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.
Originally posted by projectvxn
Um. No. They didn't make it far. I'm speaking of dinos in the classic sense please don't play semantics here. It's a good way to cloud the issue.
We only give humans between 300,000 and 1,000,000 years evolution time. That's a VERY short time to accrue such rapid changes to the point that now we are traveling in in air and space. Do you not suppose, that if this is indeed the case, that if evolution really works that fast, that a creature who first appeared 100,000,000 years ago, survived several extinction events, would have evolved sufficiently that they technically, under stated criteria, just shouldn't be around anymore? If you can explain that then we have ourselves a debate.
Between 10 and 15 thousand years ago humans, modern ones, were still hunter gatherers. Then, out of nowhere, about 6 thousand years ago we start to build HUGE monuments and plow farm land? Where is the in between period of trial and error? HOW did they learn to farm on a mass scale in such a short time?
And how on Earth did we pick out the correct wild grasses? such as corn and what not. And to add to the mystery...Wild corn doesn't exist anymore. That is a process that should take a million or two years to breed out due to our agricultural processes...And yet, we've only been farming regularly since about 5 thousand or so BC.
If we're going to use ourselves as a model, then their should be several Earth based intelligent species right now, right here on this planet. Starting with a creature far older than the croc...The ROACH. You don't hear anyone talking about the roach in a secret plot to control the Earth. And they're a more likely candidate. So what, do you suppose is wrong with this picture?
Originally posted by projectvxn
I guess no one liked this one...Hehehe
Originally posted by Tiste Andii
reply to post by projectvxn
You assume that Reptilians come from earth. What if they are from another planet?
If they are from another planet then they may not be anything like the reptiles found on earth.
Originally posted by undo
The muslim, akkadian and hebrew texts, claim an eden/a paradise, that doesn't seem to have ever been on this planet. It was at the other end of a long journey threw gates that only "demigods" or "gods" could access. This is indicated in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the book of Genesis, as well as the sumerian stories of Enki, Enlil, Ninmah and Inana and the egyptian stories of the paradise afterlife, which was accessed by a series of gates and a long journey threw the stars on the heavenly boat.
Instead, the earth belonged to a race of reptilians. How they became upright, bipedal, intelligent, capable of nursing their young, and living together in social communities, is beyond me. But some of their ilk would later be called Seraphim (an angelic race).
Once in a great while, you'll encounter a theologian who has worked all this out, and has found additional info scattered willy nilly throughout biblical texts, such as Dake's theory that the entire solar system was inhabited by the ancestors of the Seraphim who had advanced technologically. Further studies can be read online, by Dr. Michael S. Heiser, on the subject of the Nachash and His Seed, Some Explanatory Notes on Why the Serpent in Genesis 3 wasn't a Serpent"
www.thedivinecouncil.com...
Anyway, it's my current theory that we were brought here from somewhere else, and not somewhere else on this planet, but literally some where else in the universe.
[edit on 27-1-2008 by undo]
Originally posted by speaker
This is a ridiculous thread! You are trying to prove the non-existence of Reptilians with a bunch of floored semi-scientific arguments loaded with skewed personal beliefs and constrained by a multitude of conditions that you dictate others must debate within in order to validate their response. True, the Reptilians may well be a myth, but your argument does nothing to persuade one to draw that conclusion.