Evolution is not advancement and the statement above proves you have a total lack of knowledge regarding evolution. You have discredited youself on other boards too claim to be able to see the future, make psi balls and move objects with your mind.

Evolution is not advancement it is adaptation to change and enviroment.



Were you born retarded or do you just act that way...

Seriously any evidence except your word to back up any of the statements I have read from you in this thread? If not then i highly recommend you drink a big can of STFU.

Proof? Proof! You clearly don't understand the point of semi-religious mystic twaddle. I myself plan on sending him $50 for his book that explains all his views.

--Jaylemurph

How so? Proof please.

The Big bang did happen

The Big Bang is a theory - not a fact.... The most commonly accepted theory - but a theory none the less. NOT A FACT.

3rd - there is LITTLE to NO evidence to support this THEORY. It is just that a THEORY, like evolution, the Big Bang and so on. It is a THEORY that YOU CHOOSE to possibly believe and accept - but that does not make it a fact. It is just a theory with little to no evidence to support.

I agree with Jjbreen here. However, I must remind you of the quote from astronomer Jacques Vallee, when he said of the UFO phenomena, "We have, on one hand, the facts -- thousands of unexplained observations by reliable witnesses. They stand as a monument to the limitations of our understanding."

And what if it wasn't? What if there is no reason...what if we're just a bunch of absurd beings running around with no rhyme or reason?
But lets say it was an alien ship...well first lets say there was a man named Noah and that he and his family took two of every animal and there was a great worldwide flood...you know what, all of a sudden the alien theory makes a lot more sense.

No, its nothing like Evolution OR the BBT.

It's a theory based on facts via observations of the known universe. Much like evolution is based on facts.

The universe is moving outwards in all directions, using physics to retrace this movement backwards and everything ends up at a single point. This is solid proof that the universe originated ata single point then rapidly expanded outwards. Calling the big bang a theory is simply to be politically correct to those who do not beleive it. There is only one logical conclusion for our observations.

3rd rocks theories are not founded and there is absolutly nothing to support them. Evolution is fact and has been observed several times within the last century. The known universe can be observed and it's movement retraced to a single point. For what it's worth the big bang and evolution are fact and merely referenced as theories to not offend religious people. Like I said above to be more or less politically correct.

Your right though people can choose what they want to beleive in, even if it is utterly absurd.


We do have a purpose and it is simply to survive against the odds and progress ourselves. For some however this is not acceptable....

On that note gods a monkey, and the big bang happened.

I think it's more plausible we were dropped off by ships..than evolved from apes...

You can beleive what you want to but your wrong....

It's true: belief is very often completely seperate from truth.

--Jaylemurph

That is not how it works you cant take two different species and just put them together expecting some hybrid, Every animal has a different genetic make up and different chromosomes for example Stalin wanted to make an army of "Ape-men" so he tried to breed apes with humans but guess what happened... NOTHING the sperm of the human/chimpanzee did not fertilize the egg of the ape/human... Humans have something like two less chromosomes than chimps...


PS. GO TO SCHOOL, LEARN SOMETHING... STOP POSTING BS!

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=88253

Chimpanzee uses stone tools to break nuts 4,3000 billion years ago. Now they still uses stone tools to break nuts. They sure are evolving.
Find me evidence that humans evolve from the same animal kingdom such as chimpanzee so I can correct the genetic makeup of a chimpanzee to make them humans.

Humans are 80 percent Alien clone and 20 percent chimpanzee root parent.

Your joking right? the article stated 4,300 years ago not 4,3000 billion years ago... 4,300 billion years ago there was no life on earth at all...
4,300 years is not much in evolution.. it takes hundreds of thousands of years for sometihing to evolve.

BTW there is no such number as 4,3000!
PS...LEARN HOW TO READ!

4,3000 is a number

Not on this planet

these are number
43,000
4.3000

interesting idea, i have never heard that concept before, but it seems to be as good an explaination as any. i agree the level of suppression regarding any non main stream ideas is tremendous. many governments and the judeo-christian religious establishments have a major investment in maintaining the accepted belief structure. too much money and power would be lost if any alternative theories ever proved to be true. one need only to follow the money and look to who has the most to gain or loose by perpetuating the company line.

They werent chimpanzee's, and they werent around 4.3 billion years ago.



Use the fossil record and geneological trees.

1. Proof?
2. Then how are our genes 92% similar to chimps'?



That's the equivalent of 4.3000, but in french. French use commas instead of periods.

So 3rd rock are you french?

that's a thinker. i think that it could be probable because it makes more sense that a more advanced species started everything other than a guy with a bunch of animals on a boat

Its not probable becaus eit goes against all the well researched scientific data. It has no supporting evidence so hence forth it is nonsense.

Just as what those first space aliens first created humans on earth, the clones are now making animal human alien clones.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

This is the new and improved photo of the so called "Noah's Ark"

I forget his name but that picture is part of a theory that a particular man from Tennessee who was a seventh day adventist he belived that the boat didn't land on the Mountain of Ararat but in the vicinity he also claims to have taken pictures of chariot wheels on the bottom of the Red Sea and to have found the Ark of the Covenant. He believes that the Ark is located in a cave underneath mount calvary so that when Jesus was crucified the blood from the cross went through a crack in the ground into the cave and on to the ark. Most of his theories have been found to be false or pushing the seventh day adventist church doctrine

I've also studied a little on Biblical Archaeology and I think it more plausible that the ark if it still exists on it being a human ocean vessel of some kind than being a space ship of some kind. For those of who have studied or heard of Zechariah Sitchin who is an expert in the Sumerian culture. The Sumerians also have a flood account similar to the biblical one. And just the same as the biblical one it was a vessel created by human hands and not some sort of space craft. Also the eye witness accounts throughout history have also shown that they believe it to be a just on old fashioned ocean ship and not a space ship.
Whether you believe in the flood account or not your original premise that the Ark might have a space ship and not an ocean going vessel of some king is on shaky groung. Even the well known Apollo astronaut I forget his name believed it was just a regular ship

interesting thought.

nope noha is not an alien or either is god so get off this topic!!!

Thats Ron Wyatt you're talking about, a well known fraud who claimed to have discovered almost every single legendary artifact EVER:

The true Noah's Ark (the Durupinar site, near but not on Mount Ararat)
Anchor stones (actually drogue stones) used by Noah on the Ark
The post-flood house and tombs of Noah and his wife
The location of Sodom and Gomorrah
Sulfur balls from the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah
The site of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea (which Wyatt located in the Gulf of Aqaba)
Chariot wheels and other relics of the pursuing army of Pharaoh at the bottom of the sea
The true site of the biblical Mt. Sinai (located by Wyatt in Saudi Arabia at Jabal al Lawz)
A chamber at the end of a maze of tunnels under Jerusalem containing artifacts from Solomon's temple
The Ark of the Covenant
The original stones of the Ten Commandments
The true site of the Crucifixion
The blood of Jesus, dripped onto the Mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant, directly beneath the Crucifixion

The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) stated that "Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. ... [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc." (http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/Zias.html)

Does anything you say ever have any relevance to the topic in question?

Noah's ark was not a spaceship, it was a boat. Period. However, it is said that the angel Shemhazai (if you know want to know the WHOLE story behind the flood - angels marrying women, creating Nephilim, God wanting to wipe out the Nephilim because people were upset and were taking their case to God, hence the REASON for the flood) 'flew his wife to another planet' to save her from the coming flood. His punishment was to be hung in the constellation of Orion one eye open one eye shut forever seeing his impending crash to Earth. However it is also said that he and the the other 199 angels who fell with him were 'bound to the Earth for 70 generations' then taken to 'angel hell' i.e. literally a prisonhouse this is no 'hell' in the fire and brimstone sense it's Sheol a temporal prisonhouse, which for the angels was Pluto. The thrones of angels are the stars, and the Heavens ARE in space. That, however does not make angels or God 'aliens' in the little green men sense.

Pfft, like you're any authority on the subject.



That is your interpretation.



Nor does it make god, nor angels "real" in any sense.

lision if urgonna insult other peoples beliefs(and mine)dont bother posting. im tired of people insulting other people for no reason!!!

wow, someone didn't bother to read Genesis... Adam and Eve had at least 3 sons we know about... and it goes on to say that they had more sons and daughters...

wow, someone didn't bother to pay attention in school... the Bible is fiction. There is no way, none at all, that the earth can be as old as the Bible says it is, let alone for the events of Genesis to have actually happened. It violates all known laws of physics, or are we going to convieniantly forget about all that for now?

Im not insulting anyone's beliefs. Please, point me to one insult in my post.

On the other hand... she states her beliefs in absolutes, which is an attack on any other disagreeing belief.



Thats your belief, not fact.



How old does the bible say it is?

It could of been a space rock (Yes I know the name, Im not going to try to spell that one)that had one cell life forms on it or in it. That colled the seed theory.

A spaceship made of acacia wood......you'd think it would have burned up on re-entry.






Where on earth did you get the idea that they only had 2 sons? There are 3 sons whose names we know: Cain, Abel and Seth, and he had many other sons as well as daughters.

Genesis 5:4 - "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters."





That couldn't be more wrong if looking at it from a Biblical perspective. Adam and Eve were banished together......there were no other people in existance on the earth, except for their own offspring (and since, as stated, Adam lived about 800 years, there were a lot of offspring)......it may seem gross by modern standards, but when the populating of earth was just beginning brothers and sisters had to pair off. It was the only way to create more people.




He's right.




Nowhere in the Bible does it give an actual age for the earth. Some fanatics came up with an age all on their own with no help from the Bible.

How come the Bible doesn't mention Neanderthals or Home Erectuss ?

and Adam lived 800 years?

930 years altogether actually. It wasn't until after the flood that God shortened human life to an average of "four score and ten", according to the Bible.

Oh you're back dearest Stellar. None the wiser I see. How's Catholic schooling going hun?

Anything is possible with our lord Jesus Christ

That amount of inbreeding would have devastated our race.



Still wise enough to see the faults in your post.



Its not, Im in university.

lol, i like this dude, he got balls ^^

actually i think he got the information from Rael mixed a bit with Plaedians and some bible !!

perhaps the Urantia book.

anywho, i read most of what you were talking about and i came something that human existed blabla 65millions years ago or something...

there is some theory that humans existed at the time when dinosaurs existed...

footprints have been found and dating back to 300 - 600million years old.



A stunning new discovery with the potential to overthrow all of modern evolutionary thought was recently found in old collections of fossils from Axel Heiberg Island in the Canadian Arctic, far above the arctic circle. It appears to be a "fossil finger", not unlike ones previously recorded from Creataceous age strata in Texas by Dr. Carl Baugh of the Creataceous Evidences Museum .The new fossil dates from about 100 to 110 million years ago, also from the geologic time evolutionists call the "Creataceous Period". The specimen is known by the rather innocuous designation "DM93-083".

The side view shows dark areas that are interpreted as the interior parts of the bones and bone marrow. These areas have less density than the surrounding stones, and therefore more easily pass X-rays, causing darkening of the image.


Fossilized hand print
This fossil which corresponds perfectly to a human handprint shows astounding detail. Even the print of the thumb nail can be seen. It is found in the Glen Rose limestone which is designated as Middle Cretaceous, supposedly 110 million years old and contemporary with the dinosaurs!


Mysterious escivating is appearing more than ever. I sometimes asking myself if the Darwins Theory was wrong and what if we were actually created from aliens? Now that would be to way from the mind but who knows really, the UFO was one big shock when it first appeard.

The proof we have today about the human evulotion is the strongest, acceptable evidence we got of the human evulotion while the Alien theory has no proof of any typical that humans are created by aliens and humans mistook them as for gods. We'll have to wait what it will be in the future, darwinism or alienism.

Which religion would have a "problem" on their hands?

Nearly every religion tells a version of the Noah tale, whether they call him by name or not. But the tale is the same.

So wouldn't you be inclined to think that if there were something tangible there, that it would fit with all of the religions
who relate to that story? The big time religious rift dates back to Isaac and Ishmael (Isaac = Jewish/Christian Ishamel = Islam) and the
birthright handed down from Abraham.

ALL three of those religions recognize Noah.

So what, exactly, would be the problem in Turkey given that over 90 percent of the population is Islamic and believe in the story of Noah?

Who didn't pay attention in school?

The bible states that the Earth is younger than scientists say.

We're talking about the difference between 5,000 years and 4 billion years.

And you're calling people out about not paying attention in school? You didn't even get your side of the argument right! LOL!

I meant "old" as in "age" - as in "how old are you" doesn't mean the person you're asking is really really old - I didn't mean the bible said it was older than it is... oh forget it.

And for those that state that the bible doesn't say how old the earth is, of course it doesn't. But there are people here who are trying to take it as fact, and it simply isn't possible. To say otherwise is unbelievably ignorant*. You may as well go and live in a cave. Notwithstanding the age issue, Stellar is right, there is no way a race can come from 2 people.

(* and yes, science can be ignorant as well, but which makes more sense?)

No not really. There could possibly be occasional birth anomalies, but eventually as there were more and more people that would have ended. Before long it would be cousins with cousins, 2nd cousins with 2nd cousins and other various combinations and that would have happened in only a couple of generations or so. Believe it or not, there have been cases in modern times where a girl was molested by her own father, or a brother and gave birth to a perfectly normal baby. It's not even that long ago in history that first cousins were allowed to marry legally.

*edited for typos

Im sorry, but no. Birth anomalies would definitly result from inbreeding... and yes, there would be more and more people... due to inbreeding... meaning they all have a similar genetic make up... meaning the inbreeding will continue...



*sigh* The baby may be "perfectly normal", but the genetic make up is similar to the parents and the family, and the more the inbreeding continues, the more damage will result.