It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In contradistinction, the powerful seduction of the perverse teachers of false secrets is grounded in the curiositas of undeveloped minds, still unable to differentiate between good and evil, and a fortiori between truth and falsehood. These people want in their hubris to hear what they cannot yet understand and hence are willing to believe seducers with false pretences of science
Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by Spider879
Yes I think early branches of hominids were around a lot longer than the ice age, and on Pangaea. Of course one would have to dig very deep or get lucky to find a hominid skeleton millions of years old, or just repress the information of finding them, so it doesn't turn the human belief structure completely upside down.
I also include the ancestors that may have been a little neanderthal or possibly cromagnum, it appears that there is different humanlike beings blended into our DNA. I don't know about you guys, but I am not going to deny any of my ancestors are not my ancestors. I am proud that they got me here to experience this life, no matter who they were. To me, If I have part neanderthal in me, one of my great great....on and on...grandparents was full neanderthal. I'd be proud to meet them.
In 1992-3 a new group of fossils began to be unearthed, less than 50 miles from where Lucy was discovered. By 1994 they included the complete skeleton of a female now nicknamed Ardi, short for the name given to the new species, Ardipithecus Ramidus. The fossils have been dated, by their position between two layers of volcanic strata, to about 4.4 million years ago, more than a million years before Lucy. So Ardi is at present the earliest skeleton of a creature with sufficient human characteristics to be very possibly our direct ancestor.
Originally posted by Madrusa
reply to post by SLAYER69
A distinction drawn on the basis of contrast, in which for example the more information provided on a presumed 'lost civilization' then the more lost and unknown it becomes, unless of course at some point it becomes a 'found' civilization in which case it was merely misplaced and not lost.