US views on evolution

Post Reply New Topic

It is the oldest written record of our species, what we call History. Marduk, Ra, Veracocha, living gods came from the sky, lived with us, taught us, had children with our daughters, made us in their image, seems a bit much to be a common lie told by the uneducated. The gods did teach building houses, irrigated farming, and writing. Everyone says they lived a long time. This from people who would have had no contact. They all agree that the gods were real, lived with them, and taught the arts of civilization.

The Word of the Gods, if we keep the ways of the gods, we will become fit to be accepted into the heavens.

The odds of us being the oldest and wisest minds in the universe are billions of billions to one against.

We have gotten off planet, and sent probes beyond the Oort Cloud.

We have been given the rules, and warned of destruction if we do not follow them.

In the choice between current pop science, a political spin, or the Universe that seeded this planet, came and educated us in their ways, I have to stick with the Universe.

The Egyptians said that the gods came from the west 15,500 years ago, made man in their image,

It was not the only visit, just the most recent upgrade. The pattern of development during the Holocene has been very different than early eras. Building cities, civilization on a large scale, science, technology, never happened before in five million years of evolution.

We are a recent creation.

We're a recent creation - - just because the Sumerians and Egyptians at one time said we are?

I used to think that devolution was the opposite of evolution.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnzyupjTy4Y[/youtube]

Obviously Inventor has a deathwish, and is trying to get burned at the stake as a heretic by BOTH the Christian Evangelical Fundies, AND by mainstream scientists. So he makes up nonsense to violate the tenets of both groups ( ie being unscienific, and unbiblical, at the same time).

I do not think I called you a Nazi. Please point that out.

Not everything you think is wrong... just most of it.

I know more about this than you do, and have backed up my claims with specific, falsifiable data. You have not.


I apologise if I misrepresent you here...

We do not know that life only emerged once. However, we do know that all life on our planet share a common ancestor, LUCA.

This popular article sums up a complex paper quite well: http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinos ... cestor.htm

I will pick out the important bits for you:



Sharing a common ancestor is not being descended from something. That common ancestor was no more a pig than it was a human.

It would be more accurate to say "Euarchontoglires share a common ancestor, and Laurasiatheria share a common ancestor, and those two groups share a common ancestor".

It is simply not true to say that we are more closely related to pigs than chimpanzees.

Our "split" from the apes (not really a split at all- we're more closely related to the chimpanzee and the gorilla than the orangutan is, and far closer than the gibbon) occurred for the same reason all splits do- we found a different niche, adapted to it, and eventually couldn't interbreed back with chimpanzees.

If you are right and human evolution is the result of a chimpanzee getting it on with a pig, we would expect Euarchontoglires to be able to interbreed with Laurasiatheria today and produce fertile young. That cannot happen.


Charles Lyell was born in 1797. Charles Darwin was born in 1809. George III was monarch for that whole period. What you are suggesting is not merely historically implausible, it is totally impossible.

Principles Of Geology was published in 1830. Whilst Lyell was a proponent of uniformitarianism, he rejected common biological descent. Darwin came up with the idea of Natural Selection and Descent With Modification in 1838, but didn't publish for 20 years because he had other concerns. Alfred Russell Wallace wrote to him, having had the same realisation, and they published together.

Even IF the British monarchy had been suppressing material that supported a catastrophic view of the world (they weren't- it was the dominant world view amongst the educated in the 18th century), why would we still believe that? Why wouldn't scientists from other countries have just laughed at the British? The evidence supports Lyell and Darwin totally conclusively. The fact that we are even having this conversation is damning of the failings of your education.

Well, no. For a start, you are wrong to say we "know life started once", we merely know there is a universal common ancestor. Abiogenesis could have occurred dozens of times, but only LUCA's descendants ultimately survived. This is called a "genetic bottleneck" (actually it isn't, I just need to go to bed so I'm not going to explain the ins and outs of genetic bottlenecks).

Why would life starting elsewhere be less likely to show separate genetic origins?

Well I cannot blame someone doing something he wants to do, whether that be farming or homesteading or whatever it is people do out there. That said, the level of service they get from their government will always be less because of how isolated they are. Consequently, those in rather rural areas will be permanently excluded from the nation's power structures.

This is true if you live in one of the cities out there, particularly along the Front Range. But there is no density of highways there like there is elsewhere There are plenty of towns out there that are hundreds of miles from the interstates, and play almost no role in the broader national economy. It's sad.

How can such a learned man as you TallyMan refute the evidence brought by one with obvious hair superiority (Aliens, GUARANTEED, no other explanation for such a magnificent coiffure.)

(On a serious note TallyMan, have you read any Zacharia Stitchin or the like on your quest for knowledge? he was, how do you say it now..... an interesting man.)

Well, at least we still beat out the Turks!

No, never heard of him.

TayMan, link here to see more about Zacharia Sitchin:

http://www.sitchin.com/



Interesting theories (regarding the ancient Sumerians0 to read about, maintaining an open mind but not necessarily going along with it all....

Few have actually read him.

But surely everyone knows the "I'm not sayin' it's aliens, but it's aliens." guy on the History Channel.

Stitchin was one of several who wrote about the past based on the original records.

When Gilgamesh was translated about 1901, it was kept in the celler of the London Museum, till after WWII. The reason, the story of the ark and the flood was very old, and written by other gods.

Back when I started reading, the 50s, Gilgamesh was reviled, for claiming to have three parents, man, who the story was directed at, the gods, and also the wild man of the north. His neanderthal ancestors have since been proven.

The latest from Max Planck, they have found neanderthal DNA, Denisovan, and a third line they cannot define.

Stitchin was calling for DNA testing on Sumarian bones. Royal tombs have been found, that is where alien DNA could be found.

We had to find neanderthal to discover their DNA in us, same for denisovan. if Sumarian comes up mixed, we can identify the same in modern populations.

A graveyard of very long skulled people has been found in Topolobampo Mexico. It was dismissed as people tying rags around babies heads, but it was not found before or after. There are also long skulls in South Africa, and in South America. The Egyptian royal family is shown with long skulls.

Almost all universities were founded by religions, and the State does not trust anyone, much less smart people.

If we were founded by in the flesh gods, we would not need religion, and government would be less than the people.

Immanuel Velikovsky wrote Worlds in Collision, a recent geologic history, that did not agree with the mainstream view, that God Created Earth, and gave the keys to the Church and Crown.

I do not agree with all his causes, but his evidence is sound.

What we all have to go on is old writings, and some geology. Recently DNA has added to the view.

The official story, and the religious story says that people started farming and raising domestic animals in the mid east in the last 10,000 years. DNA says the plants and animals were domesticated 38,000 years ago. Seven weaves of cloth date from 35,000 years ago, including herringbone tweed, and there is evidence of writing, symbol use, and math.

There were several waves of invention, 50,000 and 38,000 years ago.

There is no Proto-Sumarian, their written language and math based on 60 just appear, full blown.

There is a town in northern Iraq, that is vitrafied, its mud brick turned to glass.

There are several brick cities in Pakistan that were also vitrafied, who had a written language, that has never been read. Another city in the delta is below sea level.

The oldest stories in Sanscrit tell of flying machines, and weapons that can melt a city.

There was a time before this time, several in fact, each a world of it's own.

Some were destroyed by nature, and some by technology.

There is more to this story than the two schools claim, we are neither made of mud, or just apes.

Those people who "just appeared" in Sumeria very probably had come out of modern Turkey, where sites like Catal Hyuk demonstrate that the Neolithic level culture there were living in sophisticated settlements complete with temples, which was the precursor of urbanized life.

Inventor so far you have talked at length about your beliefs and you have alluded to the existence of supporting evidence, yet in the many words you have written you have not provided a single piece of corroborating evidence, without evidence your beliefs fall into the same category as any other non falsifiable belief, which is, faith. Faith as evidence for reality is meaningless.

So do you have any falsifiable evidence for your belief?