Scientific evidence of early man cover up.

There has been so many theories on when man was created. You should check out this site. www.mcremo.com

What do you think of this, when other scientist ignore new facts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Joyce,

What do I think of this? Well, a lot of time and effort has gone into developing the theory of evolution. As one article on the site indicated, a lot of time and effort (and financial resources) would be needed to rewrite all the scientific books on the subject. Additionally, as some of the self-proclaimed scientists on this board are leading me to believe, perhaps, contrary to the nature of scientific study, scientists really do not want to gain knowledge and learn the truth. Perhaps it is more important for the modern-day scientist to appear to be "right"???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Looks like another version of the Fortean Times to me. Just because somebody comes up with a new theory or an alternate explanation doesn't mean that it's going to be embraced. The Discovery Science Channel puts it best: Observe, Measure, Explain, Verify. All new ideas get put to the test. If they're correct, a re-testing takes place to make sure that they aren't simply anomalies. If they don't hold up, they don't hold up. Whoever presented the idea must memorize and repeat the old saying, "Oh, well. Back to the old drawing board."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some of the articles on this site indicate that the archeological finds were at times ignored completely, at other times evidence and data supporting the dating was tampered with and at other times, the discoverer was ridiculed (I can believe that!). Oxygen, what are your thoughts on a scientific community which would ignore, tamper with or ridicule evidence put forward as "new discoveries" without adequate testing?

It was my understanding that the scientific community, "above all others," was interested in gaining knowledge and was in search of the truth???

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited September 26, 1999).]

 

truestory,

Please name <u>one</u> human community which would not do the kinds of things you mentioned when its most entrenched beliefs are challenged?

Yet note that in science, the truth ultimately always wins -- because no matter how reluctant you are to accept a defeat, you cannot ignore reality, and it will not cater to your wishes. Think about it.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

Thank you, Boris. My phones have been down and I wasn't able to speak, but you took the words right out of my text files.

 

Okay, let's get a few things straight from the start: the idea that humans "evolved" from anything else is completely and utterly ridiculous.....Human life was the result of genetic, cosmological and spiritual manipulation by a higher intelligence. We are someone else's property, in the same way that WE breed cattle and cows and hogs and housepets. It is really that simple. I could bore you with the details, but given the attention span of the average person, I would imagine most of you will stop reading the evidence, if i decided to post it here.

Simply put, there were several non-human inteligences attempting to settle a "bet" of sorts. One group felt that 3 dimensional physical life-forms could never evolve into a complex spiritual gestalt of higher knowing. The other group thought a 3 dimensional physical form COULD grow and evolve into a higher spiritual knowing. The battle lines were drawn. It was a chess game, and the chess board was earth itself, as the "negatives" tried to undermine the experiment, and the "positives" tried to prove their point. The game continues to this very day.....and so it goes. One group feels we are like cockroaches, unworthy of anything but contempt (they might be right). the other group tries to lead us by the nose to a higher knowing, replete with baloney religious symbolism, archetypal "saviours" and religious inspiration. Both groups are manipulative, and both have their own agenda. Let's face facts: when we breed cattle, we only have OUR interests in mind. We fatten them up, give a good easy life on the farm, and then whack their heads off and eat them. Our "alien" friends have a hidden agenda too......

 

Brian,
Can you plese explain why you're so certain evolution is false...the attention span of people on this board would amaze you.

 

Brian,

What you've posted is very disturbing
to people for obvious reasons. It is
very possible and would make the most sense. Its clear that man has been manipualted genetically over the years and even helped along technologically.
It would explain why they keep themselves hidden and most researchers includeing
myself feel they do have an agenda
which may not be good. This is why people
beieve in the bible and a heaven instead
of what you posted eventhought it makes the most sense.

[This message has been edited by Alien (edited October 02, 1999).]

 

to JMitch:

My reasons for thinking evolution is mostly false, are scientific in nature:

Even if evolution has some truth to it (i.e., simple cellular life, to simple organisms, to slightly more complex organisms, to fish, to birds...etc....), how does one "bridge the gap", scientifically speaking into thinking that inteligent, sentient beings as unbelievably complex as humans could emerge from this soup? The gap between Apes, Neanderthals etc.. and humans is IMMENSE.....Let's take a closer look:

It is a matter of paleontological fact that the fossil records in europe and africa show a distinct GAP between homo-erectus and homo-sapiens. The skull found at Broken Hill Zambia in 1921 was carted out as some kind of "link" in the evolutionary chain, while patently ignoring the fact that this skull was more Neanderthal than human..(large brow ridges, flat sloping forehead etc...)..and since it is already an assumed fact amongst paleontologists that Neanderthal did NOT evolve into Cro-Magnon man, the scientists have a real dilemna on their hands...they can;t fill the "GAP"

Secondly, we humans are unlike ANY other animal on earth, insomuch as we are OUTSIDE the evolutionary forces that supposedly "evolved' us. In fact, we are not just different, but QUANTITATIVELY different. Darwinism works fine on paper, but it is just impractical in the field.Darwin himself said this : "nature never over-endows a species beyond the demands of everyday survival"....okay, so how does our dim-witted friend Darwin explain the fact that Humans seem to have SO MUCH MORE THAN THEY NEED FOR SURVIVAL?....mentally, we are endowed with so many gifts to insure our own survival, that it seems like our own existence violates darwins own fundamental evolutionary principle?

We have opposable thumbs, and our feet bear no resemblance to our alleged simian ancestors. Also, we are basically far more savage than any other primate...there are exactly 312 distinctive physical traits that set us apart from our alleged simian ancestors (i won't list them....hehe)...

Most importantly, evolution cannot account for mankinds extraordinary intelligence, nor the lack of body hair. Evolution cannot explain why our sex organs are so different (no laughter or giggles here please....hehe)...Simply put, human males are the ONLY mammal on earth able to maintain an erection without the the use of a penis bone. If we eveloved from apes or monkeys or Neanderthals or whatever other kind of nonsense Darwin was spouting, why are our sex organs unlike our so-called ancestors?...and why are they unlike other current species roaming the earth today that are theorectically distantly related to us (monkeys, etc...)? Also, why are human-kind of differing colors?...how did that happen?....Brown, white, etc...It is a known fact that the only way to get extreme variety in a species is to DELIBERATELY breed them..(hence the variety of household pets.....they did not appear in nature....we sped up the process by breeding them, now we got a bunch of Great Danes running around...hehe)...we have too much variety to be accounted for in evolutionary theory.....

And one more thing: (just a minor aside) : Why do we humans have allergies?...does that make any sense to you at all? that we would be allergic to our own environs? ....sounds fishy to me......more later

 

Brian,
Sorry, I thought you were arguing that we don't have ape-like ancestry.

Have you heard of the theory that the reason there was an increase in brain capacity between astralopicenes and the later species is that they were being hunted all the time? And the fact that they had two free hands unlike the other creatures of the African savannah possibly lent to their abnormal intelligence?

We can't take everything Darwin said literally. The fact that humans have more than we need, like modern technology, comes from the earliest of stone tool making. And, intelligence in a society or culture, can be more than an environmentally selective trait. In modern society we have the example right in front of us. Those who are born with more intelligence will most likely hold a higher paying job, increasing the chances of having an attractive and intelligent mate etc etc.(and other variables not listed)

Right...and chimpanzees have opposable thumbs but they aren't as movable. Our feet do bear resemblance, but they are distinctively different.

Artificial selection? Sure. That's what has been happening for some time now. The diversity of skin color is simply a product of this, and regional differences in climate.

Of course, it's hard to argue either way here about the missing link. But it's generally thought that erectus is in fact the link to sapiens. The only evidence to contrary is...Lack of evidence.

 

Enough silly arguments and outdated ideas. Everybody, browse the following page and stop wasting your time: <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/</A>.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

TO JMITCH:

I do not believe for even one second that Homo-Sapiens (modern man) evolved from Homo-Erectus (our million year old ancestor?), or neanderthals (our distant cousin?).....I will concede that whoever interfered in human development was using a "model" of sorts, so we bear some resemblance, but orthodox evolutionary dogma holds that the ancestor of modern man (homo-erectus) evolved about 1 million years ago, and that Homo-Spaiens (thinking man) our own species, became the domininant life form on a worldwide basis about 40,000 years ago...and of course this theory is paleontological fantasy....it is complete hogwash....In reality, the picture is more confused.

What eveolutionary sense can be made of the find in Australia which yielded Homo erectus , Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals in what appears to be a contemporaneous environment? This can only mean they were living at the same time, in the same place, which is an impossibility if the evolutionary thoery is true....and of course things get measurably worse when you consider the content of the Tabun site, where "homo sapiens fragments were found in strata BELOW (older !!) than classic neanderthal bones".....

It is all very confusing indeed....but one thing i am intuitively convinced of: A non-human intelligence of astounding brilliance and genius did a little "re-engineering" over a period of a few hundred years, and the "lab experiment" of mankind was under way......Classical eveolutionary thoery will never be able to find the evidence of the "chain" of man's development...they have been trying to find it for years and years and years, and so far they have failed to account for the gaps in human development from homo-erectus to homo sapiens......they never will find the scientific evidence, because it does not exist....humans did not specifically evolve from our ancient ancestors...someone or something helped along the process just a bit......hehe.......just like a magician who uses misdirection to conceal his true activities, our non-human intelligences left just enough similiarity between us and homo-erectus to leave us convinced we "evolved" from them.....but it is not true....we are NOTHING like homo-erectus...not even close

 

Brian:

I too think that there are some things that look fishy. It is highly possible that this intervention did happen, but as of yet I don't see enough that STRONGLY points to it.

 

Brian,

I'd love to know about your sources for paleontological info -- especially about those embarrassing "finds".

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited October 03, 1999).]

 

See the talkorigins.org site under recent developments in paleoanthropology to find out why recent discoveries may cause a need to think outside of the current mainstream...

 

Like i said on the other posting read the book 'Alien Agenda' Jim Marrs. It is very intriguing and very well documented historically. It covers much of what is being asked on this post

------------------
Eric Cooper

 

Or you could read the Bible, which answers the questions in this post. Did you know that there was a civilization here on earth before Adam? Before Satan fell, he was ruler of this society.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

 

Lori,
Could you please post the location in the Bible that refers to a pre-Adam civilization? That might answer some other questions that have been floating around here.

 

It's in Genesis. I don't have a Bible on me right now cause I'm at the office, but if you read the link under aliens and extraterrestrials "READ THIS!", there is a section of the reading that is dedicated to addressing this topic.

------------------
God loves you and so do I!