The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby tholden » Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:18 am

No normal science theory is ever defended the way evolution is. What IS defended in that sort of manner are lifestyles, tenures, entrenched positions, and careers which have been built pyramid-style atop a base row which is sitting on quicksand. The people sitting ten or eleven rows of stones up don't like being told that the whole thing is unworkable.

What most people are unaware of is that the whole theory of evolution has been overwhelmingly refuted a number of times and via a number of totally unrelated arguments to such an extent that ANY normal science theory under the same circumstances would have been rejected and thrown out literally decades ago.

The first such disproof and the one which rightfully should have ended the debate involved fruit flies. Fruit flies breed new generations every other day so that running any sort of a decades-long experiment with fruit flies will involve more generations of them than there have ever been of anything even remotely resembling humans on our planet. Those flies were subjected to everything in the world known to cause mutations and the mutants were recombined every possible way; all they ever got were sterile freaks, and fruit flies. Several prominent scientists publicly denounced evolution at that point in time including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt.

The failure was due to the fact that our entire living world is driven by information and the only information there ever was in the picture was that for a fruit fly. When the DNA/RNA information scheme was discovered, even if the fruit fly thing had never happened, evolution should have been discarded on the spot. But GIVEN the fact of the fruit fly experiments, somebody HAD to have thought to himself "Hey, THAT'S THE REASON THE FRUIT FLY EXPERIMENTS FAILED!!!!!!"

The DNA/RNA system is an information code just like C#, Java, or C++. Information codes do not just sort of happen or appear amongst inanimate matter for no particular reason. In other words, there is no way in the world anybody should be believing in evolution 40 years after the discovery of DNA and, again, that's just one overwhelming disproof amongst a number of such. Again no legitimate science theory would ever survive such a history.

There is the question of the probabilistic odds against any sort of life forming from inanimate matter via any random sequence of events; the junk science reports we now read about "string" theory and "multiple universes" is basically motivated by a recognition of what the odds are against evolution in the one universe we actually have any evidence for.

And then there is the Haldane dilemma, which amounts to an understanding of the time spans which would be needed to spread ANY genetic change through any group of creatures. A very simple version of the thing is all most intelligent people should need:


Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or "proto-humans" ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a "beneficial mutation". Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.

Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.

Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in "human evolution". The max number of such "beneficial mutations" which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Walter Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from neanderthals.

That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years the best you could possibly hope for would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.

People who have carried out the math for real-world rates of substitution come up with it taking quadrillions of years for our present living world to have evolved in any fashion even if that were possible, which it isn't.

So evolution needs quadrillions of years... how much time do they (evolutionites) actually have? A very big part of the answer has been coming in lately in the form of blood, blood vessels, and raw meat turning up in dinosaur remains:

Image

In other words, Midrashic sources and Amerind oral traditions are basically correct in describing human interaction with dinosaurs just a few thousand years ago (there is no way raw meat and blood can survive for millions of years) and the thing we've heard all our lives about dinosaurs dying out all our lives is a bunch of BS.

A theory which needs quadrillions of years and only has a few thousand is basically FUBAR; no reasonably well educated person should ever buy into it.



What about humans, hominids such as the Neanderthal, and the stories we keep seeing in the news about some new human ancestor of the year which is supposedly going to save evolutionism, and what about the 30,000 and 200,000 year time frames involved in those stories?

In order to be descended from something via any process resembling evolution, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something. Thus the curious total lack of any real evidence of modern man ever interbreeding with Neanderthals was always viewed as a big mystery particularly since there was evidence of the two groups living in close proximity for long periods. James Shreeve described the problem in an article published in Discover magazine in the mid 90s:

"Humans love to mate. They mate all the time, by night and by day, through all the phases of the female’s reproductive cycle. Given the opportunity, humans throughout the world will mate with any other human. The barriers between races and cultures, so cruelly evident in other respects, melt away when sex is at stake. Cortés began the systematic annihilation of the Aztec people--but that did not stop him from taking an Aztec princess for his wife. Blacks have been treated with contempt by whites in America since they were first forced into slavery, but some 20 percent of the genes in a typical African American are white. Consider James Cook’s voyages in the Pacific in the eighteenth century. Cook’s men would come to some distant land, and lining the shore were all these very bizarre-looking human beings with spears, long jaws, browridges, archeologist Clive Gamble of Southampton University in England told me. God, how odd it must have seemed to them. But that didn’t stop the Cook crew from making a lot of little Cooklets.

Project this universal human behavior back into the Middle Paleolithic. When Neanderthals and modern humans came into contact in the Levant, they would have interbred, no matter how strange they might initially have seemed to each other. If their cohabitation stretched over tens of thousands of years, the fossils should show a convergence through time toward a single morphological pattern, or at least some swapping of traits back and forth.

But the evidence just isn’t there, not if the TL and ESR dates are correct. Instead the Neanderthals stay staunchly themselves. In fact, according to some recent ESR dates, the least Neanderthalish among them is also the oldest. The full Neanderthal pattern is carved deep at the Kebara cave, around 60,000 years ago. The moderns, meanwhile, arrive very early at Qafzeh and Skhul and never lose their modern aspect. Certainly, it is possible that at any moment new fossils will be revealed that conclusively demonstrate the emergence of a Neandermod lineage. From the evidence in hand, however, the most likely conclusion is that Neanderthals and modern humans were not interbreeding in the Levant..."


And then in the late 1990s results of DNA studies of Neanderthal remains began to come in and cleared up the mystery:


"He said his team ran four separate tests for authenticity - checking whether other amino acids had survived, making sure the DNA sequences they found did not exist in modern humans, making sure the DNA could be replicated in their own lab and then getting other labs to duplicate their results. Comparisons with the DNA of modern humans and of apes showed the Neanderthal was about halfway between a modern human and a chimpanzee."



That's right: the Neanderthal was basically an advanced ape whose DNA was almost exactly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee, and we could no more interbreed with Neanderthals than we could with horses. Even the prestigeious PlosBiology system gave up on the idea (No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans).

Clearly that should have been the end of any talk about modern humans having evolved from hominids since all other hominids were significantly FURTHER removed from us THAN the neanderthal. Nonetheless evolutionites go on talking about a "common ancestor(TM) for both ourselves and Neanderthals, 5000,000 years back. That of course is idiotic; it's as if somebody had discovered some reason why dogs could not be descended from wolves, and the evolutionites were to claim that therefore they (dogs) must be descended directly from fish.


But what about the time frames? We've seen that the time frmes we read about for dinosaurs are totally FUBAR, what about the 50,000 and 200,000 and 500,000 year time spans you read about for supposed human ancestors? Do evolutionites have the sort of time they'd need to even be talking about hominid/human evolution?

Gunnar Heinsohn is best/brightest category in European academia and a frequent speaker at NATO gatherings since his population youth bulge theories predict political unrest with near 100% accuracy; he's also a major player in the ongoing efforts to reconstruct Med-basin chronologies. His "Wie Alt ist das Menschengeschlect" describes the problem with the dating schemes typically associated with Neanderthal studies:



Mueller-Karpe, the first name in continental paleoanthropology, wrote thirty years ago on the two strata of homo erectus at Swanscombe/England: "A difference between the tools in the upper and in the lower stratum is not recognizable. (From a geological point of view it is uncertain if between the two strata there passed decades, centuries or millennia.)" (Handbuch der Vorgeschichte, Vol I, Munich 1966, p. 293).



The outstanding scholar never returned to this hint that in reality there may have passed ten years where the textbooks enlist one thousand years. Yet, I tried to follow this thread. I went to the stratigraphies of the Old Stone Age which usually look as follows


modern man (homo sapiens sapiens)


Neanderthal man (homo sapiens neanderthalensis)


Homo erectus (invents fire and is considered the first intelligent man).


In my book "Wie alt ist das Menschengeschlecht?" [How Ancient is Man?], 1996, 2nd edition, I focused for Neanderthal man on his best preserved stratigraphy: Combe Grenal in France. Within 4 m of debris it exhibited 55 strata dated conventionally between -90,000 and -30,000. Roughly one millennium was thus assigned to some 7 cm of debris per stratum. Close scrutiny had revealed that most strata were only used in the summer. Thus, ca. one thousand summers were assigned to each stratum. If, however, the site lay idle in winter and spring one would have expected substratification. Ideally, one would look for one thousand substrata for the one thousand summers. Yet, not even two substrata were discovered in any of the strata. They themselves were the substrata in the 4 m stratigraphy. They, thus, were not good for 60,000 but only for 55 years.


I tested this assumption with the tool count. According to the Binfords' research--done on North American Indians--each tribal adult has at least five tool kits with some eight tools in each of them. At every time 800 tools existed in a band of 20 adults. Assuming that each tool lasted an entire generation (15 female years), Combe Grenals 4,000 generations in 60,000 years should have produced some 3.2 million tools. By going closer to the actual life time of flint tools tens of millions of tools would have to be expected for Combe Grenal. Ony 19,000 (nineteen thousand) remains of tools, however, were found by the excavators.


There seems to be no way out but to cut down the age of Neanderthal man at Combe Grenal from some 60,000 to some 60 years.


I applied the stratigraphical approach to the best caves in Europe for the entire time from Erectus to the Iron Age and reached at the following tentative chronology for intelligent man:


-600 onwards Iron Age
-900 onwards Bronze Age
-1400 beginning of modern man (homo sapiens sapiens)
-1500 beginning of Neanderthal man
between -2000 and -1600 beginning of Erectus.



Since Erectus only left the two poor strata like at Swanscombe or El-Castillo/Spain, he should actually not have lasted longer than Neanderthal-may be one average life expectancy. I will now not go into the mechanism of mutation. All I want to remind you of is the undisputed sequence of interstratification and monostratification in the master stratigraphies. This allows for one solution only: Parents of the former developmental stage of man lived together with their own offspring in the same cave stratum until they died out. They were not massacred as textbooks have it:


monostrat.: only modern man's tools

interstrat.: Neanderthal man's and modern man's tools side by side

monostrat.: only Neanderthal man's tools

interstrat.: Neanderthal man's and Erectus' tools side by side

monotstrat.: only Erectus tools (deepest stratum for intelligent man)

The year figures certainly sound bewildering. Yet, so far nobody came up with any stratigraphy justifiably demanding more time than I tentatively assigned to the age of intelligent man. I always remind my critiques that one millennium is an enormous time span--more than from William the Conqueror to today's Anglo-World. To add a millenium to human history should always go together with sufficient material remains to show for it. I will not even mention the easiness with which scholars add a million years to the history of man until they made Lucy 4 million years old. The time-span-madness is the last residue of Darwinism.



Heinsohn is not putting an exact age on the Neanderthal die-out; what he IS stating is that there is no legitimate interpretation of existing evidence which would indicate that they died out any more than four or five thousand years ago and that is basically consistent with the thing about raw dinosaur meat.

That of course is nowhere remotely close to the time frames which any sort of an evolutionary scheme of modern man from hominids would require. We are left with three basic choices:

  • Modern man was created here from scratch, and recently.
  • Modern man was brought here from somewhere else in the cosmos.
  • Modern man was genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids, most likely the Neanderthal.


Those are your three basic choices and none of them involve evolution. Moreover the second and third choices merely amount to kicking the can a block or two down the road as far as how anything like modern man ever came into existence anywhere in the universe at all since the the same mathematical and probabilistic laws which prevent macroevolution on this planet would hold true anywhere else. The 17B years which supposedly intervene since the "Big Bang(TM)" wouldn't be enough for modern man to evolve in the universe even if that were possible which it isn't, and even if the Big Bang idea itself weren't just another bunch of BS like evolution, which it is.
tholden
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby tayga » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:41 am

tholden wrote:No normal science theory is ever defended the way evolution is.


A nice post that's full of interesting argument but I disagree with your opening statement.

I've come to the conclusion that ALL scientific theories that are sufficiently removed from direct human experience by time, scale or distance tend towards religion. The classical picture of the impartial, objective scientist is nothing less than propaganda spread by those who either have no direct knowledge of science or are hiding something. And I say that as a working scientist.

The big three topics on this forum, cosmology, particle physics and archaeology/history are all dominated by consensus and characterised by clumsy, complicated theories that are full of internal inconsistencies.

On a personal level, I have come to realise that we know far less than non-scientists are led to believe and a fair proportion of what we claim to know is plain wrong.

I agree with what you say about careers and lifestyles but you left out the thing that underlies both; money. Money corrupts everything it touches and I believe it is its absence from non-mainstream science that gives us most cause for hope.

Ignorance prevents me from commenting intelligently on your arguments but instinct and experience tell me that what you say is probably not without merit. :D
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby ranmacar » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:40 pm

I also disagree with the opening in a way.
The reason is simple - evolution is not a science theory in my view. That is, Darwinian evolution. The problem is, that it depends on RANDOM changes. But it is fundamentaly impossible to determine if something is random. So it depends on a faith - that truly random events exist, and replaces the Gods with this.

Ask a Darwinian to show you a random event, and he will face his God. Ask him to prove it is random, and he kills him.

Evolution per se is ok, we just don't know the force that drives it. For that's the realm of the soul, and forever will.
ranmacar
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:54 am

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby squiz » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:30 am

I recently became interested in this subject after I posted a thread here involving bioelectric precursors in the morphogenesis of a tadpole. I was fascinated, so I've been digging into the subject.

From what I've found so far the odds of forming a new functonal protein alone are astronomical 1 in 10^75 or something. This is based on a simple sequence of only 150 amino acids. It seems self evident when you think about it. If you randomly change a sequence are you more likely to enhance or to degrade the information? Can we really mutate an existing protein randomly and create new functionality?
The amount of non functional proteins far, far outweigh the amount of functional ones. So far that I believe it is beyond reach for the Darwinian mechanisms. You are far more likely to generate disease or death by randomy mutating a protein.

On the frog thing though, it seems there is good reason to believe that the information for body plan is not in the DNA, or perhaps not soley in the DNA. If this is true Darwinism is also refuted because random mutation in the DNA transfer will not translate to new morphological functional and adaptive body plans.

And quite obviously what we see in the fossil record is not a gradual shifting and branching, but rapid zones of transition and long periods of stasis. Not constant gradual change. it also appears that the mechanisms are simply not nealry fast enough to get the job done.

The idea of prescriptive style information arising from natural forces boggles the mind. How can natural forces assemble a language based form of communication that far surpasses anything we can even comprehend?

I think it is a fair question, the usual response is ridicule or being labeled a religious fundamentalist. And yet they still can't answer the question of course. I get the feeling that it will never be answered without the need for an intelligent intent.
squiz
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:05 am

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby ranmacar » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:58 am

squiz wrote:I get the feeling that it will never be answered without the need for an intelligent intent.


That intent is Communication.

Atoms are letters, molecules words, cells sentences and animals finished novels..
Human is a poem writing itself, set to the beat of the universe.
If society becomes a song, man turn to animal.

Evolution increases the ability to express ideas - so it accelerates. Remember the songs of atoms?

;)
ranmacar
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:54 am

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby squiz » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:12 am

tholden wrote:Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in "human evolution". The max number of such "beneficial mutations" which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Walter Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from neanderthals.


It may actually be even more extreme than that.

To compare the two [human and chimpanzee] genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million "letters" align with the chimpanzee genome -- that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless "junk DNA." However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.

Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single "letter" is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This "copy number variation" causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.


http://www.refdag.nl/chimpanzee_1_282611

Not even in a 100 million years.
squiz
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:05 am

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:26 pm

Maybe life did self-arranged and evolve somewhere in the Universe once, but I believe our present incarnation,
on this planet, was the work of entities far beyond our present understanding of reality.

Mauro Biglino translated 23 books of the Bible for the Vatican. He had to translate the Stalingrad Codex (the version of the Bible which all three major monotheistic religions - Cristian, Jewish and Muslim - recognize as the official Bible) from the Hebrew, word by word, literally and with no interpretation whatsoever. That is to say, he's not a wannabe kabbalist, conspirationist or ufologist, since the official publishing organism of the Vatican approved and released those books, at least 17 of them. While working on the Bible, he realized that many of the stories this book tells where mistranslated, misinterpretated, mostly on purpose, in order to insert the notion of a spiritual, allmighty and unerring God. The picture he gives us of the bestseller of all times is surprisingly different from what we all were told. Actually, as soon as he released "THE BOOK THAT WILL FOREVER CHANGE OUR IDEAS ABOUT THE BIBLE - THE GODS COMING FROM SPACE", the Vatican suspended all further publications of Mauro Biglino's works: Let's discover why!


The Gods coming from space

gennaio 18th, 2012
I am certain not to possess any truth , simply I make available to all the free thinkers what I notice from the reading of the ancient texts.
The curiosity and the doubt that animate my searches are determining in me the conviction that the human history must be rewrite.
It’s necessary to hold in consideration what all the people of every continent they narrate: with every probability we are children of “creative” coming from the space!
In my first book translated in English “The book that will forever change our ideas about the Bible-The Gods coming from space ” (Uno Editori) I face a series of footsteps of the Old Testament offering the true meaning of it: the alien creation of the man; the truth around ten commandments; the visions of the UFOs from the prophets as themselves have said; the passage in which the Old Testament affirms in puzzling way that God dies as all the men; the figures of the angels stripped of all of this that has been invented in the centuries on them.
Why this title? Because the literal translations of the ancient Jew make to discover what not all people know.
Mauro Biglino

http://www.holy-bible-aliens.com/
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2528
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby mague » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:12 am

Current knowledge about genetics is not science. Darwins oberservations are influenced by zeitgeist but closer to truth then genetics.

As with Einstein it was not Darwins fault, it was and is the fault of people who misinterpred Darwins observations. We can learn most about darwinism when looking at current attemts to repair the eco-system. People bring back one species and observe how multiple systems/species recover. Its the same Darwin observed but doesnt sound like "the strong eat the weak". Its more like bear eats fish, fish cant eat insects, more insects means easier reproduction for plants. More plants means more food for deer and rabits. And so on and so forth. Its rather to recognize how interdependant all species are and how nature serves those needed.

Genetics is just an attempt to make humans think they are worth something. Truth is, in some areas they arent worth the CO2 they produce to "feed" trees. Thus they will have to step down from top of the food chain. The one or the other way ;)
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby JohnMT » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:38 am

GaryN wrote:

Maybe life did self-arranged and evolve somewhere in the Universe once, but I believe our present incarnation,
on this planet, was the work of entities far beyond our present understanding of reality.


I wonder then, 'who' or 'what', created those entities.

John
JohnMT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:54 pm

I wonder then, 'who' or 'what', created those entities.
John

In a Universe that could be endless and timeless, I'd only be guessing. E/M radiation
has been shown to organise matter, and if that radiation contains the original 'plan',
then there may have been places where conditions were stable enough for long enough
that life did evolve/self assemble.
Since first reading the Bible though, I immediately thought it told of our creation
by advanced beings, and described some of their technology. I'm of the mind that
they were a Galactic presence, but perhaps even they did/do not know their origins.
I wouldn't be shocked though if it turned out that some robot engineer was involved!
Image
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2528
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby tayga » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:06 am

GaryN wrote:Since first reading the Bible though, I immediately thought it told of our creation by advanced beings, and described some of their technology.


I don't think that the bible, the Old Testament at least, is anything more than a reinterpretation of earlier mythology designed to support the idea of monotheism.

If you read some Saturnian cosmology, you might get a different understanding of biblical times and the Bible itself.

Try Jno Cook's site. It's free :D
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby mague » Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:24 am

GaryN wrote:
I wonder then, 'who' or 'what', created those entities.
John

In a Universe that could be endless and timeless, I'd only be guessing. E/M radiation
has been shown to organise matter, and if that radiation contains the original 'plan',
then there may have been places where conditions were stable enough for long enough
that life did evolve/self assemble.
Since first reading the Bible though, I immediately thought it told of our creation
by advanced beings, and described some of their technology. I'm of the mind that
they were a Galactic presence, but perhaps even they did/do not know their origins.
I wouldn't be shocked though if it turned out that some robot engineer was involved!


As always on such topics i have no proove. But our base construction is from earth. It was inevitable to get altered by anything out there radiating.

There are some very well designed parts that hint to intelligence. The better parts are the fail-safe items. Locomotor system and digestion require gravity. Mind automatically goes into selfdestruction mode when the person starts to break "creators" rules.


I think the question is less who the creator was, but the question if its working as intended.
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby JohnMT » Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:36 am

tayga wrote:
I don't think that the bible, the Old Testament at least, is anything more than a reinterpretation of earlier mythology designed to support the idea of monotheism.


I think the Bible is much more than that, but that is my opinion and a separate issue.

Thanks for the Saturnian Cosmology link.
Having made a cursory glance through, there appears to be no mention of the 'Gap Theory', which to say there may have been a race of 'Beings' (but not necessarily human beings) that once existed for an indeterminate length of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
This race of beings ultimately perished (but now continue to exist as disembodied 'spirits'), due to their extreme degeneracy.
If these beings did exist however, I am sure the Bible would have mentioned them, or perhaps the aftermath of their apparent existence (Jeremiah 4:23-26?)
(Curious that everywhere one looks in the Solar System, we see utter devastation.)

However, I don't think this idea has anything to do with 'Saturnism', generally speaking, because we are talking about a completely different era, which being pre-Adamic, is also pre-the 'Golden Age'.

In my understanding of Saturnism, the 'Golden Age' expired when proto-Saturn broke-up and the stars etc were seen for the first time ie 'Let there be light', so perhaps there may be a slight connection, except that during this particular event of creation, mankind and life generally as we know it, had yet to exist and is thus contradictory to the thesis of 'The Gap Theory'.

That 'Life' can emerge from inaminate objects, under whatever circumstances/conditions and given even horrendous periods of time for its apparent accomplishment (which is what is taught these days), is completely unproven.
JohnMT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby JaJa » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:20 am

tayga wrote:I don't think that the bible, the Old Testament at least, is anything more than a reinterpretation of earlier mythology designed to support the idea of monotheism

Hi tayga have you read the bible, or the Old Testament end to end..? You have an interesting point about 'earlier' mythology and epochs but the bible doesn't focus on just 'one' monotheistic God... 'God' in Genesis chapter one is not the LORD God in Chapter two, the LORD God [I believe] is the original man that was created by God in chapter one [from God's will] and the LORD in chapter four [I believe] is the second man [created from dust] by the LORD God in chapter two - according to his generations.

There are aspects of Genesis that throw up many clues about earlier epochs, personally, I think its a mistake to assume that a day-in-the-life of a God is 24 hours. If you consider a day as an aeon then Genesis takes on an entirely new [evolutionary] meaning.

Hi John - I hope you are well :D
John MT wrote:I think the Bible is much more than that, but that is my opinion and a separate issue.

And I... it is filled with hidden rhetoric from the word go...
Having made a cursory glance through, there appears to be no mention of the 'Gap Theory', which to say there may have been a race of 'Beings' (but not necessarily human beings) that once existed for an indeterminate length of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Most people don't consider the correct use of the English language when reading or writing, especially usage of proper nouns which specifically identify unique places or entities...
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The beginning this is not because the heaven [un-capitalised & singular] and the earth [un-capitalised] are not unique, in fact, earth written in this manner can just as well mean 'matter' or 'terrain' in general - indicating a pre-existing era or epoch from which heaven and earth are derived. Heaven and Earth become unique [proper nouns] in verses 8 & 10 respectively when they become Heaven and Earth.

The time-scale between Genesis verse 1 where heaven and earth are created and verses 8 and 10 where the Heaven and Earth are created are two days - or two aeons [ 2 billion years]... some food for thought - maybe.
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
User avatar
JaJa
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am

Re: The Basic Non-Evolution of Modern Man

Unread postby hex » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:56 am

JaJa wrote:. 'God' in Genesis chapter one is not the LORD God in Chapter two, the LORD God [I believe] is the original man that was created by God in chapter one [from God's will] and the LORD in chapter four [I believe] is the second man [created from dust] by the LORD God in chapter two - according to his generations.

.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
hex
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:07 am

Next

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest