Which do you feel is most plausable?

I have been pondering this question for the past few days and thought I would poll the wealth of opinion here at ATS. Basically it's a 2 fold (expanding question).

1. Which of the 'big 4' modern-man creation theories do you feel has the best evidence for plausibility?
- Reptilian
- Anunnaki
- Nephilim
- Genesis

(And by creation I mean creating modern man) I chose these 4 as they seem to command the largest share(s) of supporters belonging to the given notion(s) of respective creation theories.

2. How does your chosen theory stand up to the modern evolution theory?


For me, I think the Nephilim (fallen angels) who allegedly genetically manipulated mankind has the most supporting evidence littered through history. Almost every ancient civilization has some form of lore, legend, or record of involvement. However, I think the Nephilim are the other side of the Genesis story and perhaps are interchangeable. But my choice for the most plausible theory of the 4 would be the Nephilim account of genetically changing humanity.

As far as my belief of how this stands against the modern theory of evolution? Obviously not well. Evolution has a decent amount of scientific and archeological evidence where as the historical accounts of ancient fallen beings genetically changing humanity is just that, ancient historical accounts. But the fact I still refer to evolution as a 'theory' should reveal a bit as to what I think in total.

On the other hand, there is scientific supporting evidence of a quick and sudden genetic change in humanity not too long ago either, which seemingly flies in the face of accepted evolution so....

Anyway, I am not looking to argue how and why I think what I do, nor will I demand anyone to 'prove' their belief(s) as well, just interested in what you think.

reply to post by HomeBrew

1. Which of the 'big 4' modern-man creation theories do you feel has the best evidence for plausibility? - Reptilian - Anunnaki - Nephilim - Genesis

Sorry, I'm hung up on the term 'Best evidence'. Not only is there no best evidence, there's no evidence at all for your big 4.

Even though there are questions remaining on evolution (Cambrian explosion), there is at least evidence in our DNA connecting us to all living matter on this planet, and then there's the similarities between us and our simian cousins, along with all of the skeletal remains of our non-homo erectus ancestors.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

1. Which of the 'big 4' modern-man creation theories do you feel has the best evidence for plausibility? - Reptilian - Anunnaki - Nephilim - Genesis

Sorry, I'm hung up on the term 'Best evidence'. Not only is there no best evidence, there's no evidence at all for your big 4.

Even though there are questions remaining on evolution (Cambrian explosion), there is at least evidence in our DNA connecting us to all living matter on this planet, and then there's the similarities between us and our simian cousins, along with all of the skeletal remains of our non-homo erectus ancestors.

I think you may be confusing evidence with proof, I claim no proof but there is a wealth of evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) for all the above. Please do not let that hang you up...

reply to post by HomeBrew


It could have been any of the above. I do entertain other ideas from time to time to both challenge my own beliefs and remain open minded, but at the end of the day my money is on evolution.

That is not to say that the relative quickness in which humans evolved isn't a curious anomaly.

I am more or less a noobie here at ATS when it comes to making posts but I have been a long time follower and reader of the site. Anyways if I had to choose one of the four I would probably have to go with the Annunaki. Only reason why I go with this one is because for one, it is the one that interests me the most and makes some sense and two, it is really the only one I looked into a good amount as far as human origins go. I just think that the fact that the so called junk DNA humanity holds in their DNA and the possibility of alien intervention with possibly either Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon, I believe it was either these two or it might have been Homo Erectus. I could be wrong. Anyways, the possibility that any of these species being genetically manipulated to make us seems quite plausible in my opinion.

Now of course I cant really prove it or deny it as fact and it is my own belief but like I already said, I really only looked into the Annunaki when it comes to other possible origins of humanity. I will also admit that I didn't heavily study it either but I did however look into quite a bit last year as my fascination with aliens and E.T.s in general kept me moving on and looking for more information and when I uncovered something that I did not previously know which was the Annunaki, I was just heavily into what it was foretelling. If anyone knows where I can learn more about the Annunaki please tell me, oh and I don't want to hear about the author, Stritchen as I hear many bad and false things about him and his stories and his speculation.

Originally posted by Osiris1953
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

It could have been any of the above. I do entertain other ideas from time to time to both challenge my own beliefs and remain open minded, but at the end of the day my money is on evolution.

That is not to say that the relative quickness in which humans isn't a curious anomaly.

edit on 8-4-2013 by Osiris1953 because: (no reason given)

I prettymuch agree on both counts.

reply to post by HomeBrew


1. Of those choices I will take: E. None of the above.

2. I would say it mirrors the modern evolution theory, quite closely.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

1. Of those choices I will take: E. None of the above.

2. I would say it mirrors the modern evolution theory, quite closely.

Fair enough.

reply to post by HomeBrew


Id like to add my own crazy unscientific thoughts on this.

For your question about the ultimate origin of life id have to admit that evolution rationally explains pretty much everything.

As for the unscientific portion of my post id like to theorize that in a fractal universe the maturation of civilizations into their Types 0,1,2, and 3 might manufacture massive colonies, organized by artificial intelligence, that at a larger resolution might resemble aspects of microbiology. That natural laws of evolution would manifest for these multiverse collectives as they multiply. Inadvertently replicating evolutionary processes.

I like to call it Synthetic Fractal Realism, or maybe Fractal Synthetic Realism.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

Id like to add my own crazy unscientific thoughts on this.

For your question about the ultimate origin of life id have to admit that evolution rationally explains pretty much everything.

As for the unscientific portion of my post id like to theorize that in a fractal universe the maturation of civilizations into their Types 0,1,2, and 3 might manufacture massive colonies, organized by artificial intelligence, that at a larger resolution might resemble aspects of microbiology.

I like to call it Synthetic Fractal Realism.

Yep, no question that evolution is the best guess so far with a good amount of supporting evidence.

On your second part, are you insinuating that it may be plausible that an artificial intelligence may have had a hand in creating humanity as we know it? If so..... interesting!

1. Of those four, they all could be the same exact story just told from different cultures at different periods in time. They share more in common than they differ. Alchemically speaking, it's even more so just a retelling.

2. There is a gap in our traceable genetic history ( the missing link ). I think a species tampering with our DNA or otherwise inserting their own DNA into ours would make our 'theory of evolution' make sense.

I have no problem with the Genesis account. If people do, I do have a theory that they reject the Genesis account because to do so relieves them of responsibility (in their own eyes) to a sovereign God. They thus try to move God as far away as possible. Futile...

Originally posted by HomeBrew

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

1. Which of the 'big 4' modern-man creation theories do you feel has the best evidence for plausibility? - Reptilian - Anunnaki - Nephilim - Genesis

Sorry, I'm hung up on the term 'Best evidence'. Not only is there no best evidence, there's no evidence at all for your big 4.

Even though there are questions remaining on evolution (Cambrian explosion), there is at least evidence in our DNA connecting us to all living matter on this planet, and then there's the similarities between us and our simian cousins, along with all of the skeletal remains of our non-homo erectus ancestors.

I think you may be confusing evidence with proof, I claim no proof but there is a wealth of evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) for all the above. Please do not let that hang you up...

Show us it please.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I have no problem with the Genesis account. If people do, I do have a theory that they reject the Genesis account because to do so relieves them of responsibility (in their own eyes) to a sovereign God. They thus try to move God as far away as possible. Futile...

Well, personally I reject it because it's bollocks.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by HomeBrew

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

1. Which of the 'big 4' modern-man creation theories do you feel has the best evidence for plausibility? - Reptilian - Anunnaki - Nephilim - Genesis

Sorry, I'm hung up on the term 'Best evidence'. Not only is there no best evidence, there's no evidence at all for your big 4.

Even though there are questions remaining on evolution (Cambrian explosion), there is at least evidence in our DNA connecting us to all living matter on this planet, and then there's the similarities between us and our simian cousins, along with all of the skeletal remains of our non-homo erectus ancestors.

I think you may be confusing evidence with proof, I claim no proof but there is a wealth of evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) for all the above. Please do not let that hang you up...

Show us it please.

I'd rather not take the time to educate you but a simple google search can and will point you in the direction of many ancient writings/teachings on such topics. Unless of course you simply discard ancient teachings/writings as fiction then the 'evidence' that is out there will not work for you, but most rational people consider personal testimony, and recounting what is believed as truth 'evidence'... (again, NOT proof)

Thanks for playing, but it is obvious this thread is not for you. I see your point, it's valid but simply not worth debating in this thread.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I have no problem with the Genesis account. If people do, I do have a theory that they reject the Genesis account because to do so relieves them of responsibility (in their own eyes) to a sovereign God. They thus try to move God as far away as possible. Futile...

Well, personally I reject it because it's bollocks.

Shocker, and once again just trolling this thread for no other reason but to argue and belittle opinion.

Originally posted by HomeBrew

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I have no problem with the Genesis account. If people do, I do have a theory that they reject the Genesis account because to do so relieves them of responsibility (in their own eyes) to a sovereign God. They thus try to move God as far away as possible. Futile...

Well, personally I reject it because it's bollocks.

Shocker, and once again just trolling this thread for no other reason but to argue and belittle opinion.

I'm not trolling, I was offering an alternative opinion. Is that not welcome?

Originally posted by HomeBrew

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by HomeBrew

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

1. Which of the 'big 4' modern-man creation theories do you feel has the best evidence for plausibility? - Reptilian - Anunnaki - Nephilim - Genesis

Sorry, I'm hung up on the term 'Best evidence'. Not only is there no best evidence, there's no evidence at all for your big 4.

Even though there are questions remaining on evolution (Cambrian explosion), there is at least evidence in our DNA connecting us to all living matter on this planet, and then there's the similarities between us and our simian cousins, along with all of the skeletal remains of our non-homo erectus ancestors.

I think you may be confusing evidence with proof, I claim no proof but there is a wealth of evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) for all the above. Please do not let that hang you up...

Show us it please.

I'd rather not take the time to educate you but a simple google search can and will point you in the direction of many ancient writings/teachings on such topics. Unless of course you simply discard ancient teachings/writings as fiction then the 'evidence' that is out there will not work for you, but most rational people consider personal testimony, and recounting what is believed as truth 'evidence'... (again, NOT proof)

Thanks for playing, but it is obvious this thread is not for you. I see your point, it's valid but simply not worth debating in this thread.

Done, there is no evidence for any of them, none. You should be able to provide some.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by HomeBrew

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I have no problem with the Genesis account. If people do, I do have a theory that they reject the Genesis account because to do so relieves them of responsibility (in their own eyes) to a sovereign God. They thus try to move God as far away as possible. Futile...

Well, personally I reject it because it's bollocks.

Shocker, and once again just trolling this thread for no other reason but to argue and belittle opinion.

I'm not trolling, I was offering an alternative opinion. Is that not welcome?

"Bollocks" is not an opinion - it is a scoff.

How about this, tell me if it sounds like bollocks:

As stated by Einstein, reality is TIME, SPACE, MATTER and ENERGY. As stated by God, it is the same.

Genesis 1:1
In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

In 2006 during the star dust mission to collect dust from a comet retrieved samples that contained the building blocks of life. I think (and it is only an opinion) that the universe is full of life if given the slightest chance.

Humans are weird with our bipedal locomotion and the way females are able to be sexually receptive as much as they are when compared to other mammals.

There were other bi-peds before we won the top spot so...my two cents is on evolution....

Now, If the mothership lands tomorrow and the inhabitants says something like they are our great great x 100,000 grand daddies my thoughts would probably be, "pictures or it didn't happen". O.K. a little video could work too.