving from apes is wrong" is an inaccurate statement that makes you look ignorant and poorly-informed.

If you said "I disagree with Darwin's theory that humans and great apes evolved from a common ancestor" you can still go on to wildly theorize but at least you appear to have some slight knowledge of what you're disagreeing with.

Not that you have to, of course.

[mystic_peacock]

I also forgot to point out earlier that human sexuality is different to that of apes. Apes become sexual at certain times of the year in order to breed, while humans don't. Humans are sexual at any time of the year and they breed any time of the year.

There is a species of apes (though I don't remember the name of them. There is a documentary about them.) that are sexual 100% of the time, just like humans. They use sex as a means of relieving tension and frustration (just like humans sometimes do), and as a result are not as aggressive as other species of apes. Other species' genitals only become engorged and ready for sex during the breeding time; however this species has gentials that are always engorged, leaving them open for sex at any moment they choose.


So that leaves us with the thought that Darwin's theory of humans evolving from apes is wrong, as this theory doesn't question the problems. Its a dogma, just as bad as the inquisistion, with blind followers who won't question it but they mock those who do.

Do a search in the National Geographic database. There is an article called "Was Darwin Wrong?" which then goes on to say, basically, "No." It explains why Darwin was absolutely right.

You can also watch Discovery Channel, National Geographic, and the Science Channel to see numerous documentaries about the evolution of humans from apes and related subjects.

I'm not trying to make you feel bad or mock your beliefs, because they are just that: beliefs. You are welcome to have them. How are we able to prove any sort of religion, after all? But in saying that humans did not descend from apes, you are wrong... scientific fact proves it. I know I am just repeating what others have said but I want to stress the fact that there is the evidence to support it.

--Serra

[adrianne]

Hey, Mystic Peacock, those are called Bonobos! Glad you pointed this out, I was thinking of them too.

[mystic_peacock]

Hey, Mystic Peacock, those are called Bonobos! Glad you pointed this out, I was thinking of them too.

Thanks! I couldn't for the life of me remember what they were called, but I knew they existed :)

--Serra

[Toby Stimpson]

Yes I read the entire thread, and I don't need to look back at it again. Mad Jasmine hasn't ignored anyone that you've been describing. She responded to nearly every single person who posted here asking questions about her theory. She also provided sources and names that you like to batter. You're not exactly a die-hard sceptic, but you come across as a believer in One God and yet YOU haven't given any proof to show thathttp://www.mysticwicks.com/images/smilies2/cheers.gif
:cheers: your spirituality is right.

Also look at the title again "A personal theory of the gods", and I can't see where MJ has gone about saying she's right and you're wrong. How is expressing one's theory about the universe doing any harm? YOU are the one who's been saying that you're correct and she isn't, and it matters not how many karma you've got. This forum has a dense clique of which you're part of so you're bound to win up favours.

She also hasn't been getting "wound up" as it's you yourself who foamed at the mouth on this thread. Now in your latest post you backtracked on your rude behaviour and trying to make yourself sound nice by calling everyone "My Dear". It sounds more patronising than friendly. I think you should've atleast showed some respect to MJ instead of shouting out tantrums like - "Bollocks!" and "How dare you come here spewing this.."!

Message forums are for expressing views and ideas, but maybe a baby such as you can't handle it. Regardless of the fact you disagree with MJ it is afterall her thread and it is HER OWN opinion. Or do you want people who rock the official boat to F-off?

Not at all...I welcoem anyone with an opinion....an EDUCATED opinion. And yes I was patronizing you, becasue your post was not necessary. My post to Mad jasmine was one out of desperation because she is choosing to ignore facts brought up by other posters. No matter how many people say that it is their right to an opinion...it is NOT a right to blindly argue soemthing with half truths and false facts. I dont see how it is childish either to express MY opinion of her THEORY :). Becasue after all...a theory denotes that it is just that, and theories are not based on fact or evidence....and theories are challenegd with facts and evidence all the time and are obliterated if they are soemhow wrong or soemhow unbelievable. It is childish however to believe certain things mainly based on a personal viewpoint to the biassed exclusion of many other facts...so who is the child in this case, friend?

[Mad Jasmine]

You can create any theory you wish to, but you can't defend it by arguing against evolution unless you understand evolution. Clearly you don't understand evolution. Now you don't have to understand evolution and you can choose (as you obviously have) to not know anything about how the theory works, but then I think you shouldn't use your terribly flawed view of evolution as an argument for your own wild theorizing.

Humans are not "from apes"; humans and other hominids (the great apes) come from a common proto-primate ancestor. Not that I expect you to agree, but if you are going to make a statement I feel that you should phrase that statement correctly. Let me show you what I mean:

"Darwin's theory of humans evolving from apes is wrong" is an inaccurate statement that makes you look ignorant and poorly-informed.

If you said "I disagree with Darwin's theory that humans and great apes evolved from a common ancestor" you can still go on to wildly theorize but at least you appear to have some slight knowledge of what you're disagreeing with.

Not that you have to, of course.

It was my understanding that you wanted to leave the thread but you found a reason to come back. I know about evolution, and don't need to be specific because everyone has been basically saying that humans come from apes.
You're accepting the evolution theory as a form of religion, and you can't question it but believe that it's "fact" because to you it must be a cosy idea to derive from wild animals.

[Mad Jasmine]

There is a species of apes (though I don't remember the name of them. There is a documentary about them.) that are sexual 100% of the time, just like humans. They use sex as a means of relieving tension and frustration (just like humans sometimes do), and as a result are not as aggressive as other species of apes. Other species' genitals only become engorged and ready for sex during the breeding time; however this species has gentials that are always engorged, leaving them open for sex at any moment they choose.


Dolphins also have a high sexuality, as do certain insects. What does this prove? Not all humans indulge in orgies, and there are different forms of sexuality or non-sexuality among people. We're the only species that doesn't have a breeding programme at certain times of the year.


Do a search in the National Geographic database. There is an article called "Was Darwin Wrong?" which then goes on to say, basically, "No." It explains why Darwin was absolutely right.

You can also watch Discovery Channel, National Geographic, and the Science Channel to see numerous documentaries about the evolution of humans from apes and related subjects.

I'm not trying to make you feel bad or mock your beliefs, because they are just that: beliefs. You are welcome to have them. How are we able to prove any sort of religion, after all? But in saying that humans did not descend from apes, you are wrong... scientific fact proves it. I know I am just repeating what others have said but I want to stress the fact that there is the evidence to support it.

--Serra

No I wouldn't say you were mocking my theory, but like many others who believe in Darwinian mythology, you're too afraid to question it. Science hasn't "proven" that we descend from apes, as there is no species to gap the bridge between us and the apes. Science is still looking for the missing link, and yet the ape/human theory is treated as fact by the establishment because it serves well to keep everyone away from a divine source.
Once everyone believed the world was flat.
I'll come back later.

[Mad Jasmine]

About human evolution, The Sunday Times in 1995 wrote:

"The scientists themselves are confused. A series of recent discoveries has forced them to tear up the simplistic charts on which they blithely used to draw linkages... the classic family tree dilineating man's descent from the apes, familiar to us at school, has given way to the concept of genetic islands. The bridgework between them is anyone's guess."

Why have humans developed such intelligence while animals have not? The Atlas of Ancient Archeology states:
"The contemporary history of homo sapiens (sapiens) remains bafflingly obscure... so little do we know about the approach to one of the great turning points of our global history."

So according to people's childhood beliefs in Darwin's human evolution theory, we're expected to swallow that humans just suddenly appeared 200,000 years ago, with 50% cranial capacity, with speach and other functions, but who lived like an animal for another 160,000 years, then suddenly becoming changed 40,000 years ago. Humans then travelled the glove 13,000 years ago, and after 1,000 years became farmers, then about 6,000 years ago built massive megliths and founded great civilisations with an advanced wisdom of astronomy and mathematics, and 6,000 years later we've created atomic weapons and sending probes into space. This sort of thing, this fast development for one of "earth's creatures" should've atleast developed to such an advanced level after millions of years, not a few thousand years. Natural selection chooses the strongest physically, while humans are not the strongest physical animals, why did the humans thrive?

This is why Darwin's theory of human eveolution is ridiculous and comes from a very simplistic Victorian outlook, and it's followers who treat it like gospel.

It's also a mystery that human females never developed large birth canals. Human babies are born with large heads, and it's often caused difficulties in birth. Before modern medicine, there were lots of stillborn babies and women dying of childbirth. All the other female animals have wide enough birth canals (exceptions when an infant's legs become twisted in during labour inside animals like the cow mother or the mare). Natural selection wouldn't have chosen the gene of an animal whose lives would be at risk during birth.

Why did the human body not have any survival skills, such as strong sense of smell, ability to see in the dark, strong hearing, tusks, fangs, a pelt? I've asked this before and no one posting on the thread is able to respond. For a human to have developed "naturally" in the way that we have surely means we should've had a competitor who would've been as smart as us! Cro-Magnon and neanderthal lived together peacefully, as cave paintings in France shows. The human brain is a mystery as to how or why it developed the way it did. Why don't humans have thicker body hair? The only animals that don't are either aquatic or live underground. Human skin is fragile and therefore no good for the open wilderness as a vulnerable species to wild beasts.

Going back to human sexuality, women are always in heat but they are only fertile just a few days between each monthly cycle. The erect man's penis is larger than other primates. The man's penis doesn't have a penis bone while other mammals do!

(Read "Gods of the New Millenium" Alan E. Alford)

[David19]

No I wouldn't say you were mocking my theory, but like many others who believe in Darwinian mythology, you're too afraid to question it. Science hasn't "proven" that we descend from apes, as there is no species to gap the bridge between us and the apes. Science is still looking for the missing link, and yet the ape/human theory is treated as fact by the establishment because it serves well to keep everyone away from a divine source.
Once everyone believed the world was flat.

What 'divine' source?, if aliens 'created' us then there not gods, there part of the natural universe, to be divine is to be supernatural.

Science may not have found the missing link, but neither is your theory completly solid either.

Scientists use facts, the fact that everyone who actually knows something about biology uses evolution does say a lot.

Also, if your belief states that we came from aliens, then where was the first human created, 'cause scientists also say we came from Africa.

[mystic_peacock]

Dolphins also have a high sexuality, as do certain insects. What does this prove? Not all humans indulge in orgies, and there are different forms of sexuality or non-sexuality among people. We're the only species that doesn't have a breeding programme at certain times of the year.

Hehe, maybe not, but there are certainly "breeding times" during the month. Ever ovulated? You will know what I mean ;)


About human evolution, The Sunday Times in 1995 wrote:

"The scientists themselves are confused. A series of recent discoveries has forced them to tear up the simplistic charts on which they blithely used to draw linkages... the classic family tree dilineating man's descent from the apes, familiar to us at school, has given way to the concept of genetic islands. The bridgework between them is anyone's guess."

That was in 1995.


All the other female animals have wide enough birth canals (exceptions when an infant's legs become twisted in during labour inside animals like the cow mother or the mare). (snip)...Why did the human body not have any survival skills, such as strong sense of smell, ability to see in the dark, strong hearing, tusks, fangs, a pelt?

Well I guess whoever made us messed up, then?


Why don't humans have thicker body hair? We used to. I, for one, don't need it anymore (I got mah sweaters) and I am certainly glad I don't have it (it would ruin my razors).


Going back to human sexuality, women are always in heat but they are only fertile just a few days between each monthly cycle. I, as a woman, am fertile all the time. That's why I have birth control. If I was only fertile right before my period, I wouldn't have to take pills every night, I just wouldn't have sex before my period. Man, that would be nice!
And women can get more "in heat" at certain times depending on our hormones. Not that it has to do with anything but I think that fact is interesting.

Aaanyway. I see what you're saying but I completely disagree with you. To each his own, yeah?
--Serra

[David19]

Hehe, maybe not, but there are certainly "breeding times" during the month. Ever ovulated? You will know what I mean ;)

Also, if you're a teen, whether boy or girl, there are definantly a lot of 'breeding times', or just times when when you're horny (for me, it's all the time LOL! ;)).

[mystic_peacock]

Also, if you're a teen, whether boy or girl, there are definantly a lot of 'breeding times', or just times when when you're horny (for me, it's all the time LOL! ;)).

Teehee!
--Serra

[plumedsnake]

Also, if you're a teen, whether boy or girl, there are definantly a lot of 'breeding times', or just times when when you're horny (for me, it's all the time LOL! ;)).

There is a difference between Breeding time and Horny time. Just thought to make that clear.

For MadJasmine I just want to know if these aliens had an intention for creating us and if so what is it? Would this intention suit us? If not, how do we escape it? If it does suit us, how do we further it? . . .

What are the implications of the Alien creator theory?

[Renny]

Hmm. So how does this work out with all the lore of every culture's gods?

[ancestral_lee]

oh look.... a missing link.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4900946.stm


The finds close the gap between a more ancient species known as Ardipithecus ramidus, which is found at 4.4 million years and a later species known as Australopithecus afarensis, which is present in the Middle Awash 3.4 million years ago.

Australopithecus anamensis is intermediate between the two not only chronologically but also in terms of its anatomy.



well how strange, it fills a gap between two other human ancestors. quoting information from 1995 is pointless, the field of human evolution and paleontology is a rapidly moving discipline. chnages are made all the time, and thats the point, where the data contradicts what is accepted, accepted wisdom changes and adapts to fit and incorporate the new data. this is what science is all about. and you know what, after hundreds of year, 100;s of fossils and finds... it all says the same thng, humans evolved from a common ancestor of common apes.

there is NO scientific evidence for any other scenario. humans didnt just appear all that time ago, do some quick searching and you will find a series of species which gradulally show an increasing number of Homo like traits.

to addresss a couple of other issues:

human birth canals, we walk upright. there is a trade off between the size of the birth canal and the ability to walk as we do. human babies are born with big heads because humans have big brains, but overall development is very poor in babaies, hence there is a very long period of parental care. this only works as a strategy because early human ancestors lived in groups where they were able to care for each other and provide for nursin mothers. this a a strategy in many other social mammals (meerkats spring to mind)

as to why we didnt grow fangs or claws... we just didnt. it isnt as if animals can conciously choose to grow these things. we survived on the savannah because we were social animals, we could stand upright and look out for danger then run and hide when it was seen. later on in evolution we had tools and weapons (from the stage of homo habilis).


your idea (and its only an idea, a hypothesis is an idea that can be tested and a theory a hypothesis that has been tested and stands up to testing) cannot be tested, it relies upon faith. you cannot try to pull down solid and i do mean solid scientific theory (especially the theory of evolution) with something that is purely based upon faith.

[adrianne]

Anecestral Lee, what an excellent post. This says everything I wanted to say, but better than I could.

And we kind of have the last vestiges of fangs -- canine teeth, anyone? The reason we don't have huge monster fangs is because we don't need them. In the early days of our history, our diet probably consisted mostly of vegetable matter (roots, nuts, leaves, etc.) and some occasional meat. Thus the majority of our teeth are flattish and good for grinding, while a few of our teeth are sort of pointy and good for tearing.

Our ancestors may have had pointier teeth, but as humans developed agriculture and animal husbandry, our diets started consisting mostly of some grain-like staple, a few vegetables, and maybe some meat tossed in every now and again. Thus we outgrew the need for really sharp teeth that are able to tear through anything, as meat wasn't (and still isn't) the majority of what we ate.

I wasn't going to join this debate, but as a science buff and furture biology major, I felt I had to say something. Never before have I seen of such a shallow understanding of evolutionary theory. Science is very much a living discipline, and to see you constantly pointing out Darwin makes me a little embarrassed for you. That was more than a hundred years ago; you think things haven't changed even just a little since then?

Science doesn't really answer every single one of my questions, no. I don't have unquestioning faith in anything. But it answers enough of them that I'm confident making a branch of science my career and part of my life. You'll probably give me sh*t for that and say that I'm brainwashed, but I'm prepared for that. Better brainwashed by science than helplessly caught up in my own ignorance.

Adrianne,
who is very cosy with the idea of being derived from wild animals

[Carla O'Harris]

How the heck did this become a debate about evolution?


I don't think there's really much of any alternative to evolution ; there are only alternative ways of envisioning how evolution may have occurred.

That we are related to all of the other natural species on this planet, and emerged from this planet like every other natural species on the planet, and that we are properly placed in species-family groupings to which we belong, and which we properly seen emerge out of, is really beyond doubt. Also the fact that we are members of the primate branch, and are intimately related to other members of that branch, is beyond denial.

The holes in evolutionary theory (every theory has holes, and Darwin damn well showed why there would be gaps in the evidence record) do not refute evolutionary theory ; rather, they force us to revision evolutionary theory, update it, revise it, and improve it.

I thought we were talking about archetypes and gods. How did things turn towards evolution?

[skilly-nilly]

How the heck did this become a debate about evolution?

I thought we were talking about archetypes and gods. How did things turn towards evolution?

This thread has been about evolution from the get-go, and you haven't posted in it before.

[Carla O'Harris]

This thread has been about evolution from the get-go, and you haven't posted in it before.

Damn, you're absolutely right, and I stand corrected!! Looks like I only read the cursor summary of the topic, rather than investigating more fully. I stand chagrined, and I apologize for jumping in without further investigation. On the other hand, my comments about evolution itself I still stand behind.

[StephanieAine]

well, im no longer willing to bang my head against a wall which is what i will be doing with mad jasmine.

being a palaeontologist means i have studied the fossil evidence for human evolution, right the way from Aethiopithecus, to Australopithecus, and several Homo intermediates between Homo habilis and Homo sapiens.

mad jasmine, if you wish to live in your own little intellectual dark age thats great, but please dont be so narrow minded and eceitful as to say there is no evidence. do a google search on human evolution and it will show you the fossil evidence, there, in front of your eyes.

one thing, care to explain why humans and chimpanzees (apes) share 98% of thier DNA?

lee


I'm just popping in here in response to your last question posted to Jasmine. I'm not up to a big DNA conversation - it's not my area at all! - but your question reminded me of something fascinating.

Very recently - I mean *extremely* recently, within about the last year (I don't remember the month), information came out having to do with our DNA and the DNA of other forms of earthly life. This was in connection with a project which National Geographic is somehow connected, though I don't recall how or why, but that aspect stuck in my memory. *Anyway* - apparently, scientists had a huge surprise upon the discovery that basically *all* life - human, animal, plant, whatever... is supposedly very alike. More alike than anyone suspected, or suspected could be possible. Supposedly we are as close to being apes (as far as DNA is concerned) as we are **to being bananas.** No, not being "bananas" as in "you're crazy, you're totally bananas... whacko!" - but as in "you are a man, but deep down, you are almost identical to the banana you ate on your corn flakes cereal this morning." Yes, that's right - they discovered that there is hardly any difference between a person and a yellow, phallic fruit.

Anyway, the realization must have been more than they could stand, because they started comparing us to various other edibles and various other forms of life, just to see. And sure enough, there was hardly any difference when you looked at the person/thing in its deepest parts. Yet the scientists knew that a man is VERY different from a banana... obviously!... though the scientific study said something very different.

So... after all that, I'm not so sure that the ape thing would really indicate much about man's evolution, if evolution is actually now supposed to be a reality rather than the theory it has always been taught to be.
I mean, sure, we can say that apes do certain things that seem rather human... but bananas are like us too (LOL!), and I've never noticed a banana doing anything that made me wonder if the banana had human feelings and thoughts.

That's all from me!

[exodustruth]

lmao..interesting yet oddly amusing to me atm. It would have been better if you could have shown your source as I am still quite skeptical. Do not be offended by this but i'm that way with almost everything..

[StephanieAine]

Believe me, Exodus, I would have LOVED to have provided a source for my post - but when I heard about it, it was through some sort of television documentary... and I couldn't tell you whether it was the Discovery Channel, Discovery Health, some PBS documentary, or the Learning Channel. Something in there somewhere. The banana situation was just too memorable to forget, though. Talk about laughing - my head nearly exploded.

[exodustruth]

Believe me, Exodus, I would have LOVED to have provided a source for my post - but when I heard about it, it was through some sort of television documentary... and I couldn't tell you whether it was the Discovery Channel, Discovery Health, some PBS documentary, or the Learning Channel. Something in there somewhere. The banana situation was just too memorable to forget, though. Talk about laughing - my head nearly exploded.

I don't doubt it too much though. I've believed for a long time now that everything (Even nothing) has the same origin and that we are all interconnected both on the physical and spiritual level. Wise men for years have been telling us to become one with the bananna. All this simply means is to truly realize that we are already one with the bananna. But what if i don't want to be a bananna?

[equinox2]

Mad Jasmine wrote:


About human evolution, The Sunday Times in 1995 wrote:

OK, first, please link to the source so we can see the context of the quote. Creationists tend to quotemine, which is to take a quote out of context to make it show some point other than what it means.

If that isn't the case, it could be simply bad reporting - relying on a decade old newspaper for science is a bad idea in itself.

Basically, what is going on here is that the huge number of hominid (human lineage) fossils that the evolution of humans is even more clear than before. In fact, there are so many hominid fossils found now (hundreds, in fact), that constructing a tree can be difficult. For instance, let's say that you had every single skeleton, complete, from a whole city, each one tagged with a date of death for 200 years. Now, could you construct all the family trees? Of course not. Does that mean you are clueless about the current city being the descendants of your skeleta? Of course not.

There is more and better evidence that humans evolved from earlier hominids than the fact that the earth goes around the sun. This evidence comes from many fields, such as archeology, geology, biogenetics, comparative anatomy, and many others. The evidence that the earch goes around the sun and not vice versa comes mostly from astronomy. Not that either is in doubt, of course. It's just that claiming that humans didn't clearly evolve from primate ancestors makes you look silly at best.


So according to people's childhood beliefs in Darwin's human evolution theory, we're expected to swallow that humans just suddenly appeared 200,000 years ago, with 50% cranial capacity, with speach and other functions,

Um, no. This sounds like a strawman argument. Brain capacity evolved slowly, just as everything else. Here is a nice graph to show you how it evolved over the years. Nothing sudden:

(see graph attached)



Natural selection chooses the strongest physically, while humans are not the strongest physical animals, why did the humans thrive?

Um, no. NS chooses the creature that has the largest number of successful kids. That's very often not the strongest physically. Brians have a lot to do with it, as will sexual selection, and many other factors.


.. Darwin's theory of human eveolution is ridiculous and comes from a very simplistic Victorian outlook, and it's followers who treat it like gospel.

Not at all. Evolution by natural selection is supported by nearly all scientists because the evidence is so overwhelming. Nearly everyone who rejects it hasn't looked at the data, and is often a fundamentalist to boot. We can discuss all of the evidence, and why it's so clear to nearly all scientists involved (who are from all kinds of different religions - Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, you name it), if you like. Though that may require a new thread.


It's also a mystery that human females never developed large birth canals.

Ancestral Lee did a good job explaning this. In fact, our really poorly designed birth canals show that if some designer (alien or divine) designed us, he was either really stupid or downright cruel. An engineer would be fired for the human design, both in the birth canal and in many other places. For the birth canal, a much better design would have been to route it out the belly instead of through the pelvis. All those problems you mentioned would be avoided, at no cost.



Why did the human body not have any survival skills, such as strong sense of smell, ability to see in the dark, strong hearing, tusks, fangs, a pelt? I've asked this before and no one posting on the thread is able to respond.

We do have survival skills - they are called reason and teamwork. History has shown that they are much better than fangs or tusks. So it makes sense that natural selection favored them. Again, human evolution is a big topic worthy of discussion.


The human brain is a mystery as to how or why it developed the way it did.

There is a lot about the brain we don't understand yet, though what we do know shows again and again that it evovled. For instance, mutations in hundreds of genes have been shown to contribute to the brains we have today. Why it developed due to natural selection is obvious - because it helped it's owner have a larger number of successful kids, which any good brain will do.


Why don't humans have thicker body hair? The only animals that don't are either aquatic or live underground.

Evolving in the hot African Savannah tends to have that effect. Much of the hair in animals there is thin and only good for coloration (cheetahs, etc), while many animals don't have hair (rhinos, etc).


Human skin is fragile and therefore no good for the open wilderness as a vulnerable species to wild beasts.

Our brains allowed us to hide and live in tribes. This was selected for because we didn't have to spend precious protein in making a thick skin. Besides - how thick a skin would you need to protect against a lion's bite?

Evolution (including that of humans) is clear based on literally mountains of evidence. The theory of evolution is as well supported by facts as the theory of gravity or the theory of atoms. I could get into all of the details, but that would take pages. We may instead decide to discuss a specific finding, then move on to another one.

The best evidence is the fact that many different fields of science all point to the same evolutionary origin for our human species. These different fields include anatomy, geology, genetics, pathology, neurology and others. It is the agreement of so many different lines of evidence that makes evolution as firmly demonstrated as a finding of science can be.

A good resource to learn about evolution is the website www.talkorigins.org. Other resources are available as well, (let me know what kind of format you are looking for), or we can discuss specific topics (like how scientists view evolution, or specific pieces of evidence such as lucy, etc.).

StephanieAine wrote:

information came out having to do with our DNA and the DNA of other forms of earthly life. ... - apparently, scientists had a huge surprise upon the discovery that basically *all* life - human, animal, plant, whatever... is supposedly very alike. More alike than anyone suspected, or suspected could be possible. Supposedly we are as close to being apes (as far as DNA is concerned) as we are **to being bananas.**

Hmm. Someone is remember the hype more than the data. I teach biology at the university level, and somehow no one told me about that. The DNA and other evidence is clear, and we share about this much DNA with other forms of life:


human to human over 99.5%
chimp 96 to 98 %
dog to dog 99%
dog to wolf >98%
mouse 90%
zebrafish 85%
Thale cress 26%
Yeast 23%
roundworm 21%
Fruitfly 36%
Mustardgrass 15%
Bacteria 7%


I don't happen to have Banana data handy, but it's probably close to the other plants mentioned.


if evolution is actually now supposed to be a reality rather than the theory it has always been taught to be.

Evolution is a theory and a fact, just as the idea that things are made of atoms is both a theory and a fact. A established theory in science is an overarching conclusion that is supported by many, many pieces of evidence and makes predictions that have been shown to be correct.

I hope that clears some of this up - Have fun day everyone-

[Mad Jasmine]

I'll respond to all of you tomorrow as this thread has grown since I've been away.

[Mad Jasmine]

mystic_peacock;2831389]Hehe, maybe not, but there are certainly "breeding times" during the month. Ever ovulated? You will know what I mean ;)

That is the point I'm making. Human females ovulate once a month, as I stated already, while they can have sex at any time they feel like it. Some it would be frequent and for others not so frequent. For animals there are only short periods in a year that they need to mate in order to procreate.



That was in 1995.

So? Darwin is 19th century.



Well I guess whoever made us messed up, then?

No, it means we're genetically engineered, and not a natural species.


We used to. I, for one, don't need it anymore (I got mah sweaters) and I am certainly glad I don't have it (it would ruin my razors).

No we didn't but then again you believe the simple idea that we were all apes at one time.


I, as a woman, am fertile all the time. That's why I have birth control. If I was only fertile right before my period, I wouldn't have to take pills every night, I just wouldn't have sex before my period. Man, that would be nice!
And women can get more "in heat" at certain times depending on our hormones. Not that it has to do with anything but I think that fact is interesting.

You can't be "fertile all the time", otherwise you would be a scientific phenomena! Maybe you ovulate more days than other women. Women don't need to rely the pill, just don't have sex while ovulating, simple.


Aaanyway. I see what you're saying but I completely disagree with you. To each his own, yeah?

Then why bother answering?

[Mad Jasmine]

For MadJasmine I just want to know if these aliens had an intention for creating us and if so what is it? Would this intention suit us? If not, how do we escape it? If it does suit us, how do we further it? . . .

What are the implications of the Alien creator theory?

They were explorers, creators and scientists. Not in the way we would understand as the gods were more spiritually adavanced and had knowledge beyond our capabilities. The purpose of creating us has many possible answers which I don't think is necessary to list here.

[Mad Jasmine]

Hmm. So how does this work out with all the lore of every culture's gods?

I explained it throughout this thread. Read my posts from the beginning and you'll understand.

[Mad Jasmine]

[QUOTE]oh look.... a missing link.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4900946.stm



well how strange, it fills a gap between two other human ancestors. quoting information from 1995 is pointless, the field of human evolution and paleontology is a rapidly moving discipline. chnages are made all the time, and thats the point, where the data contradicts what is accepted, accepted wisdom changes and adapts to fit and incorporate the new data. this is what science is all about. and you know what, after hundreds of year, 100;s of fossils and finds... it all says the same thng, humans evolved from a common ancestor of common apes.


It's difficult speaking to people who are so fanatical. You're no different than fundemental Xtians and also people such as yourself many years ago would do anything to prove the earth was flat. Anyway you're already jumping up and down when that article clearly states its a probable link to human ancestry. There is NO link between humans and these beast men. These fossiles don't place humans directly with the phases of humanlike apes.



there is NO scientific evidence for any other scenario. humans didnt just appear all that time ago, do some quick searching and you will find a series of species which gradulally show an increasing number of Homo like traits.

And may I ask what your spiritual beliefs are? I've posted links and names, and I've mentioned many times that scientific data has been censored and hidden from the public.


human birth canals, we walk upright. there is a trade off between the size of the birth canal and the ability to walk as we do. human babies are born with big heads because humans have big brains, but overall development is very poor in babaies, hence there is a very long period of parental care. this only works as a strategy because early human ancestors lived in groups where they were able to care for each other and provide for nursin mothers. this a a strategy in many other social mammals (meerkats spring to mind)

Yes, humans babies are born with big heads so why don't women have larger birth canals?



as to why we didnt grow fangs or claws... we just didnt. it isnt as if animals can conciously choose to grow these things. we survived on the savannah because we were social animals, we could stand upright and look out for danger then run and hide when it was seen. later on in evolution we had tools and weapons (from the stage of homo habilis).

That isn't a clever answer. You can see by looking at all other species of the wild animals that they evolved to adapt to their environement. Some animals of prey were given the ability to defend themselves with either speed or with armour/horns. Predators were given the ability to tear and bite, with internal organs to digest raw food. Humans developing the way we have must've evolved on another world without any hazards or were genetically created. You said humans "just didn't" develope those means of defence and physical traits to cope with hunting and feeding raw meat - then how and why did this happen to us? Why didn't nature mould us into form?


your idea (and its only an idea, a hypothesis is an idea that can be tested and a theory a hypothesis that has been tested and stands up to testing) cannot be tested, it relies upon faith. you cannot try to pull down solid and i do mean solid scientific theory (especially the theory of evolution) with something that is purely based upon faith.

Well actually your own theory is dogmatic and part of the establishment, brainwashing people where the church once had an influence. It's just your own belief (well, plus millions of others but what would they know) that you're forcing others to accept. It's poor science, it's also very old fashioned and stuffy. It doesn't accept any other theories at all.

[Mad Jasmine]

I'm just popping in here in response to your last question posted to Jasmine. I'm not up to a big DNA conversation - it's not my area at all! - but your question reminded me of something fascinating.

Very recently - I mean *extremely* recently, within about the last year (I don't remember the month), information came out having to do with our DNA and the DNA of other forms of earthly life. This was in connection with a project which National Geographic is somehow connected, though I don't recall how or why, but that aspect stuck in my memory. *Anyway* - apparently, scientists had a huge surprise upon the discovery that basically *all* life - human, animal, plant, whatever... is supposedly very alike. More alike than anyone suspected, or suspected could be possible. Supposedly we are as close to being apes (as far as DNA is concerned) as we are **to being bananas.** No, not being "bananas" as in "you're crazy, you're totally bananas... whacko!" - but as in "you are a man, but deep down, you are almost identical to the banana you ate on your corn flakes cereal this morning." Yes, that's right - they discovered that there is hardly any difference between a person and a yellow, phallic fruit.

Anyway, the realization must have been more than they could stand, because they started comparing us to various other edibles and various other forms of life, just to see. And sure enough, there was hardly any difference when you looked at the person/thing in its deepest parts. Yet the scientists knew that a man is VERY different from a banana... obviously!... though the scientific study said something very different.

So... after all that, I'm not so sure that the ape thing would really indicate much about man's evolution, if evolution is actually now supposed to be a reality rather than the theory it has always been taught to be.
I mean, sure, we can say that apes do certain things that seem rather human... but bananas are like us too (LOL!), and I've never noticed a banana doing anything that made me wonder if the banana had human feelings and thoughts.

That's all from me!

As I said before, humans carry dna of earthly life forms because when the gods made us they replaced some of the missing genes with that from the earth, so that we as a species could adapt here.

[Mad Jasmine]

I don't doubt it too much though. I've believed for a long time now that everything (Even nothing) has the same origin and that we are all interconnected both on the physical and spiritual level. Wise men for years have been telling us to become one with the bananna. All this simply means is to truly realize that we are already one with the bananna. But what if i don't want to be a bananna?

But that is what you believe, except I'm not the one forcing my belief down anyone's throats or going on the defensive as my opponants have. I came here to express my opinion about the gods and suddenly these hack know-it-all students and graduates have all appeared out of nowhere demanding facts and figures, when this is supposed to be a pagan, not a hardcore sceptics board.

[Mad Jasmine]

Mad Jasmine wrote:


OK, first, please link to the source so we can see the context of the quote. Creationists tend to quotemine, which is to take a quote out of context to make it show some point other than what it means.

It was from a book, which I mentioned on that post.


If that isn't the case, it could be simply bad reporting - relying on a decade old newspaper for science is a bad idea in itself.

What is the problem with it being from 1990's? Your stuffy old belief is Victorian and it deserves questioning.


Basically, what is going on here is that the huge number of hominid (human lineage) fossils that the evolution of humans is even more clear than before. In fact, there are so many hominid fossils found now (hundreds, in fact), that constructing a tree can be difficult. For instance, let's say that you had every single skeleton, complete, from a whole city, each one tagged with a date of death for 200 years. Now, could you construct all the family trees? Of course not. Does that mean you are clueless about the current city being the descendants of your skeleta? Of course not.


No it's not clear. Actual data of human fossils being found to be much older than their supposed African counterparts discovereed all over the world is not even briefed or mentioned by mainstream science.


There is more and better evidence that humans evolved from earlier hominids than the fact that the earth goes around the sun. This evidence comes from many fields, such as archeology, geology, biogenetics, comparative anatomy, and many others. The evidence that the earch goes around the sun and not vice versa comes mostly from astronomy. Not that either is in doubt, of course. It's just that claiming that humans didn't clearly evolve from primate ancestors makes you look silly at best.


Who cares if I look silly to you. I'm not worried about what the masses think, but then again they don't think, they only receive.



Um, no. NS chooses the creature that has the largest number of successful kids. That's very often not the strongest physically. Brians have a lot to do with it, as will sexual selection, and many other factors.

But how and why did the brain develope like that, tell me?




Not at all. Evolution by natural selection is supported by nearly all scientists because the evidence is so overwhelming. Nearly everyone who rejects it hasn't looked at the data, and is often a fundamentalist to boot. We can discuss all of the evidence, and why it's so clear to nearly all scientists involved (who are from all kinds of different religions - Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, you name it), if you like. Though that may require a new thread.


Unlike some people I've got no time to spend all day on the internet over endless debates with Darwin fanatics.



Ancestral Lee did a good job explaning this. In fact, our really poorly designed birth canals show that if some designer (alien or divine) designed us, he was either really stupid or downright cruel. An engineer would be fired for the human design, both in the birth canal and in many other places. For the birth canal, a much better design would have been to route it out the belly instead of through the pelvis. All those problems you mentioned would be avoided, at no cost.


I'm not forcing anyone to accept my beliefs. So why then did nature make women with small birth canals?



We do have survival skills - they are called reason and teamwork. History has shown that they are much better than fangs or tusks. So it makes sense that natural selection favored them. Again, human evolution is a big topic worthy of discussion.

That is no answer. All animals have herds and packs.



There is a lot about the brain we don't understand yet, though what we do know shows again and again that it evovled. For instance, mutations in hundreds of genes have been shown to contribute to the brains we have today. Why it developed due to natural selection is obvious - because it helped it's owner have a larger number of successful kids, which any good brain will do.


That answer is wishy washy.


Evolving in the hot African Savannah tends to have that effect. Much of the hair in animals there is thin and only good for coloration (cheetahs, etc), while many animals don't have hair (rhinos, etc).

So why did humans "evolve" this vulnerable way then?




Our brains allowed us to hide and live in tribes. This was selected for because we didn't have to spend precious protein in making a thick skin. Besides - how thick a skin would you need to protect against a lion's bite?

But then how did the human brain naturally get like this?


Evolution (including that of humans) is clear based on literally mountains of evidence. The theory of evolution is as well supported by facts as the theory of gravity or the theory of atoms. I could get into all of the details, but that would take pages. We may instead decide to discuss a specific finding, then move on to another one.

Im talking about humans, not wild animals. There is few data on human origins. Science admits it has no answers but a theory, which fanatics treat as gospel.

[ancestral_lee]

to answer one recurring question, birth canals.

human birth canals are as big as they can get without impeding the ability to work. its a trade off between having as big a canal as possible to give birth to babies who are developed as they are and having a birth canal which isnt so big as to make it difficult to walk. if you look at the fossil record you will see a corresponding increase in birth canal size that goes hand in hand with increasing brain size.

the 'evidence' of humans in the americas (i think it was) of a similar age to early african hominids was shown to be incorrect and a revised date was published. this corrected evidence doesnt conflict with the widely accepted, scientifically backed up evolution of humans.

im pagan thanks for asking, my spirituality doesnt conflict with scientific fact.

its my experience that when people come up against evolution with paranoid ideas of hidden evidence etc that they will soon start usng the fundamental word to describe those people who have studied, and i do means studied (ive spent 4 years on this), the evidence and found that all the evidence from 200 yearr, 10,000's of scientists points to one answer. you cant compare it with the flat earthers as thats purely human ideas with no scientific basis, after all it was sciene that showed them wrong, it was science that shower copernicus was correct. why is if science gets it right with those, is it so wrong here?

[ancestral_lee]

Science admits it has no answers but a theory, which fanatics treat as gospel.

im going to pull you up on this as it clearly shows you have no understanding of what science and the concept of a theory actually is.

[ancestral_lee]

oh and before you start bemoaning science and how the orthodoxy hides evidence to the contrary. not true. within palaeontology i can think of a couple fo examples of workers presenting evidence and interpretations that completely fly in the face of accepted understanding. they get published in top journals, speak at conferences etc. the fact they are incorrect doent mean they are ignored - they are listening to, assessed and found to be incorrect.

[ModernKnight]

But how and why did the brain develope like that, tell me?

That's the interesting thing about evolution ... things develop the way they do somewhat randomly. The brain developed the way it did because it outcompeted the other designs that arose. It may not be the theoretical best design, but it tended to work better than any others.



That is no answer. All animals have herds and packs.


This answer shows just how little you know about biology. Actually, most animals DON'T have herds or packs. Only the animals who get some benefit from group effort do. Lions do, sharks don't, wolves do, bobcats don't, etc.



Im talking about humans, not wild animals. There is few data on human origins. Science admits it has no answers but a theory, which fanatics treat as gospel.

Even if there was as little data in favor of human evolution as you believe there is, there's still more evidence in favor of human evolution than any variety of creationism. Why? Because creationism cannot be tested. Evolution can. That's why everyone who believes that everything in the universe can be tested also believes in evolution. If you want to reject the scientific revolution, fine.

[Mad Jasmine]

That's the interesting thing about evolution ... things develop the way they do somewhat randomly. The brain developed the way it did because it outcompeted the other designs that arose. It may not be the theoretical best design, but it tended to work better than any others.

How do they just develope and why? Why didn't other species of animals develope such a brain as ours? and why, physically were we not capable of survival and should've died out? Are you suggesting that nature makes mistakes but gave humans an intelligent brain to make up for lack of physical abilities? Why are human senses weaker than other animals? How did we develope a complex brain in such a very short time on earth?



This answer shows just how little you know about biology. Actually, most animals DON'T have herds or packs. Only the animals who get some benefit from group effort do. Lions do, sharks don't, wolves do, bobcats don't, etc.


I'm aware of biology, I wasn't saying that all animals have packs and herds. But most mammals do, predators and prey. Some animals don't need to rely on others, such as the spider. It didn't answer my previous question so I mentioned that other animals need to rely on a pack. BTW not all humans need to rely on others as a group can be a hinderance and there are loners who cope pretty well, if not better.


Even if there was as little data in favor of human evolution as you believe there is, there's still more evidence in favor of human evolution than any variety of creationism. Why? Because creationism cannot be tested. Evolution can. That's why everyone who believes that everything in the universe can be tested also believes in evolution. If you want to reject the scientific revolution, fine.

Only because it's the official accepted version of human origins. I'm not "rejecting scientific revolution" but questioning the dogmatic beliefs of human evolution. Is that the wrong thing to do in this world, questioning and finding alternatives, where it seems everyone is forced to accept the same belief system?

[Mad Jasmine]

to answer one recurring question, birth canals.

human birth canals are as big as they can get without impeding the ability to work. its a trade off between having as big a canal as possible to give birth to babies who are developed as they are and having a birth canal which isnt so big as to make it difficult to walk. if you look at the fossil record you will see a corresponding increase in birth canal size that goes hand in hand with increasing brain size.


Fossil records of who? animals or people?
Its a fact women have died during childbirth because their birth canals are too small to allow babies heads to deliver through. This has resulted in deaths and even today there are still birth complications. This happens frequently among humans but rarely with wild animals.


the 'evidence' of humans in the americas (i think it was) of a similar age to early african hominids was shown to be incorrect and a revised date was published. this corrected evidence doesnt conflict with the widely accepted, scientifically backed up evolution of humans.

Show me the source of that please. Or tell me where to locate the names, bok or articles.


im pagan thanks for asking, my spirituality doesnt conflict with scientific fact.

Interesting to have a pagan who also adopts Darwin human origins together. The question is important because as a pagan you believe something which has no scientific proof. You've been debating with me on this subject of my own personal theory for a while and yet you've got your own spiritual ideas, that true hardcore scientists would debate with. It's like the Xtians who forced their religion upon others in the name of God and the holy book, and modern Darwinists are no exception.


its my experience that when people come up against evolution with paranoid ideas of hidden evidence etc that they will soon start usng the fundamental word to describe those people who have studied, and i do means studied (ive spent 4 years on this), the evidence and found that all the evidence from 200 yearr, 10,000's of scientists points to one answer. you cant compare it with the flat earthers as thats purely human ideas with no scientific basis, after all it was sciene that showed them wrong, it was science that shower copernicus was correct. why is if science gets it right with those, is it so wrong here?

As I keep repeating myself, what makes dggmatic beliefsa "scientific"? The point about flat-earth theories was that it had been based upon a very early idea resulting in death sentences if someone should challange it. I'm not against science, but I am against dogmatic science, two different things.

[ModernKnight]

How do they just develope and why?

Natural selection. A new trait comes about through mutation and the result increases reproductive ability.


Why didn't other species of animals develope such a brain as ours?

Neanderthals did, but they died out anyway.


and why, physically were we not capable of survival and should've died out?

We're obviously perfectly capable of survival, the fact that we have survived is proof. Even if we were just plopped here from a spaceship (as you apparently believe) if we couldn't survive we would've gone extinct. That exact scenario happens all the time when humans transplant animals outside their normal habitat.


Are you suggesting that nature makes mistakes but gave humans an intelligent brain to make up for lack of physical abilities?

You're assuming an intelligent designer, which there is no evidence of.


Why are human senses weaker than other animals? How did we develope a complex brain in such a very short time on earth?

Human senses are stronger than some animals, weaker than others. We can see in color better than most animals. Our hearing is better than some and worse than others. In fact, most insects can't hear at all ... yet they manage to survive without trouble. We're physically stronger and larger than many animals. As for the brain, it evolved over a LONG period of time.


I'm not "rejecting scientific revolution" but questioning the dogmatic beliefs of human evolution. Is that the wrong thing to do in this world, questioning and finding alternatives, where it seems everyone is forced to accept the same belief system?

Indeed you are. You're doing more than questioning scientific ideas, you're rejecting a scientific idea in favor of a non-scientific idea ... unless you have some evidence of alien-god-genetic engineers. The fact is, there is evidence of evolution. There is no evidence (and no way to get evidence) of an intelligent designer. You're just claiming that no evidence is better than evidence, which is rejecting science in favor of faith.

In fact, although many scientists are personally athiest, science in general has no opinion of religion, because the supernatural is by it's nature untestable.

[David19]

In fact, although many scientists are personally athiest, science in general has no opinion of religion, because the supernatural is by it's nature untestable.

And there are also many scientists who are religious, but they don't mix the 2, they can go to a Synagogue or a Mosque, Church, etc and still be a scientist, 'cause as you said, the supernatural is untestable, it can't be proved or disproved.

Anyway, just wanted to add that and i agree with your post :).

[ModernKnight]

And there are also many scientists who are religious, but they don't mix the 2, they can go to a Synagogue or a Mosque, Church, etc and still be a scientist, 'cause as you said, the supernatural is untestable, it can't be proved or disproved.

Anyway, just wanted to add that and i agree with your post :).

Indeed. Today I'm posting from the biology lab where I work.

[ancestral_lee]

ok is that what you mean..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4617466.stm

following the find of 'footprints' in volcanic ash in s america dated at 40,000 years old. a lot of scientists are skeptical as to whether these are actually footprints and whether the age is correct. one group even showed it wrong by achieving a radimetric date of 1.4 million years.

is that what you mean?

[ancestral_lee]

Fossil records of who? animals or people?
Its a fact women have died during childbirth because their birth canals are too small to allow babies heads to deliver through. This has resulted in deaths and even today there are still birth complications. This happens frequently among humans but rarely with wild animals. .


fossil hominids/humans.exactly... because we have a very off method of locomotion compared to other animals and rather large brains also it means there are complications, somrthing that doesnt happen as much in other animals. signs of an imperfect and non-intelligently designed feature.






As I keep repeating myself, what makes dggmatic beliefsa "scientific"? The point about flat-earth theories was that it had been based upon a very early idea resulting in death sentences if someone should challange it. I'm not against science, but I am against dogmatic science, two different things.

science isnt dogmatic. it changes and adapts, dogma doesnt. just look in any copy of Science or nature and you will see papers that challenge and chage out view of how the world works or worked. people once thought that birds evolved from an early crocodile like reptile, we now know they evolved from dinosaurs. we once thought dinosaurs
were slow and cold blooded, we now know they were intelligent and some were warm blooded. darwinism isnt dogmatic... read up on work by Dawkins or Gould. they aregued and challenged accepted views of how evolution works.

[equinox2]

MadJasmine wrote:

It was from a book, which I mentioned on that post.

OK, a second or third hand quote mine really isn’t worth much. We can’t see the context, and don’t even know if the author quoted it correctly or changed it. As I mentioned before, even if we could know that, it’s still useless. Taking quotes out of context and thus changing their meaning is a well known staple activity of all types of pseudoscientists. I agree with you that we need to think about possible other explanations for everything, but that means a balanced look at all the evidence, and the evidence for the evolution of humans from earlier primates is abundant and clear.

Worse, I looked at that book, and it is a textbook case of pseudoscience. He has all the hallmarks of a crank, and even relies on another well known pseudoscientist, VonDaniken. Wikipedia has a good article on the methods used to fool people using pseudoscience. Comparing these methods with the book you mentioned is very enlightening. Here it is – it’s useful for any of us to use the wiki article to critically evaluate any source, whether that’s mainstream science or not. It’s part of being a responsible member of the modern world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience


Actual data of human fossils being found to be much older than their supposed African counterparts discovereed all over the world is not even briefed or mentioned by mainstream science.

Um, no. I suppose this actual data is from Alford’s book? I showed some actual data on my previous post showing the smooth and gradual increase in brain size as humans evolved from apes. The dates of all fossils found are consistent with our working model of human evolution, and the dates are very often corroborated by various dating methods (such as the dendrochronology date matching the radiocarbon date, agreeing with the obsidian hydration date, etc.). I hope we’ve all had a chance to look at the data I posted before. On this post I’ll attach a useful picture showing some of the hundreds of human ancestor fossils we have that show the smooth progression from earlier primate to human.

More importantly, you comments about “dogma” and data hidden by “mainstream science” need to be addressed, because they touch on a common misunderstanding of the world the scientist lives in.

I’m a real life scientist, and I’ve done research both in the University and in the Industrial setting. In the world of scientific research, There is huge pressure to find something significantly different from the conventional findings because it is the differences, the anomalies, that improve and change our views of the natural world the most. Experiments on the forefront are useful, those that confirm well-established findings are a waste of time, but those that might upend established views are hotly sought after, because a revolutionary finding advances your career.

Let me give a few examples. Back in the 1950’s, it was generally thought that the production of organic molecules from inorganic ones was difficult. However, a graduate student named Stanley Miller did a series of experiments that surprised everyone – including Stanley. He rigged up a setup that he thought (against the advice of his professor and others) may produce a few organic molecules if left to work for months or years, that he may be able to detect with sensitive scientific equipment later. He was wrong. Within days of turning the set up on, so much organic stuff had been made that he could see it with his unaided eyes. In just a few more days, he had to stop the experiment because there was so much organic stuff. His findings really upset the applecart, and he received fame and fortune for it. In fact, he built a career on it, dominating the science of abiogenesis for decades, for his entire life. This same thing happens over and over. Einstein’s findings too disagreed with convention, and since he could show it matched the data, it made his career too. Same for Rutherford, Michaelson, Morley, Shoemaker, and so many other scientists (hey, Darwin himself, too).

In the dog-eat-dog world of real blood and guts science, everyone wants to show that the conventional dogma is wrong. To do so is a ticket to fame, fortune, grants, and a very secure future. The pressure is so strong that findings that confirm the conventional dogma are considered nearly useless. I mean sure they are good for the body of scientific knowledge, but don’t advance your career.

The trick is you have to be able to back it up with evidence (especially evidence that others can replicate)– and since the conventional dogma is usually supported by tons of evidence, it’s hard to find legitimate, repeatable experiments that disagree with it. That’s why it’s such a sought-after scientific accomplishment to do so.

So here’s a hint that’s practical in each of our daily lives: If someone complains about some deep dark conspiracy by "mainstream science" to hide data that shows the theory of evolution, or the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease, or atomic theory to be wrong, then you know right away that they are almost certain to be a quack. Having a conspiracy to hide revolutionary scientific data is like trying to have a deep dark conspiracy to hide a winning lottery ticket.

Conspiracy accusations against the government may be possible sometimes. Conspiracy accusations against a monolithic, controlled institution like, say, the Vatican are more credible. But against science is very difficult due to the way science is done.


But how and why did the brain develope like that, tell me?

And

But then how did the human brain naturally get like this?


Natural selection works because the individuals with the best traits (say, being a little smarter than your neighbor) are better at getting food and having kids that can survive to have kids. As mutations happen from time to time, the ones that don’t help (for example, a mutation that makes one dumber), result in individuals who have few if any successful kids, so those harmful mutations are removed. The mutations that cause improvements (like making one a bit smarter) cause their owners to have more kids that are successful, so the next generation has more copies of that that mutation. Subsequent mutations added onto that result in a trend of larger and larger brains. Hundreds of the specific mutations that did this have been found and mapped by scientists. We see both the fossil skulls and the evidence from molecular genetics telling the same story – that the brain evolved to roughly double in size and greatly increase in ability in the past 2 million years. Hopefully, that explains both how and why, since how and why, in this case, are so tightly interwoven. Let me know if any part of that is confusing, or if you’d like another example.


So why did humans "evolve" this vulnerable way then?

"vulnerable" must be evaluated overall. For instance, remember War of the Worlds? The martians were too weak to even stand upright in our gravity, yet in their machines they quickly conquered the world. Another example - the puny, weak, roundworm can be killed with one finger, yet thousands of people die each year from roundworm infections. "Vulnerable" must be evaluated overall. Humans have been able to literally take over the world, driving species after species to extinction - as we've been doing for literally thousands of years. My Native American ancestors drove the Sabertooth tiger, the mastodon, the dire wolf, the glyptodont, the giant ground sloth, and dozens of other big mammals to extinction with their spears over 10,000 years ago. I wouldn't call that vulnerable. Our skin is just like primates our size, except for the hair, which as we've discussed isn't good in the african savanna. Our long nursing time as a baby is a neccessary tradeoff for our big brains - and that's obviously worth it. We only wear clothes because we've been so successful that we've moved to areas away from where we evolved - in africa where clothing isn't needed. In some ways, for the sake of all the animals that we are driving to extinction, I wish we were more vulnerable (for real) as a species.


So why then did nature make women with small birth canals?

Due to upright walking. Here’s a post on it. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may02.html
I understand you are busy – I am too, so typing out the whole reason would take too much time.


Im talking about humans, not wild animals. There is few data on human origins. Science admits it has no answers but a theory, which fanatics treat as gospel.

There are many data on humans. In addition to the many fossils, there is physiological and anatomical evidence in our bodies (like our tails), the presence of atavisms in some births, DNA evidence, including over a 98% match with chimps and the presence of “turned off” primate genes, in addition to biomolecular data, all of which shows a smooth transition from earlier primates to modern humans. If noting else, one can look at the skulls attached to this post. If aliens did make humans, then they did an awfully good job making it look like we evolved, including hiding fossils all over the world and making every imaginable test come up to confirm evolution.

Being Pagan, unlike some religions, doesn’t mean I have to suspend my brain at the door. I’m glad to be able to require hard, objective evidence for any belief, and be Pagan. I don’t have any theological or spiritual objection to the idea that aliens designed and made humans, but don’t see any need to posit that, since our origins are so clear. That’s kinda nice, actually, since it connects us to the animal kingdom, so that being an environmentalist isn’t about being nice to some other creation, but rather it’s about being nice to the same living, thriving web that gave rise to each of us.

Blessed be-

[Toby Stimpson]

I love how the original poster has not returned to this thread...interestinnggg

I loved the fact sheet you attached Equinox :)

Namaste

[ancestral_lee]

I love how the original poster has not returned to this thread...interestinnggg

I loved the fact sheet you attached Equinox :)

Namaste

very. cant say im surprised.

lee

[Selenite]

Actually, I believe she's been banned...

[Silver Crow2]

Actually, I believe she's been banned...

:(

Oh well.

Interesting hypothesis she had. It actually sparked my interest, even though her initial postings were full of wrong information regarding (a) what a theory is in scientific terms and (b) specifics regarding evolutionary theory


Equinox referenced www.talkorigins.org

That is one of the best sites for providing access to documentation on "proof" regarding evolution in general, and trying to explain it in non-professional biologist terms.

[Silver Crow2]

How do you get from single living cells to complex organisms?
I answer these questions with evolution. If you choose against evolution as a means of producing complex life-forms then you have to have another theory that performs the same mechanism. If your choice is God-the-Engineer (or Alien Tinker-toys) then I reply:

"Knees!" :nyah:

If the world's living beings are outright constructs, then why are so many of the mechanisms so cobbled together? To me, belief in intelligent design (supported by the amazing elegance of eyes and the shoulder-elbow-wrist mechanism, not to mention kidneys) falls apart with the crashingly bad design of knees.....and why give us an appendix??? Practice for surgeons?

?


Oh....I just have to add the whole urological construction of men resembles a "design by committe that hated each other and were drunk at the time to boot" type "design".

I have had two inguinal hernias ;) A good engineer would have know better than to rig us up that way - and we still could have walked upright :)

Peace

bill

[equinox2]

Hi-

you're welcome! I've found it comes in handy when creatoinuts and others come around.

Yeah, I saw another thread, something about racism, where she was banned. Her previous response to my previous post had little substance, so the next one probably wound't have either. Oh well.

Have a fun day everyone-