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.

 

Reptilians A Breakdown of a few evolutionary facts

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
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.




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   

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.


It is not a semantic argument. In a scientific-sense, birds are considered dinosaurs. And your "classic" view of dinosaurs is far off; for instance, you talk about them being cold-blooded creatures, who did not care for their young. Evidence and scientific thought on these matters shows you are wrong. Dinosaurs were endothermic, and many species did care for their young.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Myths are truths misrepresented in my opinion. Not by the people who wrote them but by the people who interpret them today. David Icke uses them to support his crock of BS, Sitchin, although far more credible in his field than Icke uses alot of the same texts to support his theories, and to his credit modern science has, indeed, corroborated a few of his claims, most are yet to be proven. There are others who are convinced through the same texts that we have an Active StarGate program(This may actually be true, I have read a few theoretical and scientific journals that support the theory behind the claim but nothing concrete), and then there are those who use the ancient texts to justify dumb crap, like religious persecution, genocide, murder, slavery, you name it, there's a sacred text allowing it.

You're right on the dinosaur thing by the by. But I really was referring to the classic sense of dino extinction, and not trying to take validity from your point. I'm afraid it may have com off that way. And for that I apologize.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I mean come on didn't you ever watch Jurassic park?! The T-Rex came after its baby! /end sarcasm. In any case science has flip-flopped back and forth from warm blooded to cold blooded, and there are people who will fight for either side. To me it's ludicrous the amount of "reptilian" crap thats been going on. A political candidate blinks and it proves they exist. *sigh*



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


I believe there was a misunderstanding in what I said and to clarify I offer this.

I refered to dinosaurs a couple of times and probably didn't express myself correctly and again I apologize. I know full well most dinosaur species are related to birds and are warm blooded creatures. But in my original post I ONLY refered to prehistoric and modern REPTILES and reptiles are NOT nurturing creatures. I have first had experience with reptiles(modern ones anyway) and very few so much as stand guard. And on that point I am correct. And even fewer than that actually feed their young long enough to ensure absolute survival of at least the more vulnerable stages of the youngsters life. There are exceptions to the rule, however, by and large reptiles are not likely to be nurturing creatures. Which is why I don't think that David Icke has his head on straight and that is what this is about. Because you have to be nurturing to some higher degree, as we mammals are, to establish and maintain a society, something else I don't think Reptoid freaks like Icke have considered. Furthermore Ickes story reads as one of my posts when I don't catch all of my grammatical and spelling errors.

For example:

"The Government has layers upon layers of conspiracy to control you." That became "The Government has layers upon layers of conspiracy to control you at the whim of our Reptilian Overlords" which in turn became "The Government has layers upon layers of conspiracy to control you at the whim of our Reptilian Overlords who are concealing the fact that were all in The Matrix".

And that's the meat and cheese of the matter all things aside. I'm trying, to the best of my ability, to bring light to charlatans like him. Him and James Casbolt are damn near the same guy. It's all very convincing science fiction..The only difference between the two is that Icke got a publisher with a better marketing staff to sell his BS, and Casbolt is just not a good liar.



[edit on 18-1-2008 by projectvxn]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PotatoDaddy
 


I'm trying to proved that they don't. The reptilian crap, as you say, is what inspired me to disprove such silly claims. And dino are warm blooded and if I did allude to the otherwise, I have been awake all night writing code, I may have made a mistake. And I'm not willing to argue for cold blooded velociraptors because I know that isn't true.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
So let me get this straight... You're telling me that reptilians are NOT running the planet from their subterrainian lairs??? Next you'll try to tell me that Hillary Clinton is not a reptilian shapeshifter. Sheesh.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Before I go further, I agree with your general stance about reptilians. I am arguing your points below merely for the sake of debate and to help refine your thoughts. Not that I'm smarter and you need help, but I enjoy when my viewpoints challenged so that I can check for holes or reinforce my view.



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.


Evolution works at a slow pace, (in general, over time, i know there are rapid changes). Self awareness, reason, and choice works much faster. Using animal hide for clothing, hunting with spears, these sorts of things drastically increased survivability and the ability to sustain large populations. The larger the population the faster evolution moves, in the sense that there are more chances for mutation or adaptation.



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?


There was a period of trial and error, you're just overlooking it. If you control agriculture for a large population, you also control the workforce. I'm not sure if you're giving the 'how could they build the pyramid' argument but there are precursors to many of these things. You learn to farm fast when you have mouths to feed.

In it's simplest terms you could find an area naturally growing a crop and nurture it. The area is most likely near water, another obvious advantage. The early hunter/gathers you mentioned were nomadic. When you acquire a stable food source you don't need to find food. The establishment of permanent settlements, near water, increased the amount of fish that was eating by the population. The high amount of protein ingested from the fish is one of the leading factors to the increase of brain size/capability in our species. The brain absolutely needs high levels of protein to function at it's peak.

Creating settlements also allows more free time. Time to think, invent, discuss, imagine, etc. Paired with a growing brain, advances began to occur exponentially. The increase of language, communication, and trade sped the flow of information as well. As individuals we reached a level of consciousness and adaptation far beyond anything on earth at the time. The ability to share information with other species members multiplied that factor.

A complex language is essential to the rapid rise of humanity. Our vocal cords, larynx, etc. can produce many distinct sounds. The system was developed over time but was largely in place early in our history.



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.


Why should it take a million or two years? If we find or use the majority of fertile land, in climates capable of supporting corn, then we have dominated the population of wild corn. I don't know much about corn specifically but I assume if it was there we found it. Fertile land was like ocean front property back then, especially with a rapidly expanding population. I don't see how there would be areas of wild corn undiscovered by man over that time period.



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?


Um... because roaches ... seriously, i'm not going to argue why roaches aren't kings but I get what you're saying. It comes down to this.

Humans were at the right place, with the right tools, at the right time.

And if I'm not mistaken, that's sort of what you're arguing for, that reptilians didn't evolve as we did. So i'm not really disagreeing, I'm just responding to some of your points



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by speaker
 


Spot on! And thats why this will be my last post in this thread. See ya!




posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 


VERY well stated and thank you for finally establishing a point that's debatable.

Firstly the time line seems a bit wrong to me. Yes species were nomadic. But lets think about what that means for a minute. Nomadic peoples around the world at the time survived through rudimentary tool making and hunting. This is a neolithic type of people with varied, yet primitive forms of stone masonry. They moved from place to place in what was then a seriously harsh environment. We're talking Ice Age here. for the sake of simplicity we'll begin at 15,000 years. Remember that it took mammals damn near 4 billion years to appear on this planet. Most of the world was cold, cold cold, migrating people had to hunt for things like animal skins to keep warm and to eat in this harsh environment. If we're going to use a CLASSIC model for human evolution, then please explain to me why there are still pre-megalithic cultures around the world who aren't nomadic, but are still hunter/gatherers. These people had no contact with the larger monolithic civilizations, which kinda puts a huge, if unnoticed gap in development that I believe needs addressing. If farming and monument building come naturally then according to your logic these people should be as advanced as anyone else in the world but they're not. I'm speaking, of course, of tribal cultures that exist on Earth today. There are many examples. These people do not farm. They hunt and find already fruit bearing trees, which logic your dictates, eventually led to mass farming communities, yet these people do not demonstrate this leap in logic.

About rapid changes:
There are only a few known examples of rapid change in evolution in this planet that we can draw from. Which is why I think this argument is a bit dubious at best. Consider this. If we our DNA had mutated in such a way as to allow for the Cortex to develop, then what cause it? Current model say star birth in this galaxy caused the mutation to take place...But if that is true then why do we not see evidence of this across the world species genome(Not just humans but everything)? Scientists found 25 genes in humans that are entirely unique to humans, where did we get these genes? Most of the world shares the vast majority of genes within a certain amount of base pairs. We have 30,000 base pairs or so. Shouldn't we have more? We're the ones that build pyramids and rocketry, why not? Fact is no one knows how these changes came about. And this point is hard for me to argue, when I believe we were genetically altered purposefully. And taught to farm, by who? I dunno. No one does and that's my point.

Point on wild grasses and the need to feed mouths:
Wild grasses such as corn and barley have lost the traceable route to their ancestors. Wild form of these grasses should be genetically traceable and scientists know that these plant would have been vastly different than what we currently know today. Yet there is no genetic trace. This does NOT take a few thousand years to accomplish. You must see it for the anomaly that it is. As for feeding mouths..Which is a damn good point mind you..And need breeds massive change when there are no viable alternatives. But there were. Fishing, and hunting were the basis of everyone's diet back then. If they had been in dire need near water they would have eaten alot of sea food. Why would a species such a ours give up the only known food source for a gamble like farming? Doesn't that seem a bit anomalous as well?

Complex Language:
It is true that complex language aided in our development. New ideas were kicked back and forth and what not..Bu this doesn't explain the genetic anomalies. There's just too many unknowns. If Reptilians had evolved to complex society then why do we not see evidence of their evolutionary process? Should it not be that they too would go through such a period?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by speaker
 


I'm trying to add simplicity. And the original post is based on reptilian evolution on THIS planet. Simple as that. I don't have a point of reference for evolution on another planet. Neither does anyone else. Gotta work with what I got.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Horusnow
 


Oh please, your original post was based on mythological references which many people today use to fuel their various forms of BS. All drawing from the same sources. You didn't even bother to respond to what I had said to your argument. And yet here you are proclaiming how invalid this all is.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
I guess no one liked this one...Hehehe


I quite enjoyed it


New, fresh and sensible. I will make you an instant pariah among the Reptilian Crowd.


I know, I know; off topic and does not add to the discussion. My bad.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


No it's all right. But I don't wanna be part of such a diluted world. I am, to the best of my ability, trying to get some answers to questions no one is asking. It seems to me that people like Icke are getting a free lunch with nothing to back it up.



[edit on 18-1-2008 by projectvxn]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

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.




So they fly here, land, avoid typically reptilian behaviour such as immediately feasting on us and all other life forms they can capture, and instead go underground. On what is to them an alien planet. Underground. Where the food isn't. Where the sun isn't. With their super-science. And their handbag-like skin.

Wow.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DogHead
 


I could argue the science all day long...But this just tops it for me.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
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]



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

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]


Our theories match then. I believe we were at the very least, genetically engineered. However, the Standard Model of Reptilians evolving on Earth doesn't work with what we know of Reptile behaviors on Earth and we can accurately track they're evolution since for a very long time they were the dominant species on Earth and we do share the traits of the lower brain with them. The extraterrestrial hypothesis that is popular amongst people makes little sense as well. Alien species shows up to alien world, ignores environment, and goes underground for no apparent reason. Underground where it is full of toxic gases, magma flows, seismic activity, no food, no sunlight. None of that makes sense, even if they don't follow the reptile model of living. The whole thing just sounds stupid and pseudo-scientific.

The case for reptile like aliens is very compelling when one looks at the Bible and other religious texts. But to construct some sort of fictitious apparatus that no one will ever prove or disprove is just another ploy to make money by charlatans like Icke.



posted on Feb, 7 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

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.


Well first, debates have structure. And for the sake of simplicity I added structure to the debate. And since we have no point of reference to evolution on another planet, one cannot debate on that without sounding like an idiot and I would hate to turn a thread in to that.

Secondly you say this is semi-scientific. Don't charge that without explaining yourself. That is bogus. Everything I have stated is tried and true reptile study. You say it's floored as well, I say it's rooted and grounded. Do the research yourself before charging that I'm not using scientific fact. I worked as a reptile specialist for 2 years and am certified in reptile care. I know what I'm talking about.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join