Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Ice Age Civilization


  • Please log in to reply
695 replies to this topic

#271    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,195 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:08 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 September 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

Why do you think it is not possible.I will try to explain to you.

News paper article 3 billion years later:
3 billion years ago tetrapedal primates divurged from man as they could run faster and hence escape predators and travel large distances. 2 billion years ago the proto horse divurged from these tetrapedal primates as the proto horse had become a more specialised runner and didn't have stringent dietary requirements.1 billion years ago the proto winged horse divurged from the proto horse as the wing like structures provided better aerodynamics while running and helped it glide over valleys and water bodies.50 million years ago the proto unicorn divurged from the proto winged horse and it was favoured by natural selection as it had a horn with which it could poke and kill other animals.10 million years ago the Unicorn divurged from the proto unicorn and it was favoured by nature as it had  completely formed wings and a large horn on it's forehead and small girls thought it was cute.
Now we have fossil evidence for Man,tetrapedal primates and horses and scientists are still searching for the rest.

Primates don't just change into horses.

I'm too tired for this right now.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#272    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:13 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 21 September 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Because I can look at their bones and see what they looked like. I can also use what I know about primate physiology to tell what their main diet was, how they walked and even the manners in which they communicated.
I can also look at their settlements and see that they were just as advanced as H. sapiens were at the time. Perhaps even more advanced for a period before H. sapiens began to spread across Europe.

There is not one piece of evidence to suggest anything you said about H. neanderthalensis is true.
But out of all the things you have stated none of it disproves what i said before.There is not a peice of evidence that what i said is not true.On the contrary when you say that they were just as advanced as Homo Sapiens you are only adding to my suggestion that they probably copied Humans in a crude fashion though.

Now since i am an Indian,i have knowledge of our 'mythological text' called Ramayana which states that these neanderthals(vanars) collobrated with humans in their wars. Before these texts were dismissed as myths but now we know that neaderthals("ape men"since you don't like them refferd to as "closer to monkeys") and man did co-exist for a long time.The link i posted talks about this.

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 21 September 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

Primates don't just change into horses.

I'm too tired for this right now.
Then how do fish change into men?I did say billions of years in my explaination didn't I?

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 21 September 2012 - 12:23 PM.


#273    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,195 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:28 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 September 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

But out of all the things you have stated none of it disproves what i said before.There is not a peice of evidence that what i said is not true.On the contrary when you say that they were just as advanced as Homo Sapiens you are only adding to my suggestion that they probably copied Humans in a crude fashion though.

Neanderthals probably had little contact with Fully Modern Humans before they began to become extinct in Europe. They had a defined culture all their own that is separate from that of FMH's. There is no reason to assume that they copied "humans". They were humans.
You're the one making the claim, not me. It's your job to prove it, not mine to disprove it.

Quote

Now since i am an Indian,i have knowledge of our 'mythological text' called Ramayana which states that these neanderthals(vanars) collobrated with humans in their wars. Before these texts were dismissed as myths but now we know that neaderthals("ape men"since you don't like them refferd to as "closer to monkeys") and man did co-exist for a long time.The link i posted talks about this.
Religious and mythological texts are not representative of actual history. I can provide you with a mythological text that has winged horses and snaked headed women, another with monsters made of clay and one where a dragon falls from the sky. Doesn't make any of it real, though.

Quote

Then how do fish change into men?

Fish never changed into men. Your understanding of evolution is flawed.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#274    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,195 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:29 PM

This isn't going to be constructive at all. I'm out.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#275    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:36 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 21 September 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Neanderthals probably had little contact with Fully Modern Humans before they began to become extinct in Europe. They had a defined culture all their own that is separate from that of FMH's. There is no reason to assume that they copied "humans". They were humans.
You're the one making the claim, not me. It's your job to prove it, not mine to disprove it.

Religious and mythological texts are not representative of actual history. I can provide you with a mythological text that has winged horses and snaked headed women, another with monsters made of clay and one where a dragon falls from the sky. Doesn't make any of it real, though.


Fish never changed into men. Your understanding of evolution is flawed.
Lol but evolution can explain all the creatures you mentioned.(other then monsters made from clay but 'from clay' maybe a simile and some of our scientist researching 'Abiogenesis' have taken it seriously and think clay had an important role in the same).
Please come back this was just getting to be fun and very constructive.
Ok i wont call neaderthals "human" pets.


#276    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,089 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:45 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 21 September 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

H. neanderthalensis were not in anyway "Monkey men" and H. sapiens certainly did not kepe them as pets.

I know where that is coming from.

Some artist/creationist once suggested in a book that Neanderthals looked like a sort of gorillas, or big apes. He depicted them with flat, ape-like noses, black skin, hairy. He also suggested that Neanderthals actively hunted modern humans.

A simple look at a Neanderthal skull will tell anyone his nose was anything but flat.

And that's just one.

++++

EDIT:

Found it (I saved the pic once, because someone here really took that theory seriously):

Attached File  Neanderthal_without_a_nose.jpg   13.65K   10 downloads

Edited by Abramelin, 21 September 2012 - 12:50 PM.


#277    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,195 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:52 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 21 September 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

I know where that is coming from.

Some artist/creationist once suggested in a book that Neanderthals looked like a sort of gorillas, or big apes. He depicted them with flat, ape-like noses, black skin, hairy. He also suggested that Neanderthals actively hunted modern humans.

A simple look at a Neanderthal skull will tell anyone his nose was anything but flat.

And that's just one.

l

All evidence suggests that Neanderthals where not much different from us at all. Shorter and stockier and the larger occipital bun on the back of their skulls, but other than that, pretty damn similar. No chins, though. To even entertain the nothing that they were "monkey men" or "pets" is outlandish at best and pure ignorance at worst.
I think his idea came from the Vanara of Hindu epic Ramayana. They were a monkey man race of... monkey men. Still no more true than all that creationist claptrap, though.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#278    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,089 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:57 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 21 September 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

All evidence suggests that Neanderthals where not much different from us at all. Shorter and stockier and the larger occipital bun on the back of their skulls, but other than that, pretty damn similar. No chins, though. To even entertain the nothing that they were "monkey men" or "pets" is outlandish at best and pure ignorance at worst.
I think his idea came from the Vanara of Hindu epic Ramayana. They were a monkey man race of... monkey men. Still no more true than all that creationist claptrap, though.

Here is that thread btw:

http://www.unexplain...30#entry3891426


#279    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,195 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:01 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 21 September 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Here is that thread btw:

http://www.unexplain...30#entry3891426

Oh wow. That is bad. That is real, real bad.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#280    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,089 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:25 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 21 September 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Oh wow. That is bad. That is real, real bad.

And here's the book:

http://www.themandus.org/


#281    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:27 PM

http://en.wikipedia....thaler_Fund.png
http://en.wikipedia....erthalensis.jpg

The reconstruction of Neanderthal assumes the hair pattern and the skin color since we have no better option then assuming when in comes to these things but below i have posted a common depiction of Hanuman "one of the vanaras".Notice the protruding mouth region in the two depictions and notice the hair line shown in the neaderthal reconstructions.

http://www.freewebs....ges/hanuman.jpg


View PostImaginarynumber1, on 21 September 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

All evidence suggests that Neanderthals where not much different from us at all. Shorter and stockier and the larger occipital bun on the back of their skulls, but other than that, pretty damn similar. No chins, though. To even entertain the nothing that they were "monkey men" or "pets" is outlandish at best and pure ignorance at worst.
I think his idea came from the Vanara of Hindu epic Ramayana. They were a monkey man race of... monkey men. Still no more true than all that creationist claptrap, though.

Though you have to admit that the reconstruction does look very 'apeish'. The 'vanaras' were supposed to be closer to neaderthals then to monkeys but most Indians call them monkey men.


Also i found this article given in the link below sometime back and it is one of the reasons why i do not readily ascribe to genetics based migration charts.
http://www.pbs.org/w...ern-humans.html

"Men and monkeys doing it lol XD" (did this how aids spread in humans?or was it the african sailors?)(and sorry in advance i wont refer to them as monkeys again)
If this is true not only did we co-exist but we did "it" too and probably all night long.

Surprisingly the mother of 'Hanuman' was supposed to be a 'Human' called 'Anjani' according to the 'Ramyana'.

Also:
http://news.national...rbred-dna-gene/

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 21 September 2012 - 01:30 PM.


#282    The Mule

The Mule

    Beast of Burden

  • Member
  • 4,004 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo-Niagara Falls

  • Is there concrete all around, or is it in my head?

Posted 21 September 2012 - 01:31 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 21 September 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:



Primates don't just change into horses.


Don't be too sure about that ;)

Posted Image

...never let a little thing like a fact get in the way of a good theory!

...arguably the worlds smartest mule!


#283    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,910 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:36 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 September 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

All sorces presuppose evolution(as we understand it today)and are full of extrapolations ans assumptions so i don't consider them worth anything in this debate,the predictions of Darwin that you have mentioned are only in regards to there being different species showing different level of complexities,extrapolating that one evolved from the other is the problem.
"Only in regards to..."?

Only?

These are predictions made by the theory.  Didn't you ask for such predictions?

Most of these predictions were never made prior to Darwin's day.  Just because you consider them commonplace today, that is no indication of their actual significance.

I suspected you'd rationalize a way to pretend they aren't significant.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 September 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

Try searching for 'beneficial mutations' in multicellular animals and you will understand what i am talking about.
Try comprehending that mutation is only one of several ways that evolution occurs. Consider lateral (or horizontal) gene transfer, genetic drift, allelle frequency variation, geographic isolation, etc.

Your pretense that "mutation is how evolution occurs, and 99% of mutations are deadly" is an all-too-often used Creationist dodge.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#284    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:21 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 September 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Like i said i am not seeing any debunkings being posted by you,unlike you i will give you the liberty of using atheist websites,anti-creationist websites or sources or any source you want as long as they have references.

A list of great scientists that believed in God-
http://atheismexpose...obelistsgod.htm
Can you debunk their work or do you think their work is unreliable or their logic is stupid and fallacious,they are all creationists.

Wow, you posted yet another creationist website. It's pretty easy to tell, when they're listing Einstein as a scientist who believed in god... despite the fact that he patently denied claims that he believed in god.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 September 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science
Are they all stupid and is their work unreliable?

No, not all of them, but ones who place their faith above their science, they are unreliable (e.g., modern creationists; who, incidentally, aren't scientists to begin with).

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 September 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

If a creationist website or author puts forward scientific objections to evolution with references, is it wise to dismiss it because of their personal belief alone?

It isn't about their personal beliefs alone; it is about the quality of the information dispensed, which in their case, is consistently fallacious.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 September 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

The reason why there are not many atheist sites posting scientific objections to evolution is probably because they are too embarassed by them or probably they don't have the funding for this kind of work (lol).Though there are a large number of books though i don't have many written by agnoustics or atheists pointing out the scientific flaws in the theory of evolution.

The reason? Most atheists happen to be more scientifically literate than religious people (it's a fact; look up the polls), and thus are more consistently aware that there are no scientific objections to evolutionary biology at the moment. It's just the creationists spewing their age-old, long-ago-debunked idiocies that have missed the boat entirely...

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 September 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Same can be said about evolutionists and atheists.Delibrate twisting of facts.

Give one example. Otherwise I brand you a liar; plain and simple.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#285    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:24 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 21 September 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

Maybe the monkey men were copying Human practices.This can be very good circumstantial evidence.Or maybe Humans buried their ape like pets because they loved them.Do you know in India if a monkey dies he is buried and rites are performed still.

Here is something interesting if you would like to read it.
http://www.theosophy...ce/sc-moff2.htm

Were the monkeys talked about in here "Neaderthals"?

You know nothing about biology. End of story.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison




4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users