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.

 

Origins of Mankind research points to single origin for our species.....Youd be surprised where its

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I recommend you view the vid below, thing is people who have tried to confirm the things Zecharia Sitchin wrote have found that in fact he made the whole damn thing up, i.e. the need for gold, the planet basically anyone who blindly bases their work on sitchin is in for a nasty surprise!





posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by Blue Shift
I think it will eventually be determined that humans as we know ourselves today got their start in south central Asia,

In the sub-continent?

No, no. In-between the Caspian and Aral Seas. Near where we first domesticated the horse. Unfortunately, because the climate is (or at least was) so mild there, and our ancestors apparently tended to bury their dead, fossils are hard to come by.

www.wired.com...

Also, in order for human beings to have developed, they had to be subjected to a very nasty environment from which they barely survived. Maybe glaciation at that location? It seems to me that Africa has been too relatively environmentally stable for a hominid population to reach the levels for low number crisis-driven evolution. But. Easy to say, hard to prove.


edit on 30-9-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The origin of mankind is simple, we start in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve which were white or caucasian. According to the Bible they had children, the result of cain killing abel resulted in God cursing cain with dark skin, thus we have black people or africans. Then after the global flood with Noah, his children created the other nationalities. The people of the world from Adam and Eve spoke english till the Tower of Babel, then it confounded and broke up into the different languages we have today.
I'm sorry but we did not come from another planet, aliens had nothing to do with our origins, and we most certainly did not come from apes. To each their own, believe what you want.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DemonSpeedN
The origin of mankind is simple, we start in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve which were white or caucasian. According to the Bible they had children, the result of cain killing abel resulted in God cursing cain with dark skin, thus we have black people or africans. Then after the global flood with Noah, his children created the other nationalities. .


Unfortunately the evidence doesn't favour a biblical explanation for mankind. Our DNA studies show that we didn't evolve from such a combination of people, but from creatures who split from the apes millions of years ago.

No biblical global flood either.

The Hebrew and later Christian gentleman who wrote the bible certainly didn't have any scientific clues as to where man had come from and were guessing based on earlier stories.



The people of the world from Adam and Eve spoke english till the Tower of Babel


I'll take your posting as a bit of satire then, LOL

Howdy Blue Shift


No, no. In-between the Caspian and Aral Seas. Near where we first domesticated the horse. Unfortunately, because the climate is (or at least was) so mild there, and our ancestors apparently tended to bury their dead, fossils are hard to come by.


There is a long time between the development of HSS and the domestication of the horse. Burying the dead tends to promote preservation of bone. What time frame are you imagining?


Also, in order for human beings to have developed, they had to be subjected to a very nasty environment from which they barely survived. Maybe glaciation at that location? It seems to me that Africa has been too relatively environmentally stable for a hominid population to reach the levels for low number crisis-driven evolution. But.


Nope don't think they had large scale glaciation in the las glacial period. The changing of climate and the effects of volcanic and other natural disasters may have shaped our ancestors.



Easy to say, hard to prove.


Yep, evidence points to Africa presently but with more investigation that could change





edit on 30/9/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

edit on 30/9/11 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz
I think mainstream science will find a way to ignore it because of the repercussions...

I doubt you will see too many well known scientists encourage these findings in threat of being ridiculed for their beliefs. Too bad really when we could really learn a ton about our past if the resources were made and focused with a common goal.


I agree, just like Cremo & Thompson' "Forbidden Archology"

Funny thing I was listening to the Red Ice Radio interview with Michael Cremo, and he was saying that he had many letters from university students, who had read his book, and then got into HUGE arguments with their college professors.

It's amazing how the cabalistic academia still will not relent to massive evidence, that makes all the text book theories look like the Flinstones!!!



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 

Starred and Flagged, friend. I wonder what the Zecharia Sitchin haters and debunkers are saying about this now, not to mention the millions who think "God" created humankind.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by stirling
 

Starred and Flagged, friend. I wonder what the Zecharia Sitchin haters and debunkers are saying about this now, not to mention the millions who think "God" created humankind.


Well the situation is: Zecharia remains debunked as he has for decades. Billions believe in a god theory but that is a belief without a scientific basis.....




still will not relent to massive evidence


..er like what? Cremo doesn't have evidence he has opinions, LOL



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
The controversey continues.
Like it or not the ancient 250,000 yr old ruins in south africa do exist.They were discovered from the air.
The Annunaki is another theory that has its detractors and its supporters.
Instead of everyone keeping their mind open, we all immediately get on our ego horses and ride off into the fray to scrap for the one we prefer to have happened.
Every one using the speculations/information as weapons to batter the other theorists.
We obviously have been on earth for much longer than our archaeologists purport.
That the south american ruins predate those who are credited with their construction seems far more likely.They donet claim they built them either.....
In the spanish exploration days there is a story of a temple light, which was always burning being discovered in one of the edifaces.
It is said to have been a primitive version of a voltaic cell that powered it.
I may be reading too much fringe stuff, but the mainstream seems rather stiltified and unwilling to take certain obvious
facts.
Things like the east indian records Gitas etc seem to get little attention.
Yet they detail much of what we have today, from heavier than air flight to orbital space travels etc.
Instead of regarding these as fables , perhaps an honest attempt to build one of these mercury motors is in order?
Anomalous objects, called deep time objects have been discovered that screw the dates of the whole timeline we are given by mstream.
With a four billion yr old earth there is lots of possibilities to examine....



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


of which both are based on faith and belief... Therefore in my eyes not very different.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DemonSpeedN
 


Weather you like it or not the the definition of alien is as follows --- Extraterrestrial life, defined as life that does not originate from Earth. Or maybe you like this one better... Alien (law), a non-citizen inhabitant of a country. This would include God, angels, demons, and any other being that is not from Earth and born here.

Ergo your God is alien...

That's fact, not belief. How can anyone be so naive???



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 

That is if you believe what the bible says... which I do not... coming from a book that took so many different beliefs and converged them into one... For all we know this EDIN could be a metaphor just like most of anything written in those days. It doesn't help that this is the way people spoke normally either...



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by stirling


Howdy Stirling




The controversey continues. Like it or not the ancient 250,000 yr old ruins in south africa do exist.They were discovered from the air.


Hans: how were they dated? Science doesn't seem to agree with that statement



The Annunaki is another theory that has its detractors and its supporters.


Hans: it also has no evidence to support it and masses of evidence against it other than that it is just dandy



Instead of everyone keeping their mind open, we all immediately get on our ego horses and ride off into the fray to scrap for the one we prefer to have happened. Every one using the speculations/information as weapons to batter the other theorists.


Hans: Evidence is king – you got any beside rhetoric?



We obviously have been on earth for much longer than our archaeologists purport.



Hans: I think you mean paleontologists and biologists and no it is not ‘obvious’



That the south american ruins predate those who are credited with their construction seems far more likely.They donet claim they built them either.....


Hans: No they don’t and they were right the Inca didn’t built them the Tiwanaku did



In the spanish exploration days there is a story of a temple light, which was always burning being discovered in one of the edifaces. It is said to have been a primitive version of a voltaic cell that powered it.


Hans: Nice claim got any evidence?



I may be reading too much fringe stuff, but the mainstream seems rather stiltified and unwilling to take certain obvious facts.


Hans: Real history is like that while fringe is fiction. Obvious only to you I must point out again



Things like the east indian records Gitas etc seem to get little attention.


Hans: Such as?



Yet they detail much of what we have today, from heavier than air flight to orbital space travels etc.


Hans: you sure your not referring to the channeled stuff from last century? Harte and Byrd your favorite subject surfaces again!




Instead of regarding these as fables , perhaps an honest attempt to build one of these mercury motors is in order?


Hans: Ah you confirmed you believe the stuff that was channeled is ancient – it isn’t. Please feel free to fund research in mercury motors. I believe if you check the Hindu and Bengali literature you'll find that they have - with an amazing lack of success



Anomalous objects, called deep time objects have been discovered that screw the dates of the whole timeline we are given by mstream.


Hans: Nope, debunked – many decades ago - unless you have some new ones which I would love to see, links please



With a four billion yr old earth there is lots of possibilities to examine....


Hans: Ah we agree, with a 4.54 but let us not quibble on the small points



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


That's fine if you don't believe it or not. I just can't understand why people have to have concrete scientific proof when it come's to religion. It seems that nobody can take anything on faith, especially when considering the source like God. Yes there's the research on DNA and stuff, did you ever think that there's a possibility that it might be wrong or off a just a little. The latest technology we have today we use to make our best decision on what is right according to today's standards, that might be considered wrong in 10-20 years or more who knows. Science is always learning, always evolving, where you faith does not change because you just know it.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Howdy DemonSpeed


Originally posted by DemonSpeedNreply to post by Hanslune
 


That's fine if you don't believe it or not. I just can't understand why people have to have concrete scientific proof when it come's to religion.


There are two ways to explain the world; religion or science, never try to disprove science with religion and never try prove religion with science - it tends not to work


It seems that nobody can take anything on faith, especially when considering the source like God.


...because it would seem that 'god' is a creation of man to explain the world; men have always questioned other men. The western world is especially into that type of questioning



Yes there's the research on DNA and stuff, did you ever think that there's a possibility that it might be wrong or off a just a little.


I would suspect so, I expect continual change based on science, occassional errors, omissions and misteps and for those to be corrected

The latest technology we have today we use to make our best decision on what is right according to today's standards, that might be considered wrong in 10-20 years or more who knows.

Yep what should we do wait and do nothing?


Science is always learning, always evolving, where you faith does not change because you just know it.


Religions have always evolved with the cultures that created them. You see new religions arising all the time while other religions are constantly being revised, fragmenting, etc



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Yet the genetic makeup of human beings is different from the rest of the mammals on this planet also we are missing two chromosomes. Not to mention our brains function differently.


Different animals have different numbers of chromosomes, so it's hard to imagine how someone can claim we're missing "two chromosomes." I think your source is one where people are making up things, because our brains also function similarly. Lobes and areas for body control are in the same place - that's why they do brain research on all sorts of animals from monkeys to mice.


Either way why does the white race have such a low tolerance to the sun? Higher rates of skin cancer, increased photosensitivity of the eyes. More suitable to colder climates. Perfect for conditions on mars if mars contained life.

Mars' atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide. It has a different chemical composition than Earth. We couldn't get enough nutrients or even breathe the (heavy and dense) Earth atmosphere if we came from Mars.

Pale skin exists because people with darker skins tend to be less healthy in northern latitudes. Pale skin produces more vitamin D with less sunlight (among other things.)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DemonSpeedN
The origin of mankind is simple, we start in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve which were white or caucasian. According to the Bible they had children, the result of cain killing abel resulted in God cursing cain with dark skin,

Actually, it doesn't say God cursed him with dark skin. It says he put a mark on him to warn others to not kill Cain. (Gen. 4:10–12)


Then after the global flood with Noah, his children created the other nationalities.

Noah isn't descended from Cain, you know. He's descended from Seth, of the lineage that included Enoch who was so holy he didn't die but was swept into heaven.

Since the Ark didn't include "unclean" people or beasts, if you follow the Bible very closely this presents a bit of a problem in trying to tie race to Cain.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Entertaining story, but it's a big pile of wild speculation. I didn't see any proof offered there, as usual.

As far as money being some kind of alien creation, I think not. Barter and trade are inherent in the human makeup. It's evolved and progressed over thousands of years without any alien intervention. Maybe if the aliens ALSO put it into our genes to want to use money -- but again, no proof and only wild speculation.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I tend to not believe an article when said article is trying to sell a book



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by downunderET

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz
I think mainstream science will find a way to ignore it because of the repercussions...

I doubt you will see too many well known scientists encourage these findings in threat of being ridiculed for their beliefs. Too bad really when we could really learn a ton about our past if the resources were made and focused with a common goal.


I agree, just like Cremo & Thompson' "Forbidden Archology"

Funny thing I was listening to the Red Ice Radio interview with Michael Cremo, and he was saying that he had many letters from university students, who had read his book, and then got into HUGE arguments with their college professors.

It's amazing how the cabalistic academia still will not relent to massive evidence, that makes all the text book theories look like the Flinstones!!!

"Massive evidence?"

There's not a whit of evidence to be found anywhere in Cremo's Creationist book.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join