It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intervention Theory KO's Evolution & Creation Theories

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Out of all the theories this one makes the most sense to me.
www.lloydpye.com...
Check out the simple slide shows (Red Link in the 'What is Intervention Theory") and post what you think.
Let the debate begin.




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by CyberWasp
Let the debate begin.

What debate?

What did you find most convincing from that page?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
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."



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberWasp
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 read every slide show on that site. Personally, I found their explanation of said DNA evidence highly lacking. The supposed evidence that two chromosomes were fused purposefully exists, so what is this evidence? Is it specific DNA sequences in particular? There's no reason he shouldn't reveal the evidence; it would make his case stronger. He mentions evidence, but he never explicitly describes the evidence, even in a cursory fashion. It's all well and good to state that something exists, but every now and then someone's going to ask you to put up... this guy doesn't seem prepared... I mean at the very least, he could cite references so I could look something up myself. When someone doesn't support what they're saying with some sort of documentation, it bugs me. Perhaps he's like Sitchin though, who he seems to be fond of; perhaps only he understands the DNA evidence and pretty much the rest of the world has got it wrong.

Also, and maybe I'm being naive here, but the idea that some governmental conspiracy exists to quiet the farmers in rural OK about the 'bigfeet' that are wandering across their land sounds... kind of ridiculous to me. I looked into this 'starchild' thing too... not sure what to make about any of this, but in any case, I think this guy's info is highly suspect.

Finally, if what this site says is true, then it just makes humans a form of ID, but ironically doesn't actually solve the question that ID is interested in, which biological origins in general.

Anyway... can you perhaps describe why you think the evidence for 'Interventionism' is so much more overwhelming than say the evidence for evolution presented on the TO Archive? Just curious.

[edit on 8-1-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

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?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CyberWasp
How does it refute that humans contain 223 genes that do not relate to any other invertebrate.

Why do you think that that is unusual?


but someone has inserted these 223 genes

That begs the question. Were the differences between man and other organisms inserted or did they evolve naturally. The mere existence of differences between organisms doesn't mean that aliens inserted them. And when you look at the genome, there is nothing that says 'alien dna'. Also a lot of the genes that are 'different' are merely variations / alterations of genes found in other animals. IF we can have evidence about alien intervention and the like, then I'd say that that contradicts it. I'm not entirely sure that we can have evidence like that in that way though.


How come the answer on how they appeared was written on old Sumarian tablets thousands of years ago.

There is no such answer on any sumerian texts. What one in particular are you thinking of? The Sumerians didn't know about genetics.

The closest that they probably came, interestingly, is represented in things like this:


Sometimes the figure is represented as such


The idea here is that the preists with their ceremonial masks are taking the pines and cones of some trees and using them to pollinate other trees, they are thus domesticating and selecting these normally wild plants.

However, this is not genetics, this requires no awareness of genes, and, indeed, since we do have representations like this, but not of, say, actual genetics experiments or even, say, chi squares in cuneiform (wouldn't that be interesting), they probably didn't have this technology or knowledge.

I suspect that you are thinking of sitchin, however, I, quite honestly, haven't even seen that he can actually read sumerian cuneiform, and get the impression that he takes transliterations, or even outright translations, of texts, and re-works them according to his own interpretation.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Evolution? Bollocks.
God? Bollocks.


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



[edit on 24-11-2009 by IrnBruFiend]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join