The True Origins of Human Beings

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


Thanks for the links you've listed. It has been interesting going over the material. Zecharia Sitchin manages to blend different beliefs together (bible verses, early hominids, technology) all in a plausible way.

While it does take a bit of an open mind, I find the theory a worthwhile consideration. Thanks for sharing it.




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   


Starting with the Sumerians [...] every culture accepted for a fact that heavenly beings (Or Gods) had created Man kind - homosapiens- Some coincidence to be a "myth".


This is deceptive; subsequent cultures proliferated the same ideas simply because they borrowed from each other and borrowed from the belief systems before. Christianity does this with the various sun-god stories about virgin births, sacrifice and resurrection. They all follow the same pattern simply because cultures are borne of those beforehand. Non-coincidental indeed.

At any rate, a popular belief DOES NOT constitute a correct or accurate one. Neither does a historically older one.




Evolution cannot account for the appearance of *Homo sapiens*, which happened virtually overnight instead of the millions of years evolution requires


Evolutionary theory can account for the appearance of Homo Sapiens. The rate of speciation within a genus does not necessarily take millions of years; it depends on the rate of mutation, the rate of selection, environmental changes and competiton. As such, it does not follow a timetable; evolution does not plan ahead.

At any rate, the genus Homo appeared about 2 million years ago (as I recall, anyway), of which Homo Sapiens is only one of many (now extinct) species. There are known species that emerged after Erectus and before Sapiens, including H. Floresiensis, H. Heidelbergensis and H. Neanderthalensis - which shows, if anything, that the rate of speciation was pretty explosive.




with no evidence of earlier stages that would indicate a gradual change from *Homo erectus*


The assumption that H.Sapiens evolved from H.Erectus is one of two main rivalling theories. The dominant theory right now, as I understand it, is that H.Sapiens speciated in Africa and subsequently replaced H.Erectus and H.Neanderthalensis. The model you appear to work from is one that states H.Sapiens evolved from an existing widespread species, in this case H.Erectus.

Since there isn't much fossil evidence to say if this is true, it is worth noting that studies of mitochondrial (maternal) DNA and Y-chromosome (paternal) DNA both appear to support a more recent emergence of H.Sapiens in Africa. This still states that H.Sapiens is a recent event, as you mentioned, but nobody else sees this as a problem, because evolution isn't stuck to a timetable. It is accepted that we are a young species.




He appeared inexplicably some 300,000 years ago, millions of years too soon.


Again, I question where you are getting your evolutionary timetable from. Too soon? Says who?




The scholars have no explanation. The Sumerians and Babylonian texts do, the Old Testament does. *Homo sapiens*-- modern man-- was brought about by the ancient gods


You question the emergence of H.Sapiens based on a lack of fossil evidence showing gradual changes from H.Erectus - but you are willing to accept that an ancient civilization used a "God of the Gaps" argument with no other evidence than Sumerian mythology and stories? This galls me somewhat.




Former CIA official Victor Marchetti spelled out indirectly in 1979 "We have, indeed, been contacted......and the U.S. government, in collusion with other national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public".


This is irrelevant to human evolution, and you have presented this erroneous item to support an equally erroneous assumption:




The ancient accounts tell us that these hybrid bloodlines, the fusion of the genes of selected humans with those of the "gods", were put into the positions of ruling royal power,
"God" are the aliens


You have no evidence for this claim, and it is not the product of any obvious logical progression. To conclude, evolution is the best supported explanation of H.Sapiens we have so far.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


You are right on!!

I have been trying to explain this theory and some catch on, most don't...

They don't want to catch on because it 'messes with their religion'.

We are CLONES of our alien ancesters (Annunaki) and the apes that roamed here. That is the story of Genensis....The Sumerians tell a true account, however they could only assume that the 'gods' (Annunaki) created Heaven and Earth because that's all they knew to exist at the time and they found out that mankind came from them, and presumbly everything else as well.

'God' is just a term, a noun, to describe the Annunaki scientist that decided to clone us in the Annunaki image:

" Let US make mankind in OUR image, according to OUR likings.."



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


There are two involved...

a. The Observer...

b. The Observed...


So there are three Components to myself.

the Observer.... My Entity which perhaps we could call the LIFE force or perhaps we could call it Awareness, Consciousness, or Mind (not Human)

The Observed being my Body, Earth and Universe and other universes and worlds unlike universes.

And thirdly the System, (processing System) I experience the world through...

I presume you are relating to that which is being experienced called the body, flesh or humankind ???

But to understand the source or origin of the human body, then you have to take into account the other Two Components...

The origin of a character on say seen on TV does Not come from the TV, but through that Processing System involving TV.

So in the case of the World or Universe, the Origin of the human or any other species, is Not of the Universe, but through what, produces that experience, called the Universe.

No I am not referring to a god, of human invention, but rather something, that has produced both the mechanics, and the rules or Laws of physics etc. involved in the mechanics of the Universe.

And also what has produced the manifestation of the Universe, both as it is experienced, as well as what produces that experience!



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Check out this mind blowing Coast to Coast interview with Michael Tellinger about Human Origins and the Annunaki "gods" of Sumeria from which the Biblical creation myths arose.



Another Coast to Coast program about the Great Pyramids and Shroud of Turin.




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
It's strange, people keep reiterating that evolution can't account for homo sapiens, when several of their ancestors have already been discovered and show the same constant theme of slow change over time. What is the "sudden" change in homo sapiens that differs from their ancestors? Unless you are referring to 400,000+ years as "virtually overnight." The homo genus as a whole goes back 2.5 million years. But yeah, it's pretty much overnight that humans popped up.
edit on 15-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
It's strange, people keep reiterating that evolution can't account for homo sapiens, when several of their ancestors have already been discovered and show the same constant theme of slow change over time. What is the "sudden" change in homo sapiens that differs from their ancestors? Unless you are referring to 400,000+ years as "virtually overnight." The homo genus as a whole goes back 2.5 million years. But yeah, it's pretty much overnight that humans popped up.
edit on 15-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


And they just found a new one--dated to 14,000--11,000 BP.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
And they just found a new one--dated to 14,000--11,000 BP.


Yeah, that's pretty wild. I just saw that thread. It seems like homo sapiens and their cousins were all over the place and dominated the world even during that last glacial period. It is pretty crazy how they all died out except us. Something big must have happened, besides just the glacial period ending. I think you are dead on about that impact event around 8-9 thousand years ago. Something definitely caused mass extinction of hominids during that time and wiped away most evidence of their existence.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I feel that if evolution didn't completely siphon off all spirituality from the human being. It at the very least, wouldn't be half as ridiculuos to those who can't help but percieve it as such. There are so many unseen forces
in the universe that are evidenced objectively. That to consider any explanation of origins that fails to address and include mans undeniable spirituality ? At least for me ? Begins at a point of ridicule. For some reason that makes me very suspicious of this very young hypothesis.

Gobekli Tepe
edit on 16-3-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

That picture is wrong. Humans and chimps are closer than either is to gorillas.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Yeah, that's pretty wild. I just saw that thread. It seems like homo sapiens and their cousins were all over the place and dominated the world even during that last glacial period.

Actually, they were not all over the place, and certainly did not dominate the world. Homo sapiens is the first abundant great ape species, and this only happened because of the neolithic revolution. It's only after that, that our numbers started increasing. Something like 5-10% of all the people that ever lived are alive right now.
edit on 16-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

The cerebral cortex increased tremendously in size over a rather short period thou, something like just 2,000,000 years. Goes to show that there was extremely strong selection towards higher intelligence and general ability to plan stuff ahead..



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
Who are we, and where did we come from?

Starting with the Sumerians, the first great culture 6,000 years ago that spawned the Bablylonians, Persians, and Assyrians, through ALL subsequent "Intelligent advanced civilizations" and "non-advanced" indigenous cultures including the American Indians of North America, Mayan and Inca empires of South America, Aborigines of Australia, ancient Chinese and Hindu text scriptures from the Far East, Egyptians, of the Middle East, Dogons of Africa, and the Greek and Roman Gods of "mythology", every culture accepted for a fact that heavenly beings (Or Gods) had created Man kind - homosapiens- Some coincidence to be a "myth",


We have this ability to think in the abstract. That and great communication skills is what has allowed us to advance, to invent, to create things that has never existed, to understand concepts like math and to try and explain things we do not understand with abstract thoughts. Religion is one abstract thought, and is a byproduct of this great ability we have.




Evolution cannot account for the appearance of *Homo sapiens*, which happened virtually overnight instead of the millions of years evolution requires and with no evidence of earlier stages that would indicate a gradual change from *Homo erectus*. The hominid of the genus *Homo* is a product of evolution. But *Homo sapiens* is the product of some sudden evolutionary event. He appeared inexplicably some 300,000 years ago, millions of years too soon. The scholars have no explanation. The Sumerians and Babylonian texts do, the Old Testament does. *Homo sapiens*-- modern man-- was brought about by the ancient gods


What is over night? If we go back 12,000 years there was maybe 10,000 humans on the planet...we have been almost extinct a few times, as some of our close cousins are. We did not fair very well through the ice age. I read a book and it said that one of the problem with determining human origins is all the physical evidence of ancient man can fit in a pickup truck bed. i.e. we just do not have much since the conditions need to be just right for anything to survive the ages. Man of 300 thousand years ago looked much different than man today, and if you go back farther than that 500k to 800k we start to talk about a different species.



I see no explosion out of nowhere and I see us evolve just like other animals, except we haven't died off yet since we have been able to control our environment.






edit on 16-3-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Actually, they were not all over the place, and certainly did not dominate the world. Homo sapiens is the first abundant great ape species, and this only happened because of the neolithic revolution. It's only after that, that our numbers started increasing. Something like 5-10% of all the people that ever lived are alive right now.


I should have been more specific. They were on every continent except America and Antarctica. It's possible they could have been in America at some point, but we haven't found the evidence yet. Fossilization is extremely rare, especially for Hominids. Obviously they didn't have populations in the billions, because of lower life expectancy, a cooler planet at the time, and numerous other factors but it's fair to say there were around a million individuals around 70,000 years ago. What really propelled our population was modern medicine. Our population has skyrocketed from 2.5 billion to almost 7 billion in just the last 50 years.


The cerebral cortex increased tremendously in size over a rather short period thou, something like just 2,000,000 years. Goes to show that there was extremely strong selection towards higher intelligence and general ability to plan stuff ahead..




Here's seven million years worth from oldest to newest. Neanderthal shown in J, K and L had larger brain size than modern humans by 50cc on average. I don't consider 2 million years as virtually overnight. We don't have the full picture yet, but brain size increased slowly over that period. There was never a sudden leap like many folks are claiming.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
I feel that if evolution didn't completely siphon off all spirituality from the human being. It at the very least, wouldn't be half as ridiculuos to those who can't help but percieve it as such. There are so many unseen forces
in the universe that are evidenced objectively. That to consider any explanation of origins that fails to address and include mans undeniable spirituality ? At least for me ? Begins at a point of ridicule. For some reason that makes me very suspicious of this very young hypothesis.


What does spirituality have to do with evolution? Once again, nothing. Who's to say a spirit could not have evolved along with self awareness? It would be different if there was any actual proof that a soul or spirit exists, let alone that your guess about it's existence somehow makes a field of science wrong. Evolution doesn't negate a soul, regardless of how badly you wish it did. They are completely separate concepts.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





What does spirituality have to do with evolution?


Nothing . That's my point. But you turned the question around. To ask the question properly in your retort, it should have read. What does evolution have to do with with spirituality ? I agree evolution doesn't have to negate anything. So why do bigoted zealots of this new arrival on the world scene try to cram it down peoples throats ?
Are you really going to deny the hateful ridicule, of mans spirituality ? The insults that I myself have to look at everyday ? Right here on these boards even from you ? Because I choose to go with a belief system that best explains all of existence ? When evolution by it's own admission and definition doesn't even begin to cover it ?

I don't think evolution deserves ridicule. I think people who try to replace spiritual concepts with it are ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The problem with the 'alien intervention' idea is that humans have a genetic heritage that can be traced back much further than the '6000 years' you suggest. Even the Sumerians had precursors. The archaeological record is a hell of an alibi for human development without any alien gene meddling...

Our ancestor's ancestors are known. The Neanderthal genome has been mapped and reinforces the theory that we shared a common ancestor...

The progress we've made is recorded in the archaeological record. From stone hand-axes to military drones...our evolution is an endless series of 'baby steps' and adaptations to the environment and circumstances we find ourselves in.


You can trace the evolution of computers too. From the very basic machines to super computers - this doesn't mean they were made just by evolution.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Nothing . That's my point. But you turned the question around. To ask the question properly in your retort, it should have read. What does evolution have to do with with spirituality ? I agree evolution doesn't have to negate anything. So why do bigoted zealots of this new arrival on the world scene try to cram it down peoples throats ?
Are you really going to deny the hateful ridicule, of mans spirituality ? The insults that I myself have to look at everyday ? Right here on these boards even from you ? Because I choose to go with a belief system that best explains all of existence ? When evolution by it's own admission and definition doesn't even begin to cover it ?

I don't think evolution deserves ridicule. I think people who try to replace spiritual concepts with it are ridiculous.


I suppose we are on the same page then, in that regard. You can't replace spirituality with field of science. Acknowledge each thing for what it is. Science should not be a belief system, just as a belief system should not be science. Based on your previous argument, it sounded like evolution was wrong because it doesn't acknowledge the soul. Evolution isn't crammed down anyone's throats. All are welcome to study the field and attempt to falsify the evidence, but it hasn't happened. It all holds up to scientific scrutiny. I welcome, no I encourage you to believe anything you'd like. The only reason there is so much ridicule toward creationists, is because tons of them post blatantly false claims, and attack a field of science they know nothing about. Actions like that are worthy of ridicule because they are dishonest. I would never ridicule anybody because of their beliefs. Most creationists are rational, compassionate people that acknowledge the science for what it is and believe it makes god that much greater. Nobody should be ridiculed for their beliefs, but intellectual dishonesty has to be called out every time, so we can indeed deny ignorance.
edit on 17-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
It is beyond my understanding why so many are so gullible as to believe the "False Origin of Man" That we were seeded here by ancient "gods" is an old lie that still seems to have traction among the blind. And it is evident in this post that some of the blind desire to be leaders to extend this lie. They are blind leaders leading the blind.

I suggest to all who read this post that #1 don't believe everything you hear/read. #2 Be careful of those who make themselves to be experts in matters they evidently know nothing about.

The World is being set up for the great deception that is ahead. There is a truth regarding the origin of Man but as OP has explained IS NOT TRUE!



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





I suppose we are on the same page then, in that regard. You can't replace spirituality with field of science. Acknowledge each thing for what it is. Science should not be a belief system, just as a belief system should not be science. Based on your previous argument, it sounded like evolution was wrong because it doesn't acknowledge the soul. Evolution isn't crammed down anyone's throats. All are welcome to study the field and attempt to falsify the evidence, but it hasn't happened. It all holds up to scientific scrutiny. I welcome, no I encourage you to believe anything you'd like. The only reason there is so much ridicule toward creationists, is because tons of them post blatantly false claims, and attack a field of science they know nothing about. Actions like that are worthy of ridicule because they are dishonest. I would never ridicule anybody because of their beliefs. Most creationists are rational, compassionate people that acknowledge the science for what it is and believe it makes god that much greater. Nobody should be ridiculed for their beliefs, but intellectual dishonesty has to be called out every time, so we can indeed deny ignorance.


All my previous arguments are inspired out of defense. Defense for what I believe. Millions have died for Christ rather than deny him. He doesn't need me to defend him. But at the same time, if I do not defend my beliefs thru this life ? How could I ever die for them/him. If I couldn't die for what I believe ? Why the hell do I believe it ?
It's pretty much a brave undertaking when you realise what belief can get you into. Especially with Christ.
Any way I'm no holy roller partner. Not trying to convert anyone. Just that's how I roll. Cut thru all the bull.
I think we understand each other a lil better now and I do have a lot of friends here and everywhere that don't share my beliefs. They just know not to insult what I believe unless they make me laugh while there doing it.

But ya that's on them and him and hah and yada yada.

Randyvious

P.S. Would you die for what you believe ?
edit on 17-3-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join