Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

it's really weird how the original authors went to that much effort to encrypt the content of their writings. like they were trying to keep it secret instead of having it published all over the world in easily comprehensible plain speech.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

it's really weird how the original authors went to that much effort to encrypt the content of their writings. like they were trying to keep it secret instead of having it published all over the world in easily comprehensible plain speech.

Not ,weird, when you see what is being hidden, and why..... But the Bible did tell us how to find the way back, to the Garden......

Interesting video that just hit my desk....... It might seem off topic, but actually, Right on target!

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Barcs

Please offer a citation instead of making things up.

Lets see, making things up is a form of, umm, well, for lack of better terms, create something that didn't exist before?? Then I guess, I created a new theory, by your standards. So, when science gets to that, gee, I don't know stage, we are all suppose to stop thinking until the vast majority of scientists (which by the way, most of those scientists have been institutionalized) can agree on the ignorance, and there is nothing new under the sun?

Sorry, science is the "Box", and it just wont fit all the "new" trains of thought. A lot of creating going on right now. And regardless, truth just doesn't listen to the status quo.. It has its own drum beat...

There are thousands of research articles providing evidence for evolution. Pick one out and tell us where they made their mistake:



After you do that, why don't you zip it up and just provide the evidence from "40 years ago" which proves that evolutionary science is wrong.

A simple task. In other words, JUST DO IT.

a reply to: Phantom423Its in the above video...

because YouTube IS the end all, be all of knowledge

a reply to: Phantom423

A simple task. In other words, JUST DO IT.

Well, since you used the word "Simple" lol lol

First there is a lot of confusion as to what a "Race" of human beings, is. You have to have at minimum two participants, I mean, who races themselves.

At the core of humanity there are in fact only "Two" races, and they are separated by "Blood" The first race is RH- blood. They are termed "Sons of God" and were physically created via genetic engineering a very long time ago. They created the second race of humans, or the Sons of Man, RH +. Both races were created as slaves to the preexisting "Lord God", or Serpent in the Bible (Evolved).

Lord God allowed this second creation, as long as the Sons of Man were not allowed to breed, freely. In this way, the intelligence of the smart monkey race could be controlled. The original sin was the Sons of God allowed the Sons of Man to inner breed as they wished. Lord God, at all cost wanted no one to be as "Smart" as they.

It is of interest that the RH- in the past were the vast majority of abduction cases, but as far as I'm concerned is only disinformation. You can not transfuse blood from a dog into a human or for that matter any other species. Nor, can you transfuse RH- blood into a RH+, and visa versa. The physical and emotional attributes of the two are also different. The two human species, have different origins, genesis. But both, created to be slaves....... Whether they like it or not.

But, as always the case, something new. I do not have any information on this subject. But now that their are drugs available that actually allow successful mating of the RH+ RH- where in the past it was not, you have a strong possibility, of a 3rd race of man. A hi-bread of both + and -. And they can have either RH+, or RH- blood. The color of ones skin, is merely an illusion. The color of the blood, says it all.

And this is why virtually all Kings and their bloodlines, past and present are considered blue bloods, its the copper content in their RH - blood. Red is iron based...

The intention is for mankind to destroy itself via its differences. Remember, no more floods. So, no matter what color your skin is, or blood, we are all in this boat, together.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Phantom423

A simple task. In other words, JUST DO IT.

Well, since you used the word "Simple" lol lol

First there is a lot of confusion as to what a "Race" of human beings, is. You have to have at minimum two participants, I mean, who races themselves.

At the core of humanity there are in fact only "Two" races, and they are separated by "Blood" The first race is RH- blood. They are termed "Sons of God" and were physically created via genetic engineering a very long time ago. They created the second race of humans, or the Sons of Man, RH +. Both races were created as slaves to the preexisting "Lord God", or Serpent in the Bible (Evolved).

Lord God allowed this second creation, as long as the Sons of Man were not allowed to breed, freely. In this way, the intelligence of the smart monkey race could be controlled. The original sin was the Sons of God allowed the Sons of Man to inner breed as they wished. Lord God, at all cost wanted no one to be as "Smart" as they.

It is of interest that the RH- in the past were the vast majority of abduction cases, but as far as I'm concerned is only disinformation. You can not transfuse blood from a dog into a human or for that matter any other species. Nor, can you transfuse RH- blood into a RH+, and visa versa. The physical and emotional attributes of the two are also different. The two human species, have different origins, genesis. But both, created to be slaves....... Whether they like it or not.

But, as always the case, something new. I do not have any information on this subject. But now that their are drugs available that actually allow successful mating of the RH+ RH- where in the past it was not, you have a strong possibility, of a 3rd race of man. A hi-bread of both + and -. And they can have either RH+, or RH- blood. The color of ones skin, is merely an illusion. The color of the blood, says it all.

And this is why virtually all Kings and their bloodlines, past and present are considered blue bloods, its the copper content in their RH - blood. Red is iron based...

The intention is for mankind to destroy itself via its differences. Remember, no more floods. So, no matter what color your skin is, or blood, we are all in this boat, together.

How does any of that disprove evolutionary science? What are you a Knight's Templar?

a reply to: Phantom423I can not disprove Evolution, as it is a reality, just as creation is, and was. Again, I firmly believe both processes occurred, and are valid, in their proper places and times.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Phantom423I can not disprove Evolution, as it is a reality, just as creation is, and was. Again, I firmly believe both processes occurred, and are valid, in their proper places and times.

Well that was a drastic 180.

I'm very much against the false dilemma of god vs evolution. I agree it COULD be both, but that's much different than saying evolution was proved wrong.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Phantom423I can not disprove Evolution, as it is a reality, just as creation is, and was. Again, I firmly believe both processes occurred, and are valid, in their proper places and times.

Well that was a drastic 180.

I'm very much against the false dilemma of god vs evolution. I agree it COULD be both, but that's much different than saying evolution was proved wrong.

Ya what happened to that anyways???

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Phantom423I can not disprove Evolution, as it is a reality, just as creation is, and was. Again, I firmly believe both processes occurred, and are valid, in their proper places and times.

Well that was a drastic 180.

I'm very much against the false dilemma of god vs evolution. I agree it COULD be both, but that's much different than saying evolution was proved wrong.

The evolution, of mankind. It has more to do with, again, where and when each took place. And I do hate yes and no answers, but that is how it is. Yes, its true in one timeline, and no it isn't in another. The first two or 3 billion years is wide open to evolution, and in my mind, evolved inspiration. The human body,because of two separate species kind of proves they didn't evolve, with the same timeline or genesis. The RH- bloodline is only 30,000 to 35,000 years old, on the surface of this planet. The RH+ is over 200,000 years. Now get Science to explain that S&it if all of humanity evolved, together..

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Phantom423I can not disprove Evolution, as it is a reality, just as creation is, and was. Again, I firmly believe both processes occurred, and are valid, in their proper places and times.

Well that was a drastic 180.

I'm very much against the false dilemma of god vs evolution. I agree it COULD be both, but that's much different than saying evolution was proved wrong.

The evolution, of mankind. It has more to do with, again, where and when each took place. And I do hate yes and no answers, but that is how it is. Yes, its true in one timeline, and no it isn't in another. The first two or 3 billion years is wide open to evolution, and in my mind, evolved inspiration. The human body,because of two separate species kind of proves they didn't evolve, with the same timeline or genesis. The RH- bloodline is only 30,000 to 35,000 years old, on the surface of this planet. The RH+ is over 200,000 years. Now get Science to explain that S&it if all of humanity evolved, together..

Well it's an interesting take on everything, that's for sure. What about the Anunnaki? Ancient Sumerian texts suggest that they came from another planet and created a race of humans. I saw an exhibit in Istanbul from ancient Sumeria/Babylonia. Some strange artifacts.

Anyway, wouldn't you expect that if there were two races of humans - RH+ and RH- - that there would be other differences in their genetic code? Has anyone looked at that aspect? If the RH bloodline is only 30-35,000 years old, I would expect that there would be some major differences in the genetic makeup between earlier hominids and the RH group.
One question: Are you suggesting that the RH- group developed totally independently of other hominids? Seems like it should be traced to a mutation 30-35,000 years ago.
Never read about any of this before. Will do some research.

I think Peter Vlar will know something about this. He's the resident paleoanthropologist around here.

a reply to: Phantom423

Anyway, wouldn't you expect that if there were two races of humans - RH+ and RH- - that there would be other differences in their genetic code?

I'm no expert in DNA or genetic manipulation, but I have read there actually are physical traits that are attributable to the RH-, mainly physically more robust than the RH+. Also, predominantly blue and green eyes that are a bit larger than average. Something about the forehead and similarities with cro-magnon man. And, harder to kill than the average human being. That part might have been an overstatement but then I remember some political personalities that have survived some very serious wounds. And, maybe the most revealing, they RH-s can not be cloned.

One question: Are you suggesting that the RH- group developed totally independently of other hominids?

Since the RH - factor is not, and I repeat, is not, a mutation, then it stands to reason the biological process that is responsible for one, can not be the same for the other.

What about the Anunnaki? Ancient Sumerian texts suggest that they came from another planet and created a race of humans. I saw an exhibit in Istanbul from ancient Sumeria/Babylonia. Some strange artifacts.

From a scientific standpoint, you will never receive a answer to that question. But from a Investigator mindset, you rely on all forms of evidence. Just now more has surfaced from a cave in Mexico. In order to draw a scientific conclusion, one must first observe those cultures then "create" a theory, and since no one alive have seen "those from heaven", observation, no scientific theory can be accomplished. Well, they have been observed, just misidentified. Only most recently has it been revealed that their is a high probability that their was intelligent life on mars that was wiped out via a nuclear Holocaust. Then add the Sanskrit accounts of Tiamat, the water planet that was destroyed( Asteroid Belt).

It might be true their original home may have been elsewhere millions of years ago. But I'm not going to suggest the RH- came from anywhere other than here.

I believe the RH+ as I said were here on the surface of our planet for some 200,000 years. You have already witnessed the "artifacts". And we all know the human beings that were here then, most likely were not advanced enough to produce them. The question then becomes, were the RH- intelligent enough? I would have to say yes.

How they, or that group of RH- found themselves living beside the lesser RH+ is debatable. Personally, I believe, that group of RH- were the actual ones who were cast out of the garden some 35,000 years ago, to live with the "Smart Monkeys", they messed with...... And yes, the whole concept of the "Garden" is very debatable.................

Thank you for your interest and questions.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Oh no you don't. I am no neophite in Biochemistry, Chemistry , Genetics and by extension Bioinformatics. The whole RH - people are special is a load of dingoes kidneys. Post peer reviewed papers to prove what you claimed. I know this is a conspiracy forum, but I bet you can't back that up!
As for the rest.... I guess you liked BSG then

a reply to: Noinden

As for the rest.... I guess you liked BSG then

If you are referring to Battle Star Galactica, no, not really. But I do like "N" "TL" "WOO" "TM" and I have reconsidered "POTA". I feel they are more of Documentaries rather than fiction

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

So what you are basically saying is you are not going to pony up any proof

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

So what you are basically saying is you are not going to pony up any proof

As I have discovered, the proof everyone wants, dosn't want to be "Discovered", just yet. That's to say, when the root race themselves decide to expose themselves publicly, you will have your proof. Until then, its all about hurry up and wait. That is, unless you care to consider what I have shared already..

I think they are waiting until we clean up our act.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Ahh the "root race" .... sigh. Ok Lets say I'm interested in that discussion (I certainly am more interested in that than I am in going back and forth about religion (given I AM religions (a Polytheist)) and Science (I am one too)).

So this root race. Tell me more

a reply to: Phantom423

Rh factor

I don't see anything there about different 'races'.

The Biology Project: Blood Types Tutorial

Nor do I see anything there about it either. In fact, this indicates that Rh+ and Rh- can appear in the same family, which means that it can't be much of a 'racial marker' if children of the same parents could end up in different 'races'.

There just isn't much research to do here to figure out that it is a load of old bollocks.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I'm certainly not an expert on RH- vs RH+, but it seems the concept is being romanticized. If RH+ can breed with RH-, then they are the same species. It doesn't make sense for one to be a product of evolution and the other to be created separately. In reality it's just one factor involved in a blood type, it's not even a different blood type. The genes are very similar. Why do you think RH- couldn't come from evolution while RH+ can? I was under the impression that the RH factor in blood goes back to the Rhesus monkey, so I don't see how it could be a separate created species.

I would like a citation on your claim of them not being able to clone RH-.