the origins of humans

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
This site tries to explain how humans evolved into the humans of today. Tell me what you think of this site, its mostly based on a timeline.

just click here for the site




posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I will say that it is far more believable than anything that was or still is being written in the bible. The fact is that nobody at this point knows but science is on it's way to the truth. The deeper we dig the closer we get. Standing around trusting in something that was written in times of unknowing is more likely false and not the way to find the truth.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
What trips me out is that people don't take into account that their were two other species of humans living at the same time with us. This shows me that all three had to to have a common ancestor right?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Talk about putting me into a spin!!

I am by far an expert on ancient civilizations let alone the origin of human kind.
I do not believe anyone can take away from any beleifs originating from any number of cultures and their various religions that have followed them through a great number of generations.

This is a confusing subject to try and even start to tackle. It revolves around my personal dificulties in regards to even attempting to choose any particular faith that might at least begin to provide a foundation to the origin of Man.
As a result I find myself indulging in some new age ideas.
I know many frown on giving any validity to channelled information.
But is it really any more far fetched than some of the other ideas and religious faiths going around.
So I found myself drawn to a source of channelled information called Oahspe.
It is really overly complex in many ways. Yet it teaches that all things including humans were created firstly by a process refered to as vortexia.
The idea that humans, planets and everything else started from gaseous substances that came together by the forces of a vortex. Eventually these gas like vortex's changed from gases to more and more solid forms.
One might see how this could apply to Planets and such. For humans it is suggested that we in fact were once a gas like form that changed into a mass of energy that one might think of as a soul or spirit. And that as millions of years passed we aquired substance to our form. At that time we were one sex and was not until a much later date that this form was split into male and female.
The concept of creation being initiated by a vortex has actually caught some scientific interest almost a hundred years after the conception of the Oahspe. Interesting........

One who follows the Oahspe closely is considered a faithist. I have found myself at this point of belief.

Just a thought.............



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
the origins of humans

This site tries to explain how humans evolved into the humans of today. Tell me what you think of this site, its mostly based on a timeline.

just click here for the

sitewww.abovetopsecret.com...

I think it is a good sight and does a nice job of explaining itself, but I think as a society we are still missing a few gaps.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Good morning seeuathemovies,

Could you double check the above link?

"page cannot be displayed"

Thanks...



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Evolution is fine until you start to dig deeper then holes start to appear in the theory. Evolution works fine and most/ in fact all genetic lifeforms display evolution, however evolution cannot explain certain anomalies in human species. My own take on this is that we were genetically manipulated by an advanced race (alien or not) as slaves.



G



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud
Evolution is fine until you start to dig deeper then holes start to appear

Such as what?


evolution cannot explain certain anomalies in human species.

Such as what?


My own take on this is that we were genetically manipulated by an advanced race

There is no evidence for genetic manipulation in humans and rather the genes that make up humans are related to genes in man's ancestors.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Try the lower bandwidth version if you're having problems
www.pbs.org...



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by connectabore
I do not believe anyone can take away from any beleifs originating from any number of cultures and their various religions that have followed them through a great number of generations.

But the civilizations themselves and the people change the tales of their cultures and their beliefs! Gods join and become other gods, people change what they think is 'ethical.'

Look at the Bible itself... now we find reasons to NOT stone people to death and declare as barbaric the Islamic cultures that follow those Old Testament laws.


So I found myself drawn to a source of channelled information called Oahspe.


Why would you take a "channeling" over evidence? When you present science with a puzzle, it has ways of predicting what comes next and what comes between. "Channeled" information can only react. It's terrible at predicting.


It is really overly complex in many ways. Yet it teaches that all things including humans were created firstly by a process refered to as vortexia.

But isn't this a form of "magical thinking"? That suddenly something just shows up -- kerpoof? Do you have evidence of things that "just suddenly show up and have tornados and vortexes as a cause"?


At that time we were one sex and was not until a much later date that this form was split into male and female.

That's an old Greek myth, but there's no bones or other evidence to support the old myth as being anything but... myth. Fiction.


The concept of creation being initiated by a vortex has actually caught some scientific interest almost a hundred years after the conception of the Oahspe.

Perhaps you could list one or two of the scientists and their real credentials? You can look up their papers on PubMed or (easier) scholar.google.com...



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
speight89, Great Link


Homo Erectus was mentioned in the timeline, here's a little info on the dig site where the remains were found.

Dmanisi is where the first Homo Erectus was found...dating back
to about 1.7m years. The site is kinda weird.....human, tiger and other animal remains are all in the same spot that was believed to be the back of a cave. Anyways, there's only speculation as to how they got there...some say an animal gathered them all there, Others say the Human did the gathering. who knows? The site is under a Medieval town....there are holes dug that indicate that someone back in the day found some of the remains and discarded them as nothing. What a shame, that could have been a huge leap in knowledge.

Anyways, Here's some pictures I took last time I went to the dig site in Dmanisi. Sorry that it took so long to get the link posted...I forgot my Photobucket.com account password, then I had to go through and delete all the stupid pictures of me. Just thought I would share a few of 'em with you guys.

photobucket.com...

sporty

EDIT: Dmanisi dig site official webpage.

[edit on 13/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Thanks, Sporty!

I looked up the Dmanisi fossils, since I haven't heard of them -- they're quite interesting. As sporty says, they are the oldest fossil hominid (or earliest fossil hominid) found outside of Africa:
www.talkorigins.org...
(that page has a good discussion of the fossil, though I disagree that homo habilis is considered to be an ape.)

Here's a good discussion paper that covers some of the controversy about the find:
www.americanscientist.org...



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Thanks for the article Byrd, Doubting Dmanisi is great and says alot about the importance of the find and even a little about paleo-politics too


The age of all the found remains start in Africa (being the earliest) and then fan out from there. The Dmanisi finds are concrete evidence that support that.



Pretty much Homo Erectus was only found in Africa and other later Hominids were found in China, Spain (too young though) and other places. But there was a huge gap in time and in distance.....to sum it all up. The remains found in Dmanisi (Homo Erectus) bridged that gap. Homo Erectus found in Dmanisi is the link between Homo Erectus found in Africa and other Hominids found in Europe and Asia.




[edit on 13/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I guess ATS has an official position that a belief in Creationism is a "conspiracy" -- according to the heading above this thread.

You can mark me down as a conspirator then because I sure do believe that a Creation needs a Creator, and I don't believe atoms just pop out of a vacuum all by themself. And if the brilliant scientists can't create life in the lab or even one cell on purpose, how do they think this all happened by accident? If you saw a building and somebody told you the boards just all fell into place by accident, would you believe it? But you think brains and eyes and bodies and hearts and veins can form accidentally?

And those of you who know this is ludicrous still won't acknowledge the Creator because you want to say it was aliens coming here and "seeding" the planet. Well, who created the planet and made it just the right size, just the right distance from the sun and the moon? Who put water and soil on it? Those are all things you need before you can "seed" anything. And where did the aliens come from? You say they are gods themselves? From what I've heard about the grays they are mean, sadistic and hateful, evil creatures. So you'd rather have these "things" for your "gods?"

Kinda degenerating into barbarism, wouldn't you say? Have any of you considered the Bible? Or are you so full of hate toward God and the Bible that you won't even consider that it might be it claims to be -- God's Word, and every word is true?

So if you guys want to get all excited about these pipedreams offered by pseudoscientists desperately trying to offer some kind of hope to those looking to escape the idea that God is watching them, that you will have to stand before Him on Judgment Day some day -- well, have a ball reading about the latest find of bones and skulls put out by the people looking for grant money that are just giving the people what they want.

Meantime, I decided to drop out of the lemming parade a long time ago, and I've never been sorry I did.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   


So if you guys want to get all excited about these pipedreams

Don't mind if I do, I don't know what it is, but this kind of stuff always gets me ticking, seriously. It's just a huge interest I have.



pseudoscientists desperately trying to offer some kind of hope to those looking to escape the idea that God is watching them


If you were to browse around the original website in the first post, you would see that the page supports evolution (obvious) but at the same time it does NOT knock down the idea of creation a.k.a. GOD. In fact there is even a section dedicated to evolution and religion working together with many supporting opinions by scientist.

However, the site does knock on ID....because the actual definition of intelligent design pretty much means that evolution is not possible because the probabilities of it are slim to none. The definition of ID does not prove creation...all it attemts to do is falter evolution. in a lame attempt by usung the Retina and Iris example (Ive heard that so many times)....which by using that logic disproves evolution becuase evolution, according to ID, could only focus on one change at a time.

Note: the arguement of Intelligent Design is like a hundred years old...



well, have a ball reading about the latest find of bones and skulls put out by the people looking for grant money that are just giving the people what they want.

I think I will


By "put out" do you mean staged..or placed?

BTW: Im a Chrisitian...I believe that God uses evolution as a means for life to flourish and survive in an everchanging universe.

[edit on 14/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
I guess ATS has an official position that a belief in Creationism is a "conspiracy"

Beleif in creationism, no, but there is a creationist conspiracy. Do you doubt it?

I don't believe atoms just pop out of a vacuum all by themself.

There are, in fact, particles that pop in and out of existence, even today. The phenomenon is called the 'quantum foam'. But if you are talking about the 'big bang', if you notice, the theory doesn't say that things popped up out of nothing, it states that we simply don't know what happened in those first instances. I'd say that science not being able to explain why there is something, rather than nothing, is not much of a problem, and the creationist 'answer', god did it, isn't much of an answer.

And if the brilliant scientists can't create life in the lab or even one cell on purpose, how do they think this all happened by accident?

So because the best and the brightest can't do it...it can't be done? People couldn't get organic chemicals to form from inorganic reactions two hundred years ago, that means that it actually can't be done???

Isn't a better question 'why can't the best and the brightest of the creationist movement find any evidence to support the claims of creationism'?

If you saw a building and somebody told you the boards just all fell into place by accident, would you believe it? But you think brains and eyes and bodies and hearts and veins can form accidentally?


Any arguements besides strawmen??

Well, who created the planet and made it just the right size, just the right distance from the sun and the moon?

You suggest that its immpossible that, in the whole universe, there be a rocky planet of decent size and acceptable distance from its star, without the intervention of god??

Who put water and soil on it?

I'm stunned that you'd be so critical of science and yet not be educated in the basic facts of it.

Or are you so full of hate toward God and the Bible

Thats right, the only reason a person can accept a well supported scientific theory is because they 'hates the bible and jesus'.


Do you have any evidence to support creationism or no? Whats the scientific theory of creationism by the way? Or would you agree that its not scientific?



[edit on 14-10-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I have to agree with Nygdan (ow the horror, the horror
)
The belief in Creationism in of itself is not a conspiracy.
The conspiracy lies with the agenda that some Creationists have in attempting to supplant science. Examples of which is the recent halabahoo in Topeka, Kansas, the trial that is taking place in Philidephia are just a few examples of what I am saying.
I will though say that there is another conspiracy. This one is lead by the scientific communitee as well as many wannaba scientists that basically want to deny the possibility that creationism. Sorry could not help myself.
FYI, as my buddy Nygdan can tell you, I am a beleiver in Creationism


[edit on 14-10-2005 by kenshiro2012]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
The PBS show was really good. It gave the current understanding of human events. And it is amazing, that it's now understood that many human species existed at the same time, not in a linear pattern of evolution. Even to the extent that they existed at the same time, and in the same place! Catch the show if you can.

I would say our understanding of the past is evolving, as we search for the truth.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
The PBS show was really good. It gave the current understanding of human events. And it is amazing, that it's now understood that many human species existed at the same time, not in a linear pattern of evolution. Even to the extent that they existed at the same time, and in the same place! Catch the show if you can.

I would say our understanding of the past is evolving, as we search for the truth.



Star Pilot -- I'd say we've got species of man in existence right now. We've got all kinds and varieties of people. How come we call them "races?" If we're just animals, shouldn't we refer to these races or types as "species?"

How come if you're extinct you're a species? If you're alive, you're a race? Huh?


[edit on 14-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I have to agree with Nygdan (ow the horror, the horror
)
The belief in Creationism in of itself is not a conspiracy.
The conspiracy lies with the agenda that some Creationists have in attempting to supplant science. Examples of which is the recent halabahoo in Topeka, Kansas, the trial that is taking place in Philidephia are just a few examples of what I am saying.
I will though say that there is another conspiracy. This one is lead by the scientific communitee as well as many wannaba scientists that basically want to deny the possibility that creationism. Sorry could not help myself.
FYI, as my buddy Nygdan can tell you, I am a beleiver in Creationism


[edit on 14-10-2005 by kenshiro2012]


Wanting a place at the table is not supplanting. Although I agree that once students in school are presented with the evidence for both theories -- Creationism (which in my book is not a theory but is self-evident) and Evolution -- they will mostly all choose Creationism. That's why the atheists are so desperate to keep Creationism out of the schools because nobody in their right mind believes in evolution when it's laid out for what it is and presented side by side with the truth. Kind of like teaching communism side by side with capitalism -- which you gonna' choose?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join