Evidence of ancient nuclear wars?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2003 @ 11:44 AM
link   
So parrots have a lingual bone? And how is evolutionary theory racist?

XAOS




posted on Jun, 1 2003 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by xaos
So parrots have a lingual bone?


I don't know. Why don't you ask one



And how is evolutionary theory racist?


By saying all humans are evolved monkeys, you say that some people are more monkey than others. According to mainstreem "evolutionism" if I may call it such, Europeans and Asians are somehow seen as more highly evolved than Africans for instance. For God's sake we're all one big happy family who have our characteristics from our forefathers (and mothers of course). I'm a white European. This probably means that my forefather was at some stage an albino African and a couple of generations later caught down's syndrome, not that I'm higher evolved or less monkey than my African forefathers (lots of figures of speeches). We are just as intelligent and skilled; just as human. There is no man who is more monkey than others. We have never been monkeys and we never will be. We are the humans, of divine pedigree, given the responcibility of keeping life on Earth living.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 2-6-2003 by mikromarius]



posted on Jun, 1 2003 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikromarius
We are the humans, of divine pedigree, given the responcibility of keeping life on Earth living.

Blessings,
Mikromarius


And we are failing to do even that...



posted on Jun, 1 2003 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Originally posted by mikromarius
We are the humans, of divine pedigree, given the responcibility of keeping life on Earth living.

Blessings,
Mikromarius


And we are failing to do even that...


Yes, it's a shame. Guess money and oil can take most of the blame, or rather the people who live for money and oil...


Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jun, 1 2003 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Um, I actually never said that, nor even aluded to the idea that some people are more highly evolved than others. I frankly find that statement abhorent. To think that some monkeys are closer to humans is quite insulting to some simians. Who would want to be associated with a virus that is destroying the planet.

And frankly, you are not descended from an albino african with down's syndrome. Someone like that would die before reaching puberty. You are descended from a group of africans that migrated north, where the skin changed because pigment was not needed as much as other things so you lost the dark pigment in the skin and was able to produce more vitamin d.

XAOS



posted on Jun, 1 2003 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by xaos
Um, I actually never said that, nor even aluded to the idea that some people are more highly evolved than others. I frankly find that statement abhorent. To think that some monkeys are closer to humans is quite insulting to some simians. Who would want to be associated with a virus that is destroying the planet.

And frankly, you are not descended from an albino african with down's syndrome. Someone like that would die before reaching puberty. You are descended from a group of africans that migrated north, where the skin changed because pigment was not needed as much as other things so you lost the dark pigment in the skin and was able to produce more vitamin d.

XAOS


Ever seen a Mongolian with Down's? Or a European with Down's? The Mongolian looks like Hitler's wet dream (looks like a European) while the European looks like a Mongolian (Down's is even called being mongoloid in many languages). Or take the Chinese and other yellow skinned people. You don't find hepatites in those areas of the world. They just doesn't get sick from it, and many of them can't drink alcohol since they would die from it, their livers would crash. And look at Africa: Every once in a while a white African is born, an albino. It exists in nature, why not just understand it as fact? The only reason not to would be that the white man's elevated position would be threatened. We would become a funny twist of nature, not the demi-god he thinks he is....

I see that you believe that deseases or genetic variants have the same effect on todays humans as it did on our forefathers. How about the deseases we normally have when we are small children (I don't know their names in English)? They were once world killers. Today our children simply gets a rash that goes away. With other deseases it's the other way around.

What happened back then was probably that they separated the sick and the different ones from the rest of the people or they simply fled because they were being harrassed for their differencies. After a couple of generations, the exiled became strong peoples -- their weaknesses became their greatest strengths...

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jun, 1 2003 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Actually the reason we have different skin tones is because of the amount of light we get. In africa they have a large amount of light, and have to have a dark pigment so that they do not get cancer. Unfortunately, this also hampers production of Vitamin D. So in europe, where they have less light, lose pigment and are able to produce more Vitamin D. And we are not albino africans, do you have red eyes and white hair? I dont. And we do not have the same facial structure as africans. and people who have down's syndrome have an extra gene, which causes the disorder. Asians do not have this gene. They just have a similar facial structure.

XAOS



posted on Jun, 1 2003 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by xaos
Actually the reason we have different skin tones is because of the amount of light we get. In africa they have a large amount of light, and have to have a dark pigment so that they do not get cancer. Unfortunately, this also hampers production of Vitamin D. So in europe, where they have less light, lose pigment and are able to produce more Vitamin D. And we are not albino africans, do you have red eyes and white hair? I dont. And we do not have the same facial structure as africans. and people who have down's syndrome have an extra gene, which causes the disorder. Asians do not have this gene. They just have a similar facial structure.

XAOS


If you are right, the Africans that live here will sooner or later become white because of vitamin D, is that what you say? How do you then explain the doves that's been flying around in the woods up here for ages, they all have black skin (except for the albino ones). Or hey, polar bears!?! They are black skinned too... How can the polar bear and the dove maintain their black skin, while we humans somehow can't? There is a twist to that logic of yours that I just don't buy. How can an animal have black skin through ages living in a place where there is absolutely no light third part of the year and with a sun that the rest of the year isn't powerful enough to even melt the frost in the ground? I guess Santa Claus feed them with vitamin D pills...

Have you read about the Son of Man in the Book of Revelation (Adam means Man in Hebrew)? How his legs are like bronze or copper glowing as if they have been in an oven, his head and hair is like white wool or snow, his eyes like blazing fire... Add it up yourself...

Blessings,
Mikromarius

For the record: Maybe God created Man (Adam) black. The son of Man is suddenly white, clearly albino (perhaps the midwife went white too?) as shown in Revelation and has a thing with wine (gospel), that he (Jesus) can only drink it new (alcohol free) after his years on Earth (or in Heaven?) and who's sister or wife or daughter (?a mystery of Revelation) is dressed in the Sun (whose color we know is yellowish white), whose son again will rule among the top branches of the multifaceted tree of humanity in a thousand years with what can be translated a branch of iron... And whose father, in the function of being the highest priest in Heaven, rules as God on the Father's Sabbath.

[Edited on 2-6-2003 by mikromarius]



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Yes the doves have black skin, but they also have white feathers and as an added benefit, their skin does not come in contact with UV rays. Birds also have quite a different diet and body arrangement than humans and as a result cannot be compared. Polar Bears have black skin yes, but this is to absorb the light of the sun for heat. The clear hairs of the bears aids this light absorbtion. Humans could not survive in the north without killing animals to take fur for a coat. We have different methods of survival than other mammals. Instead of adjusting for the environment, we adjust the environment for ourselves. As for the vitamin D pills, they do not need them, they get vitamin D through their skin and through their diet. I am not a biologist, so I cannot give you the exact information on this, if any ATS members reading this are biologists and can explain this better than I can please do. Until then however, I will research this some more and ask my teacher.

I am sorry, I have not read the bible... yet, so I cannot understand the point of what you are referencing. But if you are going to believe a thousand year old fairy tail, then you might as well believe that the world was created by a dead giant and that a dragons leg holds up the heavens. Frankly I can see no difference. Both make good stories but have little basis in truth.

XAOS



posted on Jun, 2 2003 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xaos
Yes the doves have black skin, but they also have white feathers and as an added benefit, their skin does not come in contact with UV rays. Birds also have quite a different diet and body arrangement than humans and as a result cannot be compared.


Doves don't have white fathers, not the ones up here anyway (except the red eyed albino ones I guess). They are more bluish grey with metallic purple, pink and red around their necks and details in their wing feathers. Try again. Don't tell me my forefathers got white because they didn't wear white garments and ate seeds all day?


Polar Bears have black skin yes, but this is to absorb the light of the sun for heat. The clear hairs of the bears aids this light absorbtion. Humans could not survive in the north without killing animals to take fur for a coat.


And Africans wouldn't need to absorb as much light as possible? I thought they had black skin to protect themselves from the sun, not to keep warm. Black skin could've been a great advantage up here North. But the fact is that Polar bears don't need black skin, they even have a tendency to overheat, and this isn't because of their black skin, but because of many other factors, like their 5 inch blubber layer, their two layered fur and massive heat production due to their massive body etc.

For your second remark: You could always keep sheep, goats, some dogs etc for wool that's actually more efficient than fur coats for heat, except you would probably need a jacket of hemp or linen in order not to freeze because of the wind. Leather is good for pants and jackets, unless you're German you don't wear leather under



We have different methods of survival than other mammals. Instead of adjusting for the environment, we adjust the environment for ourselves. As for the vitamin D pills, they do not need them, they get vitamin D through their skin and through their diet. I am not a biologist, so I cannot give you the exact information on this, if any ATS members reading this are biologists and can explain this better than I can please do. Until then however, I will research this some more and ask my teacher.


The question isn't how polar bears can keep maintain black skin, the question is: Why are animals who live in places where the Sun doesn't even come up in winter, who live on eating seals mostly -- able to maintain a black skin while humans somehow can't? Understood: Are there really climatic reasons for me having white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes, or is it just a result of genetic mutation way back in my generations and following social segregation?


I am sorry, I have not read the bible... yet, so I cannot understand the point of what you are referencing. But if you are going to believe a thousand year old fairy tail, then you might as well believe that the world was created by a dead giant and that a dragons leg holds up the heavens. Frankly I can see no difference. Both make good stories but have little basis in truth.

XAOS


Do you believe in math? Well Pythagoras is older than Revelation... Do you believe the Sun is in the center of the solar system? The idea is older than the Bible (and the bible actually support that idea, believe it or not). I believe in God's voice, I also believe in God's mind, and I believe he has full control with what he's doing, and that, my friend, is older than DNA. That you somehow have this weakness that you dismiss ancient wisdom and still living lingual traditions and spirit systems automatically, is a sad thing really. You know, appart from our technology, little was different with the minds of the old than ours today. But I guess you believe they were dumber back then. After all they were more monkeys hah? They weren't stupid back then, not even dumber than us. There have been many Einsteins before Einstein, you know. He wasn't the first genious.

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jun, 3 2003 @ 04:45 AM
link   
We could continue this till your kingdom comes but lets not, you wont convince me, and I wont convince you. Lets call it a draw ajust go our own ways. This thread has gone so far off topic its incredible. I believe in evolution, you think some omniscient, omnipotent thing has designed everything. If you want to continue this debate, I suggest you find a trained evolutionary biologist who can answer your questions better than I can.

Blessings,
XAOS



posted on Jun, 3 2003 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by xaos
We could continue this till your kingdom comes but lets not, you wont convince me, and I wont convince you. Lets call it a draw ajust go our own ways. This thread has gone so far off topic its incredible. I believe in evolution, you think some omniscient, omnipotent thing has designed everything. If you want to continue this debate, I suggest you find a trained evolutionary biologist who can answer your questions better than I can.

Blessings,
XAOS


OK for me, but it would be fun to continue discussing this. Perhaps I'll sit down and write an opening article for a new thread... If or when you see it, please drop in and be heared. I may be wrong in my ideas, but I reserve the right to think on my own, not just chew the cud of the reformation, the juvinile revolt that replaced a visible tyrany with a slightly confusing and invisible one, but just as lying and deceiving (a little better, a little worse). Wisdom is still politics and power. This world can't recognice wisdom that crash with their politically calibrated cornerstones.

Regards and blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jun, 3 2003 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Sorry Xaos, but i have to agree here with Mikro. I have read numerous articles on Darwinism and the simple fact is evolution doesn't add up, at least darwin's view.

I will look for the links I had, they are a good read.



posted on Jun, 3 2003 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by 29MV29
Sorry Xaos, but i have to agree here with Mikro. I have read numerous articles on Darwinism and the simple fact is evolution doesn't add up, at least darwin's view.

I will look for the links I had, they are a good read.


Wow
I never thought anyone would even agree that my view is a plausible one... Heavy! The purpose of evilutionism is to somehow explain folly rationally in order to control the scientific community without mentioning God anywhere. The scientific community never steps on their forerunners' toes. Darwin worked as the perfect tool in their quest to bring down the Catholic regime, so why not cherish and adore his delirium until they can explain that God and his angels are just animals. God is love, and the Son of Man (Adam, according to tradition the forefather of the white skinned humans) is clearly an albino African (Revelation 1), and Jesus said that he couldn't drink alcohol more (Matt 26:29 -- new wine is alcohol free wine), and the prophecy says he was known to be a sick man (Is 53:3), maybe his liver faught back, because of wine, or maybe he was infected when (if) he married as Hosea (Hos 1ff -- Hosea and Jesus is the same name) prophecy: with an untrue woman, even a prostitute? When an albino African and an African mate you can get people with red, blonde, black, brown hair, you name it, black skin, red skin, white skin, and with red eyes, God knows, maybe even green, yellow and blue eyes? And liver trouble can leave your skin yellow. I believe we are here because of breeding and love, not that we are cameleons that change our colors to the environment. We are a product of our ansestors, not vitamin D or cameleon skin and hair and eyes. Or perhaps my friend's son (half Scandinavian, half African) has lighter skin and hair than his mother due to the climate and vitamin D... Get real! That's my point!

Blessings,
Mikromarius



posted on Jun, 4 2003 @ 08:49 PM
link   
29MV29 i cant agree with what you said "evolution doesnt add up" because if you really think about it, it does. its just that we dont know all the facts about where some thing lived, what it did or ate. those things are what makes it all add up.



posted on Jun, 4 2003 @ 09:33 PM
link   
There is a region (I believe it is in the Northeast...but I'm REAL unsure) where they have found vast areas covered with these blobs of glass. The sand in this desert area was subjected to such heat that it was turned molten and then coagulated into these big blobs of glass.

THAT is some heat.



posted on Jun, 4 2003 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
There is a region (I believe it is in the Northeast...but I'm REAL unsure) where they have found vast areas covered with these blobs of glass. The sand in this desert area was subjected to such heat that it was turned molten and then coagulated into these big blobs of glass.

THAT is some heat.



A cursory check of geological sites shows that the only significant numbers of tektites (glass blobs) are in the vicinity of asteroid craters www.science-frontiers.com... and that they landed during the age of the dinosaurs.

I don't see any other geological surveys showing something like you mention above. Can you remember where you read it?



posted on Jun, 5 2003 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I have heard that there are many Scottish forts which display obvious signs of vitrification of the rock. Through experimantaion this can only be achieved by an intense heat source. Much hotter than could have been generated by the available tool of fire at the time.



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Hasn't this just turned into a bundle of joy! First, to be on topic, there is no proof that many of the "asteroid craters" were made by asteroids....that's just what they are called because that is the only accepted explanation for it.
now about creationism vs. evolution.....here's the thing. Firstly, it is more probably that there is an intelligent being or groups of intelligent being that exist on a plane not comprehendable in the terms of our existence that could have been the source of life than it is that darwin's theory is true, for the reasons I stated in my earlier post. As for similarities, there are a lot of things that look alike and arent very related at all. Cats that look like dogs, and dogs like cats, etc...and if I remember correctly, over 90% of our DNA IS THE SAME AS A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM! This does not support evolution, this supports the use of a blueprint, an INTELLGENT DESIGN, for life. If evolution were true, why are there no mass divergents? after all, anything probably, however unlikely, will happen, isnt that right? So there should be some sort of organism that is totally alien from all other life, just by the freak chance.
Someone here asked for proof....can anyone show me ANY proof for darwinism? I know they can't, there is none. Accepted theory is not proof, nope, sorry bub, you've been brainwashed! I'm not saying I'm right....I'm saying that your belief is...you got it....a religion too! A religion of anti-religion, of anti-soul, but a religion all the same. A religion tailor-made for those who want to believe that this is all there is,so they can live without a conscience. Remember, a religion is based on faith, and faith is the belief in things that are not provable. Darwinism cannot be proven true. That things can adapt can be proven.....but not that anything can make a fundamental change from one thing to something completely different. Anyone who is willing to do unbiased, objective research will see that there is far too much design for darwin's theory. How could an orchid with a 12 inch hole down to its pollen have survived before the moth with the 12 in nose existed? And if the moth came first, then why would the orchid have come into existence, and even if it had, how and why would the moth have survived in the meantime? Life, all of life, is contructed with immensely complex designs that mere chance can explain. And have it known that Darwin actually USED that moth/orchid example as supposed proof for his theory.....and people call that brilliant? Pretty blind, I would say.
That, though, is just a tiny piece. Things that we take for granted, like vision, hearing, etc, our entire nervous system, rely on so many interconnected systems that supposed mutations can't begin to explain. If the fittest survived, then why is it they just happened to also have these odd useless mutations that later became key for other mutations, not just once, but millions of times? Seems pretty organismed and well thought out, doesnt it? I'm not saying there is a god...what I am saying is that there is more than blind chance. And we haven't even touched the metaphysical aspects of life. And before you rush out to deny them, enlighten yourself, and you might just see your error. That we are more than just the skin that holds us all together has been proven in many ways and forms, some quite scientific. Tell me how a non-physical body evolves from nothing, will you? Thats something I REALLY want to hear.



posted on Jun, 6 2003 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I haven't bothered to read the evo. debate, because its off-topic, but here's my one off-topic post - Charlie didn't know about cellular complexity when he postulated his idea. He thought they were just simple structures, which, in fact, they are not. So his whole theory was founded on a boatload of crap. That's just my take.


And now, back to the topic:
So what's the general conclusion? Do we agree that ancient earthers had nuclear technology? Not? Lets have your ideas, stated simply, without a lot of unrelated mumbo-jumbo.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join