Originally posted by CyberWasp
Let the debate begin.

What debate?

What did you find most convincing from that page?

Did you check out the 13 slide shows that put forward the theory in a simple fashion.
I will quote the text from the site to give a brief outline of the Theory.

"DNA provides conclusive proof of what the Sumerians wrote 4000 years ago when they said that their down-to-earth "gods" created humans and domesticated plants and animals in "a house of fashioning" to "give the gods their ease." In other words, they genetically engineered the things they needed to make life for themselves as easy as possible on what had to be a distant and no doubt difficult outpost far from their home planet. This is now the core of intervention theory, and this is what will prevail against the three current leaders in the race to identify the truth about origins on our planet."

I just think it is a much better theory as to the origin of man.
Things like how did we come to have a pair less of chromosones and why we have so many defects and less strength when compared to the other primates.
I get your point on the Bigfoot and Starchild stuff being a bit "out there" though.
I think the links back to the Sumerians writings are good also. We can see how distorted things have become since then hence the different religions with their take on what happened that came along later.
Is there a link on your site that summarizes the main points. There is a lot of info there to look through.

Originally posted by CyberWasp
"DNA provides conclusive proof of what the Sumerians wrote 4000 years ago when they said that their down-to-earth "gods" created humans and domesticated plants and animals in "a house of fashioning" to "give the gods their ease."

What evidence supports this? If anything, the evidence seems to strongly refute it.

I just think it is a much better theory as to the origin of man.

Why?

What evidence supports this? If anything, the evidence seems to strongly refute it.

How does it refute that humans contain 223 genes that do not relate to any other invertebrate. 223 genes that only recently appeared in 'evolutionary time' We might share almost 99% of the genes of a Chimpanzee but someone has inserted these 223 genes that were not of this earth. We are a cross between a primate and a ????
How come the answer on how they appeared was written on old Sumarian tablets thousands of years ago. How did they have the knowlege to write about something that we have only recently discovered through the mapping of the Human DNA?

Originally posted by CyberWasp
How does it refute that humans contain 223 genes that do not relate to any other invertebrate. 223 genes that only recently appeared in 'evolutionary time' We might share almost 99% of the genes of a Chimpanzee but someone has inserted these 223 genes that were not of this earth. We are a cross between a primate and a ????

Hmmm... maybe I am missing something here. How does the presence or absence of genes in invertebrates relate to this discussion?

I don't recall seeing that in the slide shows on that site.

Which 223 genes are we talking about? When he says 'not related' what does that mean.... 30% homology, maybe? What exactly does he mean by not related?

Not related means that the genes are not assoiciated with any other lifeform on this earth and suddenly appeared some 300 000 years ago.
Every other living entity on earth can have all of its genes accounted for as to what they are related to. We are the only organism that gained this change in such a small period of 'evolutionary time' that gave us the advantage that we have today.
This was not listed on the web site link at the top but is related to the theory.

Originally posted by CyberWasp
Not related means that the genes are not assoiciated with any other lifeform on this earth and suddenly appeared some 300 000 years ago.

Hmmm.... without any evidence to support myself whatsoever, I'm going to go out on a limb here: in my professional opinion, this is total BS.

Every other living entity on earth can have all of its genes accounted for as to what they are related to.

Now, I don't need evidence to refute this; the complete genomes of how many organisms have been sequenced? It's like 200-300 or something, certainly not enough to say that 'every living entity...' stuff that you wrote. However, even so, I doubt this is true. Even if it the genes of some organism appear to have arisen from nowhere doesn't make it absolutely so. Furthermore, it doesn't necessarily confirm this particular version of how these genes came to be. Believe me, I understand the inclination to want to see things from a perspective of design, but you can't just go along with any whacko that spouts some theory... especially when they don't seem to be very forthcoming with info re: sources.

We are the only organism that gained this change in such a small period of 'evolutionary time' that gave us the advantage that we have today.
This was not listed on the web site link at the top but is related to the theory.

Again, until ANY of this can be some how supported, verified, backed up, documented, whatever... I'm going to have to call it bull. No offense intended of course.

BTW, with respect to the title of this thread, it seems like this 'Intervention' theory is a creation theory.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by mattison0922]

In summary a Evolutionist would say that life somehow began and assembled itself out of organic molecules. A Creationist would say that everything was created in 6 days, and an Interventionist would say that "they" created us.

Originally posted by CyberWasp
In summary a Evolutionist would say that life somehow began and assembled itself out of organic molecules.

Okay... agreed.

A Creationist would say that everything was created in 6 days,

A Biblical Young-earth Creationist would think this... but there are other forms of 'creationism.' Old-Earth Creationism doesn't subscribe to this belief, nor do other forms of creationism based on creation myths, including the Sumerian myth.

and an Interventionist would say that "they" created us.

Nonetheless, it still makes Intervention theory a type of creationism or a type of ID.

Evolution? Bollocks.
God? Bollocks.


This theory surprisingly makes more sense than any of these two.



[edit on 24-11-2009 by IrnBruFiend]