My Theory of Humanity's Origin

[megamanXplosion]

This was originally going to be a reply to the topic "10 most puzzling ancient artifacts" but I felt it covered so much that it requires it own thread of discussion because it would become a mish-mash of discussions in the other thread. If moderators disagree then they are free to merge the topics, but I urge that they do not.

I have researched the Antikythera mechanism and Baghdad battery. Needless to say, they are highly fascinating. Their creators had scientific mastery thousands of years more advanced than what the majority of scientists believed. What is most interesting is thinking that the origins of practically all religions stem from that Eastern area. If anyone actually cares to research religion, one must trace its lineage and it mostly stems from Sumer, Babylon, etc. If one cares to search back further, there are some religions that even claim they originated from Atlantis (such as "The Children of the Law of One") and that they are the origin of all religion (including that of the Sumerians and Babylonians.) One must recognize that forming an accurate timeline of technology requires going back to the very beginning of Homosapiens. Did we come about from evolution or the religion teachings, or is it a combination? It seems to me that the hybrid view of combining evolution and religion is rarely considered.

Evolution itself has not fully accounted for our existence, in my honest opinion. The "missing link" between Suzy and modern humans covers such a vast amount of time I find it odd that no other links have been found that fill the role between Suzy and modern humans. Does this "missing" hybrid being even exist? It is of my opinion that it does not exist at all. There are only 300 genes that are different between us and chimpanzee. Out of these 300, 233 of the genes are genes from bacteria, and 25 genes are completely unique to Homosapiens (do a search on Google for "Adam's Alien Genes," which means alien in the sense of physical bodies.) It is fascinating to think that a large portion of our humanity comes from bacteria! There are essentially two ways DNA can integrate genes into a specie, vertical integration (through evolution) or horizontal integration (through genetic manipulation.) Scientists that have studied the bacterial genes state that the bacterial genes could've only become a part of us through horizontal integration! This means one of two possibilities: one, bacteria is altering our DNA; or two, advanced beings were trying to create us through genetic experiments involving bacteria!

Considering the consequences of the second possibility immediately make people spring for the other possibility. I think the possibility of bacteria altering our genes with such precision is a preposterous notion. I believe that bacteria lacks the intelligence to find the same location, every time in every being, out of the 29,767 possible locations, and manipulate our genes in such a precise manner. Indeed, this is the notion proposed by the majority of scientists that researched the matter. I do not know about you guys, but I think this notion is preposterous because the precision of the alteration certainly demands precise intellect! The way the bacteria supposedly altered our genes must also have changed throughout evolution of not only humanoids but also the evolution of themselves so that the bacteria remained synchronized with humanoid genetics! This is not only preposterous but still demands the "missing link" to exist when it seems to not exist!

The only explanation that makes any sense is that we were created by something of great intelligence. This poses two possibilities: God created us or an intelligent race of beings created us. Either way, it is now possible to explain our existence and why there is a "missing link." Because there is a wealth of information regarding religion, that is the logical place to start.

Every monotheistic religion speaks of humanity as the special creation of God. It seems strange to me that chimpanzees, which are 99% the same as us, were not also special creations. Indeed, religions speak of an omnipotent God who's special creation was merely 25 genes while his non-special creations, the trillions and trillions of genes that comprise all the other living species on Earth, were done with the snap of his finger! It also seems strange that God knew the importance of females in every other living specie then seemingly forgot the importance of it when creating man! Nonetheless, when you consider that the entire universe and everything in it was the creation of God, it seems strange that those 25 genes were so special. Those 25 genes seem rather irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, don't you think? The Elohim in monotheist religions also make no sense! The Elohim supposedly coexisted with God and were not special creations. In fact, their creation is not even mentioned! Now let me get this straight: the Elohim's creation, whose being is beyond the restraints of space and time, is not even worthy of mention and 25 genes on a little rock (Earth) is worth being called a "special" creation. I'm sorry, that makes no sense at all! When you think that the Elohim coexisted with God beyond the restraints of space and time, why were they barely worth mentioning? When God and the Elohim stated "let us make mankind in our image under our likeness" (Genesis 1:26), what exactly do they mean? It makes no sense that such entities, which are beyond the dimensions of space and time, would have an image! We, being bound by space and time, cannot possibly share an image of them!

This makes sense when you consider the other possibility: that homosapiens are the product of genetic engineering by an advanced race of beings. God may have been the name of the most influential being and the Elohim were a group of beings that shared the same origins: from the heavens, which, in ancient-speak, is "from the skies" or "from space." Those 25 unique genes in humanity may have been genes from the advanced race -- God and the Elohim -- who created us! It is possible that they took the life-forms like Suzy and inserted bacterial genes and 25 of their own genes to create us. To put it more bluntly: we may be hyper-evolved! This would explain the "missing link." This would also explain what it means when the Bible says "create mankind in our image and our likeness" and why we were so special in the grand scheme of things.

This possibility explains many of the mysteries surrounding mankind. There is a "missing link" because it does not exist, we were hyper-evolved. This explains why all religions stem from the same region on Earth, we were genetically engineered there. This explains the ancient technology that was thousands of years before its time, like the Baghdad Battery, Antikythera mechanisms, the huge pyramids, etc. -- they all began showing up around the same time as humanity was created This also explains why writing and civilization itself stemmed from this region. It has also been scientifically shown, through the research of human ethnicities, that humanity itself originated in this region and spread out from there not so long ago. According to the theory of evolution of how humanity came about through the millions of years, we should have spread out from there a long, long, time ago but historical evidence and modern research suggests that we just recently began to spread out! Thus, this explains another discrepancy with the theory of evolution that has been so accurate for every other specie on Earth!

If there was an extraterrestrial race involved in humanity's creation, there are two questions that come to mind: one, where are they now; and two, why did we lose such advanced knowledge? Archaeology has shown that they no such beings have died here so they either did not stay long or they had extremely long lives. Since religion is inextricably linked to these beings, one must look for answers there. Again, the Elohim and God, the extraterrestrials, were said to be beyond the restraints of space and time! Thus, the extraterrestrials seemed to live extremely long lives and were capable of space flight! Thus, it can be theorized that the extraterrestrials had dwelled on Earth for a fraction of their long life time and eventually left. Now we must consider why we lost such advanced knowledge. Again, one must turn to religion for an answer. Practically all religions speak of a great flood. These religions speak of the same flood! It is also said that Atlantis was buried by a great flood. It is logical to form the link that the flood spoke of in the religious texts was the great flood that destroyed Atlantis. Atlantis was known for its advanced sciences and its great garden, the Garden of Eden. Thus, Atlanteans somehow knew the flood was going to occur and a few escaped the Garden of Eden, and began to spread the knowledge of our creation (the universe's causeless cause and humanity's special creation) so this knowledge would not be lost because it is the only science that could be preserved by such a mass reduction in population and scientific capabilities and is the greatest solution that can be preserved!

The only question that remains is why we were created. It is well spread through religion that people must work for six days and rest on the seventh. One must consider how much intellect and work would be involved in the creation of the Garden of Eden, such as the creation of the water irrigation system that flowed around it and through it like (+). One must question why this garden was of such importance to the advanced beings. The only possibility is that it was to facilitate their survival. They needed a workforce to create this garden and that workforce needed to be intelligent. Thus, it seems they hyper-evolved the most intelligent species around, that of the chimpanzee, using 25 of their own genes and 233 bacteria genes to create an intelligent two-legged specie so they had a work force, that worked six days a week and rested on the seventh, to create and sustain the Garden of Eden while they proceeded to find a way home.

It is stated in practically all religions that the flood was caused by God and it was for the sole purpose of destroying civilizations. The religious have always stuck to their theory that "God works in mysterious ways." As I have shown, this God is actually an extraterrestrial. I shall now show that there is no "mystery" surrounding this event. They were attempting to cover their tracks! They intentionally tried to eradicate humanity (since it contained 25 of their genes) and humanity's creations (Atlantis and the Garden of Eden.) They did not want their presence to be known. They either did not want their superiors (in a military sense, not a biological sense) to know they done such things as genetically creating a race of beings or they did not want their enemies to know that they were here! It seems that they could've simply lied to their superiors about any advanced race existing and gotten away with it, so I believe that they were covering their tracks to avoid leaving clues for their enemies to find.

One may think of these extraterrestrials as being heartless because I do not think they are. I believe they do not have as much emotion as we do, since a regularly evolved race of such intellect would slowly reduce emotion because it can greatly impede on rational thinking. I must again point to the Bible, why were Homosapien males created and only after a long period of time females were created? I believe the general reasoning for this is the same as the Bible states, humanity was suffering from depression and loneliness. This reasoning did not really make sense in the biblical context though, like mentioned earlier, because all other life forms had female mates and the depression problem was solved long before the creation of humanity. It seems that the extraterrestrial race did not foresee the depression that a non-reproductive society would bring and they alleviated our depression by creating females and making males and females attract to one other. Indeed, for such a "heartless" race that would too kind! It seems that the extraterrestrials were emotional but not too emotional as to impede on their reasoning to survive an inter-galactic war. Their reasoning for our destruction was of a logical manner and were more emotionally driven by their own survival than that of their creations'. Indeed, they may have loved their creations but did not love them enough to undermine the survival of their own race.

Fortunately for us, some Atlanteans escaped this deliberate destruction. The survivors must have overheard the discussions or read the writing about eradicating humanity and proceeded to flee from the area (metaphorically, they could not resist the fruit from the tree of knowledge, such as depicted in religion.) Thus, the diffusion of humanity across the Earth began! Because most of the population was destroyed, along with its origin, practically all of its advanced knowledge was lost! The only knowledge that is likely to survive such a catastrophic event is that of our existence and rudimentary concepts. Thus, the existence of all religions was an attempt by the survivors of the great flood to preserve the knowledge of our creation! This explains why practically all religions, all of humanity, all of civilization, all of writing's origin seem to start from a general area in the East but at no particular spot (the particular spot was destroyed.) The rudimentary concepts they escaped with was electricity (such as that used to create the Baghdad Battery), machinery concepts like gears (such as those used in the Antikythera mechanism), gravity and the solar system (such as described in the seven ancient Sumerian clay tablets,) and the concept of time. The severely-reduced population was forced into fighting for their survival in the harsh climates of the Eastern regions. They were not able to preserve or rebuild their knowledge of such technologies and only the concept of time and creation really stuck with us.

Now that humanity has existed for several thousand years longer we have developed a way of sustaining ourselves again. We developed an economic system -- though there are exceptions to this general concept. Through this system of trading, and some of slavery, we began to build our civilizations in the East and continued spreading across the world. Once we were finally sustainable again we began to rebuild the lost knowledge of electricity, machinery, gravity, and the form of our solar system! I must also conclude by saying that their are no major faults in the theory of evolution, we evolved since the beginning of life on Earth until we reached our Suzy-form, then we were genetically altered to form a new specie, and this new specie (Homosapiens) has slowly evolved since then (such as the formation of ethnicities since we began spreading)!

What do you think about this theory? If you do not believe it is accurate then please provide your reasoning rather than simply scoffing at the idea because scoffing is just another way of saying "I prefer ignorance" and nothing productive can result from it. Being productive, in this context, is either upholding the theory, modifying the theory, or destroying the theory. Rational skepticism is healthy and is the cornerstone of all intellectual pursuits, ignorance is not. Please reply with your opinion and reasoning :)

[fascist]

Umm it looks to be somewhat of an entire paper I would have towrite for school. I shall read it in a bit it seems like it has some interesting points though.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Well I generally disagree with your theory.

For one if they were generally kind aliens and they had an evil arch enemy why haven't they come to **** us up now? if the enemy of our creators was close enough to possibly find our creators then surely they're close enough to find all the rediculous space crap we're sending out now right? So where's the evil mothership? It's not like Earth is hiding it's presence. That goes for the semi good guy creators to, they should be able to come back or at the least be discovered now.

I don't think the mechanisms you speak are truly as advanced as they seem at first. I mean a battery would be an amazing invention had there actually been stuff that ran on batteries, however since we've found nothing that would seem to point to that perhaps it had some other use? Perhaps they built the battery without actually knowing what it could do? History is littered with inventions that if had just been looked at in another light could have changed the way we evolved and yet they just never did. Looking at the battery and it's crudeness I find it hard to believe that it actually powered anything, it was probably some kind of placebo type device used in religous or medical practices.

The Antikythera mechanism is rather interesting but not in the grand scheme of things. I think the biggest flaw that modern scholars and scientists have is in thinking that certain things require certain levels of sophistication and knowledge rendering them incapable of being invented by lesser civilizations. It's not like the Greeks were strangers to gears and it's not like during that time there weren't great renowned inventors, so why is it hard to believe that someone could make something like that? Complicated, yes, but it's rarity does imply that it would have been something specially made and expensive, probably only capable of being made by a handful of people or less in thier whole civilization.

I guess what I'm going to say is this: technology is kinda culture dependant and not all technology has to develop in the order we think it does. It is completely possible for someone to develop a battery without realizsing it's possible uses in the manner that we've decided a battery should be used, that's not special, nor is it meant to take away from thier invention either. It's just when you look at the cultures around the world and how they allow or disallow certain sciences and inventions it's not hard to see things happening differently

As for aliens, well that's pretty speculative there. You have to take it on faith that certain graphics and words mean what you want them to and it pretty much requires the same leap of faith as it would to believe in God. There's really no evidence either way about it.

[Tony_Yayo]

what the f k is suzy

[n3wt]

I actually saw a documentary on this once, so instead of just straight up dismissing this, I'm game to get into it. :p

You're actually missing a lot of the information that lead to this point of view gaining popularity. It was a while ago that I saw the documentary, but I remember references to Indian religions talking about battles between the gods in the sky, and Egyptian glyphs depicting the gods creating humanity out of apes using some kind of jar. (Of course, they could have just been making preserves.) Also, something about snake like creatures coming down from the sky to talk to early Central American people.

As far as all your talk about Atlantis, I don't really recall any major religion talking about Atlantis, I believe it was an invention of Plato, an allegorical story, nothing more.

There *is* on the other hand, a lot of evidence for a flood in the middle east, it is talked about in religious texts, as well as the epic of Gilgamesh. (no reference to it outside of the middle east afaik though) There is also reason to believe that the Garden of Eden is mentioned in the epic as well, as there is an island that is very similar, excepting that Gilgamesh almost gets eaten by snakes there.

[Galley]

The human body is too perfect of a machine to exist through evolution alone. It was certainly created by a supreme being.

[vincent]

The human body is too perfect of a machine to exist through evolution alone. It was certainly created by a supreme being.

Please the word perfect does not apply to the human species think about it, most have to get their tonsils removed, most have to get their wisdom teeth removed, etc, again, define "perfect" when it comes to the human body, i'll be wating for a reply.

Edited January 4, 2006 by ripgut

[Tony_Yayo]

I know.^ like if there was some being out there they would of made all the planets around us with life.

[Captain_Wang]

I believe in a creator, God, and I don't know if we were made to evolve by God or how we got here, I think it's kind of irrelevant, you can't destroy or create something, the energy and matter doesn't stop existing, it can take other forms but it's still there. Therefore I think God to be energy more than anything, a universal energy running through everything that has become conscious and has created us. I think anyway. I think the question of where we came from is far less important than where we're going as a species.

[vincent]

I believe in a creator, God, and I don't know if we were made to evolve by God or how we got here, I think it's kind of irrelevant, you can't destroy or create something, the energy and matter doesn't stop existing, it can take other forms but it's still there. Therefore I think God to be energy more than anything, a universal energy running through everything that has become conscious and has created us. I think anyway. I think the question of where we came from is far less important than where we're going as a species.

God is not energy, that is such a copout answer, i'm not trying to trounce on you, but that argument does not make any sense to me. every atom in our bodies,, all of the rocky and metallic materials we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interiors of a red giant star. We are made of star-stuff. The evidence pointing to this theory holds it up pretty well. We know this because as a star's hydrogen fuel, once its depleted the star begins to fuse helium into Carbon, once carbon is exhausted then heavier and heaveier elements fuse, until its core collapses on itself, releasing all of it's heavy elements into space, in the form of a supernova explosion, this collapses nearby clouds and those clouds begin to fragment into smaller sub fragments.

An example of this would be, if one was to stand on a rotating plater with arms extended, he places two weights of equal length in each of his hands, and he is spun, at first he spins fairly slow, but if he was to pull the weights into his body the velocity of his spin would increase. this is the beginning of star formation within a cloud.

/me waits for the "how do you not know the "creator" intended that to be the formation process?"

:rolleyes:

[Captain_Wang]

I don't know if we were made to evolve by God or how we got here

PS. thanks for the picture!

[Sticktron]

The human body is too perfect of a machine to exist through evolution alone. It was certainly created by a supreme being.

Life on earth has spent millions of years improving, becoming better and better at survival. After all that time in development, with life or death as the consequence, our "machines" would be pretty darned advanced by now.

BTW: I recommend that everyone read the book The Selfish Gene. It suggests that our genes have the singular goal of reproducing. Our bodies and minds--and all life as we know it--has developed around our genes over the years to serve only as more and more advanced protectorates. We are gene machines, built to ensure the survival of our genes. It just so happens that after so many years, and so many iterations, we have developed as we have (with thinking, etc.), but it's all for the sole purpose of genetic survival.

[Tony_Yayo]

i love this stuff

[vincent]

Indeed, it is type of mindset that is truly disturbing, religious proponents that are so immersed in their belief that they refute the evidence even when it is laid out in front of them, it's funny when people like this substitue psuedo-science inorder to justify there claims, that an "intelligent designer" is the cause for the complexity of life on this planet. Answer me this ID'rs if humans are so perfect, why do most have to have their tonsils removed, wisdom teeth removed, why is there carpal tunnel syndrome? huh? do you honestly belive the Human body is a "design" of perfection? If so why cant our bodies fight off cancer alone? Aids? influenza? answer me that?

Evolution happens right under our nose. It has never gone so fast as today

with all the breeding going on. The most a creationist could claim is that

evolution doesn't go all the way back.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is based on probability considerations.

It's in some respects more a law of mathematics than physics:

It's easy to throw a coffee cup into pieces (1), but the other way around,

throwing the pieces back into a whole cup (2) is virtually impossible.

But the latter isn't any harder than throwing a cup twice in exactly the

same pieces scattered exactly in the same way (3).

The difference between (1) and (2, 3) is that all end results count in (1)

while only a single end result counts in (2, 3) so the first has a much

higher probability.

So, yes, evolution needs luck and thus many tries. That's why it took a

billion years with the first very simple steps taking most of the time.

The 2nd law is also often the center of (vague) philosophical discussions

about the "arrow of time" often overlooking the probability aspects.

Also, Speaking of probabilities and likelihoods...

The odds of drawing any particular 5-card poker hand are smaller 1 in a hundred million. But every time I'm dealt a hand, I don't marvel at the extremely low likelihood of my getting dealt that hand; and I don't dismiss the reality of my holding that hand just because the odds of my getting it are so low.

And to take this a step further, the odds of being dealt a specific hand is independent of the hand - any particular royal flush is just as likely as any specific arbitrary hand. Now, that royal flush looks highly ordered, but that doesn't make it less likely to get than any other particular hand.

Another thing I want to discuss is the time-evolution of a sytem. Darwinian Evolution Theory requires a mechanism whereby certain specific outcomes evolve differently from other outcomes. In other words, all outcomes do not evolve identically, and this "selection" helps improve the odds of having complexity evolve from simpler things.

Here's an example to illustrate this selection : Take a big box and fill it with two sizes of balls - 1 inch marbles and 5 inch balls. Chuck all these balls randomly into the box. Now, continuously tap the box (gently), so the balls can rearrange themselves. Slowly, you'll see the smaller balls settle to the bottom, with the big ones above them. Given enough time, all the little balls will form into a lower tier, and the big ones into an upper tier - a perfectly ordered state ! What caused this ordering is that some balls - the little ones - are better than others - the big ones - at finding their way through openings and getting to the bottom. If it were equally easy for both kinds of balls to head for the bottom, the probability of arriving at this ordered state would be incredibly small. But because of this mechanism of selectivity, this ordered state is virtually a certainty in the long run. So the very notion of an event's (nonzero) probability presupposes that the event can occur. If, for some reason, the event cannot occur, then, surprise, the probability of the event is zero. To suggest that very low probability events cannot occur without some form of intervention is disengenuous at best; dishonest at worst, and is just plain wrong to the core.

ID? Who want's such a pessimistic -- life's too complex; just give up trying to understand -- spin centered doctrine?

1. How "unlikely" is the evolution into our present form? I have seen several estimates (and they ARE estimates in the roughest sense) of the chances of DNA's forming into its current form. Sure, the probability is very small. However, would anyone like to look at the probability of finding the top quark at the Tevatron several years ago? Let's see, they found... what, 8 events out of how many gazillion, gazillion events? And this is not counting those that are vetoed outright. Particle collider experiments are the MOST demanding scenario in terms of data acquisition, storage, and processing speed because of the mind-boggling quantity of data being gathered in just a fraction of a second. Someone should show these ID'ers the probability of finding a "positive" event out of all of these gazillion interactions and COMPARE that number with the numbers they're putting out for the DNA formation. Why this hasn't been done, I don't have a clue.

The main point here is that just because the probability "order of magnitude" appears to be miniscule doesn't mean we have not seen such occurence already, even within our lifetime. When the probability for something to occur is small, but there are a gazillion candidates, the phase space for that to occur is still reasonable enough that it CAN (and has) happened.

2. Often, the calculation of such probability itself is highly dubious. It assume that one starts off already knowing the final phase space that one has to end up with. Let me give an example. Let's say I start off with 4 letters, A, B, C, and D. I have 10 slots to fill this letters with (repetition is allowed). I want to know what is the probability that, after a random selection, I end up with a sequence that such as

BBDBDAEDDA

One can do the straightforward calculation there. One can accurately argue that the phase space (or probability) of getting such a sequence is small. However, is this really what is going on with the evolution process? I would make a definite claim that it isn't.

First of all, the formation of our DNA doesn't not happen all at once at the beginning of the evolutionary process. Natural selection dictates that based on the external ecological pressures, there will be traits that will be more favorable than others. Now unless I slept through reading the formation of our universe and earth, the earth a LONG TIME ago is not the same earth that's here today. There is just a different ecological pressures when it is mainly water/molten rocks/etc. Our current forms are just not "favorable" back then!

As the environment changed, so does the external pressures, and different traits became more favorable. In other words, the DNA selection changes gradually. So maybe, using my example above, you have filled only the first 5 sequence of BBDBD_____. Now, the probability phase space to end up with BBDBDAEDDA is no longer as large as in the beginning. You have already established the first 5. It's like flipping a coin 4 times and asking for the probability that you end up with 4 heads. While the probability at the start is of course (1/2)^4, if you have already obtained 3 heads, then the probability of getting all 4 heads is just 1/2.

For some reason, I haven't seen this argument put forth convincingly to people who are being seduced into believing in this probability game.

3. There is also the major assumption that ending up with BBDBDAEDDA sequence is the ONLY possible option. I mean, at the very beginning of the selection, how do we know that BBDBDAEDDA is the ONLY sequence that would produce anything worthwhile? Now, if we question that, then let's play this game.... Let's say I end up with ABACCAEDBB. There! I just got a sequence! Now, if we look at it AFTER THE FACT, someone can say

"WHOA! The probability of getting that sequence is VERY low. How'd you do that?"

I can just walk around and say "Oh, I'm very good at this" or "Well, I'm just a very lucky person".

Yet, I didn't plan on getting that sequence. It just came up randomly. Obviously, someone who looks at it AFTER the fact, thinks I'm very lucky because it is VERY highly unlikely to get that sequence. In fact, ABACCAEDBB could be a new creature capable of producing anti-graviational effects via zero-point fluctuations! Remember, evolution never had a "final design" in mind. It is simply a trait being selected at that given moment due to all the external pressures and the available nitches in the ecology. So the sequence could easily be something else if our earth made a right instead of a left turn at Albuquerque.

[megamanXplosion]

I thought this thread was dead; I come back a few weeks later and see there an entire discussion now. I apologize for not being very active in the discussion.

For one if they were generally kind aliens and they had an evil arch enemy why haven't they come to **** us up now? if the enemy of our creators was close enough to possibly find our creators then surely they're close enough to find all the rediculous space crap we're sending out now right? So where's the evil mothership? It's not like Earth is hiding it's presence. That goes for the semi good guy creators to, they should be able to come back or at the least be discovered now.

First and foremost, I never said the other race was evil. I think jumping to the black-and-white conclusion will lead to absurdities. If one has watched humanity progress, and the species we were derived from, it seems obvious that kindness (or generally rational behavior) stems from intelligence. I think it would be more accurate to assume that both races were not kind, nor evil, but they were almost entirely rational beings. Sometimes, people -- regardless of how good each could be considered – must fight, and I see no reason why alien races would be different.

What mothership do you speak of? I see no reason why such advanced races would require one. From a military standpoint, a mothership is a single strategic weakness. One can look at the evolution of the Internet to see how we moved from the ring topology (single point of failure brings down entire network) to the star mesh topologies that make the Internet almost indestructible. The only purpose a mothership would serve would be the same reason why we have ships like the U.S.S. Kittyhawk -- to launch fighter pilots. If these beings have advanced to the point of interstellar space flight then is there a need for such a mothership? It is logical to assume that such a mothership does not exist.

Why haven’t they come to blow us to smithereens? There are three possibilities that could explain this. One, they did not find the planet and if they did then it was likely after the war was over. Two, they did find us but did not realize we were artificially created life forms, assuming we evolved regularly from the Suzy-like mammals. If Humans and Lucy-like forms cohabitated the land, would it raise your eyebrows in suspicion that humans were artificially created? Three, they did realize we were artificially created but we simply did not pose a threat to them – we had no technology to fight them because the technology was destroyed, all that we could do to them is throw rocks at their space craft. It is entirely speculative to choose one of the three, so I will not endorse any of the possibilities as the reason.

I don't think the mechanisms you speak are truly as advanced as they seem at first. I mean a battery would be an amazing invention had there actually been stuff that ran on batteries, however since we've found nothing that would seem to point to that perhaps it had some other use? Perhaps they built the battery without actually knowing what it could do? History is littered with inventions that if had just been looked at in another light could have changed the way we evolved and yet they just never did. Looking at the battery and it's crudeness I find it hard to believe that it actually powered anything, it was probably some kind of placebo type device used in religous or medical practices.

Perhaps, but it seems strange that such a placebo device would be entirely forgotten for thousands of years – especially if it encouraged the growth of a specific religion or was used for medicinal purposes. It also seems unlikely that such a device was created by mere chance. It seems more likely -- at least to me -- that such devices were an attempt by the ancients to recreate what they had lost but they died before it could be used and the knowledge of the purpose of the device had died along with them. The device may be crude but I think that speaks more of the tools the ancients had rather than their knowledge.

The Antikythera mechanism is rather interesting but not in the grand scheme of things. I think the biggest flaw that modern scholars and scientists have is in thinking that certain things require certain levels of sophistication and knowledge rendering them incapable of being invented by lesser civilizations. It's not like the Greeks were strangers to gears and it's not like during that time there weren't great renowned inventors, so why is it hard to believe that someone could make something like that? Complicated, yes, but it's rarity does imply that it would have been something specially made and expensive, probably only capable of being made by a handful of people or less in thier whole civilization.

Some of the most intelligent inventors in Greece had done little more than use steam to push doors open for religious placebos – and these were highly expensive and rare devices capable of only being made by a few people of the time -- yet the Antikythera mechanism charted the location of several of the planets in the solar system, the location and shadowing of the moon, and functioned as a highly accurate clock! There is a massive difference in intellect between such devices. When you consider the complexity of the Antikythera device in contrast to the brilliant inventions of automatic doors, it seems that it would be more likely that the people who built the Antikythera mechanism were not able to fully pass-down the knowledge they had acquired.

what the f k is suzy

I apologize, I was thinking of the name “Lucy.” Lucy was the fossilized remains of a species that fills the gap between chimpanzees and modern humans; however, no species has been found that fills the gap between Lucy and modern humans (the “missing link.”)

I actually saw a documentary on this once, so instead of just straight up dismissing this, I'm game to get into it.

You're actually missing a lot of the information that lead to this point of view gaining popularity. It was a while ago that I saw the documentary, but I remember references to Indian religions talking about battles between the gods in the sky, and Egyptian glyphs depicting the gods creating humanity out of apes using some kind of jar. (Of course, they could have just been making preserves.) Also, something about snake like creatures coming down from the sky to talk to early Central American people.

As far as all your talk about Atlantis, I don't really recall any major religion talking about Atlantis, I believe it was an invention of Plato, an allegorical story, nothing more.

There *is* on the other hand, a lot of evidence for a flood in the middle east, it is talked about in religious texts, as well as the epic of Gilgamesh. (no reference to it outside of the middle east afaik though) There is also reason to believe that the Garden of Eden is mentioned in the epic as well, as there is an island that is very similar, excepting that Gilgamesh almost gets eaten by snakes there.

Do you remember the name of the documentary or who produced it? I am certainly interested in learning more information that pertains to my theory (hypothesis, gobbledygook, whatever you want to call it.)

As for Atlantis, you may be interested in doing a search for “The Children of the Law of One.” The religion is said to be the tree of all religions (where all were sprouted) and it all began in Atlantis. Their teachings claim that Jesus, Buddha, and other prominent religious figures were escapees of the Atlantis destruction (they make no mention of aliens, but that these people "read the signs") and their teachings were slowly transformed into something they were not and this created nearly all of the other religions.

The human body is too perfect of a machine to exist through evolution alone. It was certainly created by a supreme being.

Contrary to the counters posed by other members, I think the biggest evidence against this claim is our skeletal system. Our crooked spines, for instance, are a structural disaster that has led to slow development of walking abilities, severe back pain as we age, and other various problems associated with it.

God is not energy, that is such a copout answer, i'm not trying to trounce on you, but that argument does not make any sense to me. every atom in our bodies,, all of the rocky and metallic materials we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interiors of a red giant star. We are made of star-stuff. The evidence pointing to this theory holds it up pretty well. We know this because as a star's hydrogen fuel, once its depleted the star begins to fuse helium into Carbon, once carbon is exhausted then heavier and heaveier elements fuse, until its core collapses on itself, releasing all of it's heavy elements into space, in the form of a supernova explosion, this collapses nearby clouds and those clouds begin to fragment into smaller sub fragments.

An example of this would be, if one was to stand on a rotating plater with arms extended, he places two weights of equal length in each of his hands, and he is spun, at first he spins fairly slow, but if he was to pull the weights into his body the velocity of his spin would increase. this is the beginning of star formation within a cloud.

I do not think it is a copout. The Big Bang theory may be accurate to a certain extent of explaining the Universe’s expansion but at the root of the theory is pure speculation. The singularity that supposedly arose from nothing is pure speculation. The hypothetical singularity dismisses the possibility of a former Universe without any evidence to support the dismissal.

Scientists wonder why White Holes exist as mathematical probabilities when they research Black Holes; however, a White Hole has never been seen to exist. Hypothetically speaking, is it not possible that a massive Black Hole may have consumed the previous Universe entirely and, thus, a White Hole excreted the massive amount of absorbed energy at a specific location (the singularity) that would cause the Big Bang? It is possible that the White Hole is the mathematical probability that the Universe could be continually recreated. This possibility is dismissed without any consideration from mainstream scientists.

It seems more likely, to me at least, that the Universe has always existed in one form or another. I don’t particularly like the idea that something can magically be created from nothing. I think the creationist perspectives (God and Big Bang) are pushed only because humans cannot comprehend the concept of infinity (an eternal existence.) I also think that fear of an imminent destruction of our species is another reason why people would prefer to uphold theories that give them the possibility that the human race will always exist. I think it also disturbs scientists that pin-pointing a creation event would be impossible (if anything is true about humanity it is that we hate being told things are impossible.)

3. There is also the major assumption that ending up with BBDBDAEDDA sequence is the ONLY possible option.

I agree that is a major assumption.

When one considers plasmatic beings like those that have been developed in labs – that move, grow, and reproduced but are not considered “alive” by modern science -- it seems that we do not even understand what constitutes life. We are just now beginning to discover the largest life forms in the atmosphere for crying out loud! Trevor James Constable (if I remember the name correctly) has discovered large infrared-colored amoeba-like life forms in the atmosphere that move faster than any known life forms and are invisible to human sight! He required a high-speed (1/1000th of a second) cameras with infrared filters to photograph such life forms – they move so quickly you can see a trail of energy, that creates light, left behind them.

We are just now beginning to realize plasmatic life forms could exist and that large infrared life forms float in the atmosphere at incredible speeds, yet scientists feel confident in assuming that such beings are not life forms (despite moving, growing, and reproducing) and that they know what is required for (their perception of) life to come into existence! When one examines the facts, it seems mainstream scientists are largely ignorant and have no idea what they are talking about!

[SaLiVa]

Please the word perfect does not apply to the human species think about it, most have to get their tonsils removed, most have to get their wisdom teeth removed, etc, again, define "perfect" when it comes to the human body, i'll be wating for a reply.

The human body is perfect body in an imperfect world.

Now let me define imperfect before you jump onto the science of things. The world has so many hazards, so many dangers, nature itself is unforgiving. I solely believe that the human body has adapted through the many years of being on this Earth. Even if my religion says otherwise.

The same goes with every other animal body. They have followed the eco system very well while others are willing to go against the food chain they are within. To think humans are better than any other animal is just... Pride and arrogance on religions part. What makes humans so sure that animals cant think for themselves? What made them so sure animals dont have a mind of their own? Because God says so is the saddest most arrogant reason humanity has ever come up with.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

First and foremost, I never said the other race was evil. I think jumping to the black-and-white conclusion will lead to absurdities. If one has watched humanity progress, and the species we were derived from, it seems obvious that kindness (or generally rational behavior) stems from intelligence. I think it would be more accurate to assume that both races were not kind, nor evil, but they were almost entirely rational beings. Sometimes, people -- regardless of how good each could be considered – must fight, and I see no reason why alien races would be different.

Fair 'nuff.

What mothership do you speak of? I see no reason why such advanced races would require one. From a military standpoint, a mothership is a single strategic weakness. One can look at the evolution of the Internet to see how we moved from the ring topology (single point of failure brings down entire network) to the star mesh topologies that make the Internet almost indestructible. The only purpose a mothership would serve would be the same reason why we have ships like the U.S.S. Kittyhawk -- to launch fighter pilots. If these beings have advanced to the point of interstellar space flight then is there a need for such a mothership? It is logical to assume that such a mothership does not exist.

When I say mothership it's an allusion, it could be any type of ship it's just that mothership has a profound meaning in culture now. However the idea of a mothership is not stupid, nor illogical. The aliens do not necessarilly have to have mastered FTL travel to get here, perhaps they chose some sort of slower than light method but with stasis or some kind of deep sleep, perhaps it was a one time event like a wormhole or something, maybe they don't require ships at all, it's possible that their planet has been destroyed and they're in a constant state of war and have a system not unlike ancient Greece where each ship represents a city state and thus for all intents and purposes would be a "mothership", maybe they didn't travel far at all they could have been from the future, perhaps they used breeding to make it here and the ones who arrived are decendants of the ones who originally set out, maybe they were never here.

Further a "mothership" could be necessary for several different reasons, maybe they did create FTL travel but the drives were too large for smaller ships, landing a giant ship on a planet might not be feasible as space worthy doesn't necessarilly make you atmospheric worthy.

The evolution of man and his inventions don't apply to alien species, it's entirely possible that they went down a completely different technological path than us, maybe they never developed radio, maybe they skipped nuclear power, perhaps they never developed projectile based weaponry, maybe they never invented flight until they had the means to ignore aerodynamics, maybe their aerodynamics are completely different and what they have wouldn't even operate on the Earth, who freaking knows?

Why haven’t they come to blow us to smithereens? There are three possibilities that could explain this. One, they did not find the planet and if they did then it was likely after the war was over. Two, they did find us but did not realize we were artificially created life forms, assuming we evolved regularly from the Suzy-like mammals. If Humans and Lucy-like forms cohabitated the land, would it raise your eyebrows in suspicion that humans were artificially created? Three, they did realize we were artificially created but we simply did not pose a threat to them – we had no technology to fight them because the technology was destroyed, all that we could do to them is throw rocks at their space craft. It is entirely speculative to choose one of the three, so I will not endorse any of the possibilities as the reason.

What would it matter if we were artificially created to them? You already made one giant leap of faith in assuming they existed now you're making an even bigger leap by trying to state what would be taboo or illegal for them. Plus even with evolution the old one doesn't just up and die the second the first of a new species is born so it wouldn't suprise me at all to find a Lucy living side-by-side a homosapien.

Perhaps, but it seems strange that such a placebo device would be entirely forgotten for thousands of years – especially if it encouraged the growth of a specific religion or was used for medicinal purposes. It also seems unlikely that such a device was created by mere chance. It seems more likely -- at least to me -- that such devices were an attempt by the ancients to recreate what they had lost but they died before it could be used and the knowledge of the purpose of the device had died along with them. The device may be crude but I think that speaks more of the tools the ancients had rather than their knowledge.

Many religions remain forgotten for thousands of years. I'll tell you one thing, if I were an ancient and was trying to remake my technology I would not start with a battery, I'd start with the basics like tools. EDIT: Plus if they were so advanced just what would they have had that would run off alkaline batteries?

Some of the most intelligent inventors in Greece had done little more than use steam to push doors open for religious placebos – and these were highly expensive and rare devices capable of only being made by a few people of the time -- yet the Antikythera mechanism charted the location of several of the planets in the solar system, the location and shadowing of the moon, and functioned as a highly accurate clock! There is a massive difference in intellect between such devices. When you consider the complexity of the Antikythera device in contrast to the brilliant inventions of automatic doors, it seems that it would be more likely that the people who built the Antikythera mechanism were not able to fully pass-down the knowledge they had acquired.

I still think that's overstating our intelligence at the expense of those who made it. If you ever read about Tesla if even half of the stuff credited to him are true then there's all kinds of technology that he did that no-one else has followed since.

Anyways 1,000's of years seperate the dawn of man as homosapiens and the beginning of "civilization" so the chances of us being created and given all this stuff by aliens are pretty slim. Hundreds of years seperated the fall of Atlantis and Jesus, Buddha and the like so to claim those guys were ancients is purely speculation with no basis of proof other than one guys non-informed opinion in print.

Edited January 8, 2006 by mAcOdIn

[megamanXplosion]

When I say mothership it's an allusion, it could be any type of ship it's just that mothership has a profound meaning in culture now. However the idea of a mothership is not stupid, nor illogicial. The aliens do not necessarilly have to have mastered FTL travel to get here, perhaps they chose some sort of slower than light method but with stasis or some kind of deep sleep, perhaps it was a one time event like a wormhole or something, maybe they don't require ships at all, it's possible that their planet has been destroyed and they're in a constant state of war and have a system not unlike ancient Greece where each ship represents a city state and thus for all intents and purposes would be a "mothership", maybe they didn't travel far at all they could have been from the future, maybe they were never here.

The only plausible idea you’ve presented there, in my opinion, is the idea that an artificial planet may have been created. Iapetus, one of Saturn’s moons, reeks of possible artificiality. It has a several-miles high ridge that travels around the entire moon along its axis. The shape of the moon is more geometrical than spherical. Iapetus may remind one of a Buckminster Fuller dome that was constructed in halves and pieced together. It also seems to deflect waves like a stealth bomber due to its materials and/or shape. It also has square-shaped tunnels that go straight down into the moon which leads to a possible subterranean society that once existed there. Richard C. Hoagland, the man that researched the Face on Mars and the Cydonia region, has done a bit of research on the moon and thinks that it could have been an artificial moon. I think Richard C. Hoagland may be right but I also think it may just be a weird moon.

I think all of the other ideas you have presented are pure speculation that lack even the most circumstantial of evidence and, thus, are not worth discussing because a conclusion could not be reached.

Further a "mothership" could be necessary for several different reasons, maybe they did create FTL travel but the drives were too large for smaller ships, landing a giant ship on a planet might not be feasible as space worthy doesn't necessarilly make you atmospheric worthy.

A large space craft should not be confused as being a mothership. A mothership is a space craft carrier. I think that if a large space craft had developed the ability to affect gravity the ship could be space worthy and atmosphere worthy at the same time. The particles in the atmosphere would not cause resistance against the craft because they would be moved out of the way by gravity before the ship occupies the area. The gravity in front of the craft would be influenced so that it pulls the craft and also pull some the particles in front of the ship so that friction occurs between the particles and not against the craft. Such a propulsion system would essentially create a vacuum in front of the craft (which means it would behave nearly the same in the atmosphere as it would in space.) You may be interested in looking up the research done by Townsfeld Brown – he was one of the people involved in creating the “Biefield-Brown Effect.”

The evolution of man and his inventions don't apply to alien species, it's entirely possible that they went down a completely different technological path than us, maybe they never developed radio, maybe they skipped nuclear power, perhaps they never developed projectile based weaponry, maybe they never invented flight until they had the means to ignore aerodynamics, maybe their aerodynamics are completely different and what they have wouldn't even operate on the Earth, who freaking knows?

I think that is certainly possible (possibly likely.) If we were hyper-evolved then we may not have gained the wisdom that an intelligent species would likely achieve through normal evolution. While the alien species’ technological advancements would be synchronized with their evolutionary advancements, ours may not be. That could, perhaps, explain why humanity seems so determined to destroy itself with its newly found knowledge (we have the brains of an evolved species but lack the wisdom of a regularly-evolved species.

I'll tell you one thing, if I were an ancient and was trying to remake my technology I would not start with a battery, I'd start with the basics like tools. EDIT: Plus if they were so advanced just what would they have had that would run off alkaline batteries?

It seems that you skipped over a possibility and jumped to another one. How can you be certain they didn’t create the rudimentary battery to help them create tools?

I still think that's overstating our intelligence at the expense of those who made it. If you ever read about Tesla if even half of the stuff credited to him are true then there's all kinds of technology that he did that no-one else has followed since.

I have not overstated our intelligence. The gears in the Antikythera mechanism required an astonishing precision to create and the placement of the gears would require an enormous intellect even in comparison with the top scientists we know of in Greece. I think the Antikythera mechanism shows a clear sophistication of tools and people. If it were simply another invention like you’d expect to find in Greece it would not be considered a “puzzling” artifact…

Anyways 1,000's of years seperate the dawn of man as homosapiens and the beginning of "civilization" so the chances of us being created and given all this stuff by aliens are pretty slim. Hundreds of years seperated the fall of Atlantis and Jesus, Buddha and the like so to claim those guys were ancients is purely speculation with no basis of proof other than one guys non-informed opinion in print.

We don’t know when homosapiens dawned (otherwise there wouldn’t be a “missing link.”) And the vast majority of the oceans are unexplored and Atlantis is a real possibility (nearly every scientist that has researched the matter do not wonder “if” Atlantis existed but “where.”) Considering that the rise of homosapiens and the beginning of civilization occurred at completely unknown times, I fail to see how a time-range between the two events could be figured like you seem to have done…

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

I think all of the other ideas you have presented are pure speculation that lack even the most circumstantial of evidence and, thus, are not worth discussing because a conclusion could not be reached.

Well my ideas have just as much basis for plausability as yours, that's to say none at all or all the plausability in the world. You seem to be under the impression that if one hypothesizes in a book that's it can be used as a source and given merit but if one hypothesizes on the internet that it is not, even if both ideas have the same amount of evidence, which in our cases are none.

I think all of the other ideas you have presented are pure speculation that lack even the most circumstantial of evidence and, thus, are not worth discussing because a conclusion could not be reached.

A large space craft should not be confused as being a mothership. A mothership is a space craft carrier. I think that if a large space craft had developed the ability to affect gravity the ship could be space worthy and atmosphere worthy at the same time. The particles in the atmosphere would not cause resistance against the craft because they would be moved out of the way by gravity before the ship occupies the area. The gravity in front of the craft would be influenced so that it pulls the craft and also pull some the particles in front of the ship so that friction occurs between the particles and not against the craft. Such a propulsion system would essentially create a vacuum in front of the craft (which means it would behave nearly the same in the atmosphere as it would in space.) You may be interested in looking up the research done by Townsfeld Brown – he was one of the people involved in creating the “Biefield-Brown Effect.”

I feel your definaition of a mothership is more or less correct however I still don't see why it's so odd to you. Would you consider the Galactica from the show Battlestar Galactica to be a mothership? I would, why would that not be feasable or even necessary? Of course it would completely depend on the needs and mindset of the species as if they were interested in destroying a planet they'd probably prefer some kind of orbital bombardment as opposed to just militarilly beating the inhabitants of a planet. Further considering the vast size of these ships, we assume, it would make sense that the creators lived on a fairly heavilly populated planet where would they land such a ship?

I think that is certainly possible (possibly likely.) If we were hyper-evolved then we may not have gained the wisdom that an intelligent species would likely achieve through normal evolution. While the alien species’ technological advancements would be synchronized with their evolutionary advancements, ours may not be. That could, perhaps, explain why humanity seems so determined to destroy itself with its newly found knowledge (we have the brains of an evolved species but lack the wisdom of a regularly-evolved species.

What is your litmus test for determining knowledge that an intelligent species would have from evolution versus hyper-evolution?

It seems that you skipped over a possibility and jumped to another one. How can you be certain they didn’t create the rudimentary battery to help them create tools?

What tool would use such a weak battery? Seriousely here, we're talking about a race that supposedly travled across a vast stretch of space, harnessed FTL space travel, and you want me to believe that they're still using alkaline batteries at the time? That they actually have a use for something so primitive?

I have not overstated our intelligence. The gears in the Antikythera mechanism required an astonishing precision to create and the placement of the gears would require an enormous intellect even in comparison with the top scientists we know of in Greece. I think the Antikythera mechanism shows a clear sophistication of tools and people. If it were simply another invention like you’d expect to find in Greece it would not be considered a “puzzling” artifact…

I don't mean that it isn't brillient, just that we shouldn't assume it was so brilliant that the Greeks couldn't have done it.

We don’t know when homosapiens dawned (otherwise there wouldn’t be a “missing link.”) And the vast majority of the oceans are unexplored and Atlantis is a real possibility (nearly every scientist that has researched the matter do not wonder “if” Atlantis existed but “where.”) Considering that the rise of homosapiens and the beginning of civilization occurred at completely unknown times, I fail to see how a time-range between the two events could be figured like you seem to have done…

I think it very possible that Atlantis existed, more-so than us being created by aliens in fact, however the dates of Atlantis and the creators and origins of the major religions you listed do not line up. "Modern" humans existed roughly ~80,000 to ~100,000 years ago while "civilization" did not exist until ~5,000 years ago, that's a huge gap. Surely they didn't create us just to watch us play with ourselves and hunt animals for 75,000 years before stepping in with thieir knowledge.

EDIT: I think the biggest problem is the timeline between Atlantis and all these inventions. If it were ancients with knwoledge that just couldn't have been passed down that how long do these ancients live? If all these events were happening in a span of just 100 years fine, but they're all spread out which really goes against the diea of a small supply of lost people trying to rebuild their technology.

Edited January 8, 2006 by mAcOdIn

[Felinix_Devotion]

Google created humans, as google could not live without humans...

[Tony_Yayo]

right google.

[fukachu]

what fills the gaps in time.. eg Australian aborigines have lived in australia for 40,000 + years. lets say the egyptions were advanced as much as 10,000 years ago. what filles the gaps in time for those 30,000 years while indigenous inhabitants of australia were roaming around?

according to a darwin documentary i watched, prior to his theory of evolution it was believed that the earth was just 6,000 years old. this was concluded due to the timeline of the bible. so lets just accept your theory for a moment. if the people excaping atlantas were those who spread the word of the supreme being, or god. that would roughly mean that that happened 6,000 years ago or even more recent then that. where does this leave the belief that indiginous australians have lived here for 40,000+ years.

i just see holes all over your theory that don't seem to make up for any of the holes in generally accepted theories that the majority of scientists believe in. i read it and it just seems like a lot of generalisation on your behalf. i don't believe in god, i don't believe in a supreame creator. But hey if he exists then so be it, i was wrong. Who knows, you might be right, science may find evidence of just that. but to me your theory has less supporting evidence then what we currently accept.

if you, as you claim to, believe in evolution then you must believe that the eye is an incredibly intricate and amazing part of evolution. if such a feat as the eye is possible with evolution then so to are humans from a common ancestor of our chimp friends.

lets not forget there are a lot of things we are still discovering about the world we live in every day. there are new extinct species being found, hell they are even finding new living species of mammals, birds etc. so to write off that there was nothing between lucy and us and the changes are too big is a bit of a joke. its as premature as those who claimed the world was flat prior to even sailing far from their own shores.

I'm sorry but just like those who believe in the intelligent creation mixed with evolution theory there are just so many holes. i mean stating that because we cannot understand how life even began in the first place is no reason to say that God (in your case Aliens modified humanoids) must have existed. it just means we don't understand it yet.

what im trying to say is it is premature to write off natural human evolution. At this stage it is the most plausible explaination and we just need more time to discover more evidence either way. I'm not writing off your idea i just can't take you seriously because of how you dismiss things so quickly.

For the record i believe that life exists outside of our own planet however i just don't imagine that little green men are running around playing with the genes of humans.

[mitch00]

I read *most* of that first post, then got too tired to continue, sorry. But I do have one point to make, you're entire theory is based on one assumption that could be completely wrong, whether or not we're here for a *reason*... I think we're here because we're here becau... you get the point, no advanced theories, none of this god signifies an alien lifeform who "came from the skies"... we're not here for any reason other then to live our liies then die, then its over, nothing after that... I just don't see all these far fetched ideas from the bible and all religions being true, while I believe all their origins are basically the same, I think they are all based on something that is either A. untrue, or B. an urban myth, that some grandfather once told his grandson how his grandfather had done such and such (and everything was very exagerated)... all in my opinion that is :shiftyninja:

[supercoolman]

i havent read the second page, and i havent read the ending of the firstpage

all i can comment is that

the FIRST religion ANSWERS the monkey link

if any of you were educated in the SABIAN MANDEAN religion, the one that john the baptist preached, you would know that there is a story for monkeyz and how they were made

The Story:

god goes up to da angels, hes like "sup og'z make me some ghetto playa dat look like ma sxc head"

dey go "aiight man we'll do it afta dis game'a'basketball

hes like "eshAYZ"

dey play der game n ****, den dey do what god wanted to do,

they go back to god, dayam man we messed up hard, god like "wtf did yo thin ass do"

they go "dayam playa we were like high n **** n we fukd up da project"

hes like "dum asses i know i should have belted yo asses back into skool"

n den god makes his ghetto playaz, but feelin sorry for da monkey pplz he goes aiight lets keep em there

The Non-Ghetto Version:

god told his angels to make a form of life based upon himself.

the angels attempted to make it, but they made a grave mistake that set to the creation of a lower form of life, not as intelligent and as physically appealing as god wanted them to be made.

When god had found out about this he dismissed his angels, and made the life himself.

He perfected it and gave it the ability that will allow it to conquer any problems...knowledge

He reviewed the life that his angels had made, he saw that they can do no harm and they have no reason to be destroyed, he allowed them to live with his creation.

kthnxbi

ow and it IS the first religion as it decends direct from adam, it believes that nither moses, abraham or john the baptist himself was a prophet, only adam was the true and correct prophet from god

=]

[=

[Tony_Yayo]

Youz a punk Snitch. ^