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.

 

Neandertals and Modern Humans Coexisted?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher
A bird may develop a longer beak to reach deeper into crevasses to retrieve bugs/food, and another bird may instead adapt another trait that better suits it's needs.


Adaptation is using something designed for one purpose for another, different purpose. Your example of a bird growing a longer beak is evolution, because the original animal did not have the long beak in the first place.


Originally posted by the_watcherThis adaptation can only go so far because it is impossible to adapt to an environment that simply cannot sustain that particular animal. For example a fish cannot adapt lungs and fins suited for land travel. A fish is designed to live in the water. It does not have the genetic information required to adapt to life outside of water. If it even attempts it the fish will die.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by the_watcher]


Do you think the lungfish is a terrible beast, made up by evolutionists to put a slight on the divine word of the LORD, then?

[edit on 11-9-2008 by C.C.Benjamin]




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher
I do not believe in the Nephilim. I cannot find a single reference to them in the King James or NIV bibles, but if I have missed them please let me know.

I will not accept creations of other religions or of non-canonical texts on the basis that if you begin to indoctrinate impurities into your religion you end up with a diluted mess and you can lose sight of the original text.

I do try keep an open mind though. If the Nephilim are mentioned in either the King James or NIV bibles then I will have to consider them as a reality.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by the_watcher]

"Nephilim" is a Hebrew word translated in the Authorized King James version as "giants." "There were giants in the earth in those days" (Genesis 6:4). It is true that they were giants in more senses than one. However, the word Nephilim does not mean "giants." It comes from the root "naphal," meaning "fallen ones," and most modern versions of the Bible have left the word "Nephilim" untranslated.
When the word "Nephilim" is used in Numbers 13:33, the question of size and strength is explicit. Here we are left in no doubt as to their superhuman prowess. When Joshua's spies reported back from Canaan, they called certain of the inhabitants of Canaan "giants." "And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."

Some commentators have speculated that the Nephilim of Numbers 13 belonged to a second eruption of fallen angels, since the earlier Nephilim had been destroyed in the Flood. And they see an allusion to this in Genesis 6:4, where it states that "there were Nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men." Could it be that the "after that" was a reference to the Nephilim found in Canaan during the Israelite entry into the land? If so, it could explain why the Lord commanded the total extermination of the Canaanites, as He had earlier ordered the near annihilation of the human race.
More here...



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
[These giants were not confined to the Middle East. Two dozen human footprints of abnormal size have been found in the Paluxi riverbed, Texas, some of them measuring eighteen inches long. Other giant markings have been discovered in such diverse places as Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and California. In the Mt. Vernon area of Ohio, Dr. Wilbur G. Burroughs of the Geological Division of the Berea College, Kentucky, reported finds of human foot prints 23.75 cm. long and 10.25 wide! Near Antelope Springs, Utah, William Meister discovered in 1968 two human footprints 32.5 cm. long and 11.25 wide.

Similar giant footprints have been discovered in other countries especially in the Mt. Victoria region of Australia.]

Interesting link ..thanks for sharing this with us .
I am off to dig into those footprints online .
I noticed they mentioned the ones in the Paluxi riverbeds I have seen these in person ....some of us have discussed this in another thread .



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
There was a giant hominid, but for the life of me the name escapes me.

Still no love for Lungy the Lungfish, then?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Very nice information on the Nephilim.

I am very interested in the historical documentation that may gve further evidence to their existence. You would think we would find fossil records of these "giants."

To my knowledge the only skeletons of abnormal size we've currently discovered are those of what the scientific community believes to be the remains of the fabled Amazonian women.

www.archaeology.org...

Shouldn't there be a fossil record of men as well? And shouldn't we find more?

This subject is rather fascinating... for reasons I don't know if I can mention here, even though they are scientific questions. The problem is that no proper study can be done... since we can't study a paranormal being, such as an Angel.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


The capacity for a bird to develop a different type beak is written in it's genetic code. Birds have beaks, and they have them of all different shapes and sizes. One species of bird can, through the correct stimulus, develop a longer beak (This can be acheived through selective breeding). Its all natural adaptation, and is a part of us all.

This is what Darwin was observing when he wrote his book. The birds on different islands were all adapting to their environment.

The Lungfish is another one of God's creatures, who was designed with a limited ability to kind of, but not totally, live outside of it's natural environment. I can promise you that you will never see the Lungfish permanently adapt to live out it's life on land. The fish is incapable of such an act, or we would have already observed this in nature... and it would be because the fish was designed by God to have done so.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_watcher
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


The capacity for a bird to develop a different type beak is written in it's genetic code.


What is in it's genetic code is apparent in the creature, that is why selective breeding works. It's in favour of certain traits so they become apparent.



Birds have beaks, and they have them of all different shapes and sizes. One species of bird can, through the correct stimulus, develop a longer beak (This can be acheived through selective breeding).


Selective breeding is not a stimulus because it won't change a being with out successive generations.


Its all natural adaptation, and is a part of us all.


Adaptation is natural selection, and is a part of evolution.


This is what Darwin was observing when he wrote his book. The birds on different islands were all adapting to their environment.


..........which is part of evolution.


The Lungfish is another one of God's creatures, who was designed with a limited ability to kind of, but not totally, live outside of it's natural environment. I can promise you that you will never see the Lungfish permanently adapt to live out it's life on land.


This is a self fulfilling prophecy- he wouldn't live long enough.


The fish is incapable of such an act, or we would have already observed this in nature... and it would be because the fish was designed by God to have done so.


First we have seen this in nature before. They're called 'transition species' and we have seen it a lot in the very rich fossil record, in so many cases, that they are almost innumerable. One of the best understood cases is human evolution

Second, you're obviously not very taken on mutations. I bet you've been told that they only result in death or other bad things



"All mutations that take place in humans
result in mental or in physical deformities
such as albinism, mongolism, dwarfism,
or diseases such as cancer."

That’s not quite right. For example, kinfolk in the village of Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. Consequently this family has no history of heart attacks despite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's, but has now spread to dozens of descendants. Genetic samples from this family are now being tested for potential treatment of patients of heart disease.


Because this mutation is beneficial, it will continue to become more and more common among humanity untill eventually it won't be considered a mutation any more and creationist will consider it part of 'Gods design' despite the fact that it was not around before the 1700s



[edit on 9/11/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
There was a giant hominid, but for the life of me the name escapes me.

Still no love for Lungy the Lungfish, then?


Gigantopithecus?

I love Lungy the Lungfish, and I love the Scientific fact of Evolution as well as Eugenie Scott. I DO NOT love creationism as it is NOT factually-based, nor was there a global flood (check the geologic record for confirmation of this statement).



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Evolution is 100% science and creationism is not.

Creationism is not science because creationists start with the conclusions and then find facts to support it.

That's reverse science.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChChKiwi

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
There was a giant hominid, but for the life of me the name escapes me.

Still no love for Lungy the Lungfish, then?


Gigantopithecus?

I love Lungy the Lungfish, and I love the Scientific fact of Evolution as well as Eugenie Scott. I DO NOT love creationism as it is NOT factually-based, nor was there a global flood (check the geologic record for confirmation of this statement).


That's it! I knew it was something along those lines, but couldn't bare to make a hash of it!

I read a very interesting post in a thread, that again I can't remember exactly which one, where a poster had calculated the required amount of water to cover the entire Earth so that it was totally flooded, to discover that there isn't actually enough water on the planet.

Lungy the Lungfish pwns Creationism.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
What is in it's genetic code is apparent in the creature, that is why selective breeding works. It's in favour of certain traits so they become apparent.


I agree with this statement, and have always found this much to be factually sound.



Selective breeding is not a stimulus because it won't change a being with out successive generations.


It is true that humans selectively breed animals in order to get certain traits out of them, but the thing is that this same phenomenon is witnessed in the wild.

I wonder if there is any research that shows birds, or other animals, won't select mates themselves with what could very well be the traits they desire. I know this sounds a bit odd, but I think it's something we humans do to an extent. We are attracted to certain facial and physical features. It would make sense for this to play out in the animal kingdom, would it not?

If it is not the case that animals will select mates they they perceive to have desirable traits then I am sure there is a trigger in the environment to present these traits. Perhaps a study has been done to prove this? (Please post one if that is the case.)


Adaptation is natural selection, and is a part of evolution.


That is a false statement. Adaptation could be argued to be "natural selection" but to attach it to the theory that a single-celled organism can mutate into a multi-celled organism is unfounded.


This is a self fulfilling prophecy- he wouldn't live long enough.


To be more specific the lungfish would be very awkward on land. It's fins and other physical traits are designed for life in water. If it were to live on land for good, never to return to his natural environment, then not only would it be awkward to move efficiently (albeit very possible) I wonder if he'll be able to last a day, and have enough energy to retreive food on land. The Lungfish can survive during periods of low dissolved oxygen such as in stagnant pools during drought by breathing air from the surface every 30 to 60 minutes. So becoming independent of water would be a terrible decision on the fish's behalf.



First we have seen this in nature before. They're called 'transition species' and we have seen it a lot in the very rich fossil record, in so many cases, that they are almost innumerable.


What you have are species that you classify as 'transition species' to satisfy the myth you believe. You have no evidence that these 'transition species' are a part of evolution other than the fact that they are similar.

Take a look at your own genes, as a human, you share 99% of your genes with mice. Why not conclude you evolved from a common ancestor of mice?

archives.cnn.com...

And I never once claimed all mutations are bad, did I? I can very much assure you those words were never posted by me.


Because this mutation is beneficial, it will continue to become more and more common among humanity untill eventually it won't be considered a mutation any more and creationist will consider it part of 'Gods design' despite the fact that it was not around before the 1700s


So can you prove this trait was not around in the 1700s? Wolves used to be wolves and nothing more. In the 2008 we have many, many, different breeds of dogs that we have created ourselves through selective breeding. This does not mean the genetic information needed to become a chihuahua was not present in a wolf. It most certianly was. It simply needed to be coaxed out.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Evolution is 100% science and creationism is not.

Creationism is not science because creationists start with the conclusions and then find facts to support it.

That's reverse science.


This is not so. Especially for me.

I was taught in a public school, and was fed the typical evolutionary bull, but it never made any sense. I took a look at the world around me and I asked mysef "Why would it take millions of years for all of the Grand Canyon to be created, when I know floods can instantly carve through sediment in the same fashion?" and then I started to read about dinosaurs, and thought "What? Millions of years!? That makes no sense." The reason it made no sense was the same reason the Grand Canyon made no sense. A global flood is much more likely to have created it, since vast ammounts of water would be needed (Which can mostly be found underground in vast underground lakes), and all the plants and animals that were drowned and washed away would have been all redeposited across the globe in convenient geological layers, much as they are found today.

Those two things alone simply got me thinking that what we're learning isn't really what happened. I was raised in a Christian family and that only reaffirmed what I had been trying to understand all along. The scientific community has it all wrong.

Oh! And have you noticed the position all Dinosaurs are found in? Quite an odd position, right? They're all twisted and contorted, as if they were suffering... or were drowned... like in a global flood... makes you think.

Or at least it makes anyone who is able to decipher what he is seeing think.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



So if creationism is correct, that means God created neanderthals first I suppose since they are much older than we are. Of course just as God likes to do, he killed them all off. He's funny that way. I believe he's having a grand old time in Darfur lately.

Yes, God is great.

It's good to know we didn't evolve into people that worship money and killing others, but we were created this way. I can sleep better now.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander


So if creationism is correct, that means God created neanderthals first


Nope. Modern day man was created as he is today, minus the genetic defects we're increasingly carrying today.


Of course just as God likes to do, he killed them all off. He's funny that way. I believe he's having a grand old time in Darfur lately.


Actually God hates to kill. After the flood he actually promised "Never again." He loves each and every one of us, as sappy as that may sound.

Genesis 9:11
And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Today's turmoils are not caused by God, no matter what the Catholic church tells you (Sorry, I can't help poking fun at the Catholic church). Instead it is all man's doing. Man is selfish and greedy. He will kill his own heighbor if he can gain from it.

And I think that if anyone wants to blame their actions on God, or the church, then they are not following God. They are simply following their own desires, and twisting God's word along the way to conform to their sick will.

If anyone ever hears that a bad thing was God's fault, I'd question it. That just doesn't sound right. It' not something He'd do.


It's good to know we didn't evolve into people that worship money and killing others, but we were created this way. I can sleep better now.


Sadly we didn't. Unfortunately mankind is cursed by original sin, due to the fall of Adam and Eve. It isn't man's fault he sins. He simply allows himself to be deceived. Psychologically speaking a person can convince himself that what he's doing isn't wrong by creating an excuse for it. Or justifying it in his own mind. We can deceive ourselves very well.

I can't offer an explanation as to why there is so much darkness in this world... and I know you what you want me to say... but it's not God's fault. Man makes his own decisions. Why a man chooses to cause someone else pain is beyond me.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by the_watcher]

[edit on 11-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Good post Watcher and I agree .

Men throughout history have killed killed and killed some more
Man is the one who has a desire to kill and think there is nothing wrong with it ... ............
I watched something on Discovery one time that showed since Cain killed Abel there was nothing but wars after that all throughout history ..Archeological evidence showed even amongst the peaceful peoples there was murder and mayhem all the time between men and men (Tribes and tribes)and murdering each other .They said there was hardly any times that war was not going on through out every generation since day one .


The bible says that men LEARNED WAR ...and that they will learn war no more during the thousand year reign of Jesus Christ.

If God wanted to kill us and was murderous God then we would all be struck dead the first time we even talked back to him or cursed him .. wouldnt we ?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.





Originally posted by the_watcher
Unfortunately mankind is cursed by original sin, due to the fall of Adam and Eve. It isn't man's fault he sins. He simply allows himself to be deceived. Psychologically speaking a person can convince himself that what he's doing isn't wrong by creating an excuse for it. Or justifying it in his own mind. We can deceive ourselves very well.


You're right, but deceived by women is more like it. We give up a rib and she eats the damn apple. Women are cursed.

It's just too bad God didn't hear the prayers of those poor people in Darfur that were getting killed. Sure would have been nice for them if he'd have listened. As a side note, I'm glad he did hear my prayers on getting a PlayStation 3. That's been really cool.

So back on topic. God created modern man then to be in his own image. The neanderthals (and all the other offshoots) must have been practice then. He did a good job with the basics and then "crap!...this one is too hairy or I made that forehead too big."

And the dinosaurs were just mean. I'm glad they got wiped out in the floods and Moses didn't get those suckers two-by-two for the Ark. He did get a few million species on board, but he would have needed way more room for a couple brontos if you know what I'm saying.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
No more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark.

www.christiananswers.net...



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.





Originally posted by the_watcher
No more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark.

www.christiananswers.net...


Like I said, glad Moses didn't toss a couple T-Rex in the mix. It's much better that they all died in the flood.

Hmmm, wonder what happened to all the water-based dinos? Stupid details. They probably drowned too.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Hmmm, wonder what happened to all the water-based dinos? Stupid details. They probably drowned too.


We still have the Coelicanth, the nautilus, lungfish ( derived from the Devonian period, if you believe in evolution... I don't, but you're asking for living fossils so I'm being specific here.), and there was that decayed carcass accidentally netted by a Japanese trawler near New Zealand in 1977 (Possibly a Basking Shark).

en.wikipedia.org...

Beyond that I'm sure there are more to be discovered. We're still discovering brand new sea creatures after all! Took us quite a while to catch a glimpse of a living Giant Squid, but we finally did it.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by the_watcher]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Another "footprint"... in time.
Scientists Interested In Large Footprint Discovery
Fossil Imprint Is 11 Inches Wide, 15 inches Long COOKEVILLE, Tenn. -- A retired Cookeville builder has discovered a mysterious set of large footprints on his property.
Giant Footprint



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join