| Author |
The first man on earth? |
KingBooker5
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: London, England
PM |
Jesus calm down comfort mdu, im just having a laugh. Sheesh some one has a bad sence of humour!
About aliens on earth. I have seen a few programes recently and a few sites and Im starting to back it up kind of. Some of the images are ancestors created are striking. Men with helmets, humans with antenae and more. So JoJo im starting to back you up with that.
| |
|
Evilchap
Joined: Aug 25, 2006
Posts: 57
From: New Zealand
PM |
@kingbooker5, you should read "Finger Prints of the Gods". |
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
[quote]
On 2007-09-21 16:16:47, max_wedge wrote:
God predates man. Religion is man made. therefore God preceded religion.
Problem solved 
Well said and hundred percent agree with you
|
SaLiH
Joined: Jul 30, 2006
Posts: 460
From: Bosnia & Herzegovina
PM, WWW
|
The only true path to God's wisdom is through your own heart, not through marks on an ancient piece of paper. If you can't trust your own heart and instead rely on words in an old document to understand God, then do you really Know God at all? If God is not in your heart, if you need a book to be your spiritual compass, then where is God in your life?
That's my question.
It's clear that you don't know nothing about Islam, and still you're talking about the Quran, as something that was written by a human being. It has been proven that all the great minds through the whole history together couldn't write a sentence like it was written in the Quran. Believe me I'm a Muslim, and God is in my heart and my life all the time. Read about Islam and you'll get the answer, to your question.
Nokia 3310->Nokia 2100->Nokia 3100->Sony Ericsson K700i->Sony Ericsson K750i->i-mobile 902->Sony Ericsson K800i->Sony Ericsson T650i->Sony Ericsson C901->Sony Ericsson Elm->iPhone 3GS->iPhone 4s->iPhone 5->iPhone 5s->iPhone 6->iPhone 6s->iPhone 7 Plus |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-09-21 18:39:02, KingBooker5 wrote:
About aliens on earth. I have seen a few programes recently and a few sites and Im starting to back it up kind of. Some of the images are ancestors created are striking. Men with helmets, humans with antenae and more. So JoJo im starting to back you up with that.
@King Kong - It was reported that IF the planet is already estimated - 2 BILLION years old . . rumors have it that other planets out there has an estimated LIFE of 4 BILLION years (to date) . . . DOUBLE that of ours (Earth)  and what can you say about those UFOs (flyin' saucers)  We are REALLY not - alone here . . . the flick in the 80's - ET, is very TRUE in my imaginative mind !
[addsig] |
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
It's clear that you don't know nothing about Islam, and still you're talking about the Quran, as something that was written by a human being. It has been proven that all the great minds through the whole history together couldn't write a sentence like it was written in the Quran. Believe me I'm a Muslim, and God is in my heart and my life all the time. Read about Islam and you'll get the answer, to your question.
Well I will still remind you that this is not about which religion is wright or because we all belong to one god. The only difference we have is how otyhers call him. Take for instance in my country in ancient history they used ti call Him Mulentengamunye. He is mostly known as SIMEKADZE to some othrs. All these names have meanings.
So either you call him Allah, muhhamed, baal or whatever it doesnt matter at all and all that matters is the truth.
Further nore there is no need to critisise what ever is being said. Let this just be a normal and open discussion.
CCHHEERRSS MATES.
|
KingBooker5
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: London, England
PM |
On 2007-09-28 01:28:29, *Jojo* wrote:
On 2007-09-21 18:39:02, KingBooker5 wrote:
About aliens on earth. I have seen a few programes recently and a few sites and Im starting to back it up kind of. Some of the images are ancestors created are striking. Men with helmets, humans with antenae and more. So JoJo im starting to back you up with that.
@King Kong - It was reported that IF the planet is already estimated - 2 BILLION years old . . rumors have it that other planets out there has an estimated LIFE of 4 BILLION years (to date) . . . DOUBLE that of ours (Earth) and what can you say about those UFOs (flyin' saucers) We are REALLY not - alone here . . . the flick in the 80's - ET, is very TRUE in my imaginative mind !
Intresting Mo Joe Joe Joe. However some believe that these "UFO's" may indeed be humans, but from the future exploring the past. If they are humans thats a plausable explanation for the USO sightings as far back as the time of the Great Alexander.
Legend has it that when Alexander was taking over the ancient world, his soldiers approached some waters, they saw an object fly out of the water, an unidentifed submerged object. They were afraid the flying object would attack so they took another route to cross .
|
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
Interesting post kingbooker. So what do you say? Do you think that they saw what we can say is an alien. If yes how do you convince a fellow like me. Its because I find it hard to believe in the existance of alience as far as the first man is concerned
|
arvinlad
Joined: Mar 26, 2005
Posts: 447
From: A P1iW [8Gb] in Lancs UK ;-)
PM |
On 2007-09-01 11:04:36, Jim wrote:
Humans and apes have the same ancestor but WE DO NOT evolved from them!!! Don't compare us with something that is totally different.
This is a wide misconception of evolution and most creationist base their arguments about something totally wrong.
I highly recommend to read the Miller experiment. If you know basic chemistry and biology then you will understand how organic compounds needed for life could have been formed with basic inorganic elements.
When we examine the purpose, assumptions, and results of the Miller experiment, there are three critical thinking questions that can be raised:
1) How much of the experiment was left to chance processes or how much involved intelligent design?
2) How did Miller know what Earth’s early atmosphere (billions of years ago) was like?
3) Did Miller produce the right type of amino acids used in life?
In the experiment, Miller was attempting to illustrate how life’s building blocks (amino acids) could have formed by natural processes. However, throughout the experiment Miller relied on years of intelligent research in chemistry. He purposely chose which gases to include and which to exclude. Next, he had to isolate the biochemicals (amino acids) from the environment he had created them in because it would have destroyed them. No such system would have existed on the so-called “primitive” earth. It appears Miller used intelligent design throughout the experiment rather than chance processes...
More here for those interested Miller-Urey Experiment
www.answersingenesis.org , www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php |
arvinlad
Joined: Mar 26, 2005
Posts: 447
From: A P1iW [8Gb] in Lancs UK ;-)
PM |
On 2007-08-31 21:29:57, KingBooker5 wrote:
I dont know whats wrong about believing in a god and science.
To help people clear up the confusion, it is helpful to distinguish between two types of modern science, and compare how each one seeks to discover truth:
1. Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases.
2. Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see.
So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid change during Noah’s Flood.
The debate is about origin science and conflicting assumptions, or beliefs, about the past.
Molecules-to-man evolution is a belief about the past. It assumes, without observing it, that natural processes and lots of time are sufficient to explain the origin and diversification of life.
Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—which are observable today. Creation scientists make these same observations, but they recognize that the change has limits and has never been observed to change one kind into another.
Until quite recently, many geologists have used studies of current river erosion and sedimentation to explain how sedimentary rock layers were formed or eroded slowly over millions of years. In the past few decades, however, even secular geologists have begun to recognize that catastrophic processes are a better explanation for many of the earth’s rock layers.
It is quite easy to recognize the potential problems with the statement “evolution is science, but the Bible is religion.” Molecules-to-man evolution is not proven by operation science; instead, it is a belief about the past based on antibiblical assumptions.
The Bible, in contrast, is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator, who tells us what happened to produce the earth, the different kinds of life, the fossils, the rock layers, and indeed the whole universe. The Bible gives us the true, “big picture” starting assumptions for origin science.
So, the battle between the Bible and molecules-to-man evolution is not one of religion versus science. Rather, it is a conflict between worldviews—a creationist’s starting assumptions (a biblical worldview) and an evolutionist’s starting assumptions (an antibiblical worldview).
www.answersingenesis.org , www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php |
arvinlad
Joined: Mar 26, 2005
Posts: 447
From: A P1iW [8Gb] in Lancs UK ;-)
PM |
On 2007-09-01 10:21:00, msmmsm wrote:
Not a religious person so not sure about the following. If there was only Adam and Eve in the beginning, it would be logical to assume that inbreeding would be a nessecisity, and in modern times we see that only in a few generations cretinism and other genetic defects are very apparent through inbreeding. Considering the age at which they lived in the bible back then( up to 900 years so I am told), thats a lot of offspring. Also told by my Christian Girlfriend that the world is only 6000 years old! Thats a lot of inbreeding if it is possible in any way to get to our current population.
I dont agree with any of the above, but it's an interesting point.
Inbreeding is not a problem if the people are genetically perfect... which if you follow the biblical account of Adam and Eve it would appear that they were
www.answersingenesis.org , www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php |
arvinlad
Joined: Mar 26, 2005
Posts: 447
From: A P1iW [8Gb] in Lancs UK ;-)
PM |
On 2007-09-05 02:01:33, *Jojo* wrote:
On 2007-09-04 09:16:44, goldenface wrote:
@comfort mdu
I would like to hear your thoughts on why people in hot countries tend to have darker skin.
. . . well I live in a HOT country . . . but it's NOT always like that matey . . . because we have - ALBINOs here  !
Virtually all evolutionists would now agree that the various people groups did not have separate origins; that is, in the evolutionary belief system, the different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with biblical creationists that all people groups have come from the same original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of separation. Most people believe that there are such vast differences between groups that there had to be many years for these differences to somehow develop.
One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable differences come from some people having unique features in their hereditary makeup which others lack. This is an understandable but incorrect idea. Let’s look at skin color, for instance. It is easy to think that since different groups of people have yellow skin, red skin, black skin, white skin and brown skin, there must be many different skin pigments or colorings. And since different chemicals for coloring would mean a different genetic recipe or code in the hereditary blueprint in each people group, it appears to be a real problem. How could all those differences develop within a short time?
Here’s how. We all have the same coloring pigment in our skin: melanin. This is a dark brownish pigment that is found in special cells in our skin. If we have none (as do people called albinos, who suffer from an inherited mutation-caused defect, so they lack the ability to produce melanin), then we will have a very white or pink skin coloring. If we produce a little melanin, it means that we will be European white. If our skin produces a great deal of melanin, we will be a very deep black. And in between, of course, are all shades of brown. There are no other significant skin pigments.2
In summary, from currently available information, the really important factor in determining skin color is melanin—the amount produced.
This situation is true not only for skin color. Generally, whatever feature we may look at, no people group has anything that is, in its essence, uniquely different from that possessed by another. For example, the Asian, or almond-shaped, eye gets its appearance simply by having an extra fold of fat. Both Asian and Caucasian eyes have fat—the latter simply have less of it.
There really is very little genetic difference between humans... The difference to chimps at 4%, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! - It would seem that share 50% of our genes with a banana - so the proof is a LONG way off...
Creationists believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. - However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations—a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma.” This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population.
Fascinating stuff eh?
www.answersingenesis.org , www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php |
arvinlad
Joined: Mar 26, 2005
Posts: 447
From: A P1iW [8Gb] in Lancs UK ;-)
PM |
On 2007-09-21 18:39:02, KingBooker5 wrote:
Jesus calm down comfort mdu, im just having a laugh. Sheesh some one has a bad sence of humour!
About aliens on earth. I have seen a few programes recently and a few sites and Im starting to back it up kind of. Some of the images are ancestors created are striking. Men with helmets, humans with antenae and more. So JoJo im starting to back you up with that.
Star travel is impossible, according to known laws of physics. There are some interesting parallels between popular media portrayals of aliens and subsequent UFO sightings and reports of alien visitations. For example:
‘Prior to Close Encounters of the Third Kind [1977] reports of alleged aliens with long thin necks were non-existent. After the film, they became common. Before the film, the eyes were human-like with a pupil and iris with white surrounds. Afterwards, they were black, slanted and much larger—an image that endures today.’ (Excerpt from Alien Intrusion, chapter 1, ‘The Invasion is Underway’.)
Alien Intrusion gives intriguing additional evidence of how UFOs, which were reported even in ancient times, seem to have manifested to reflect either current technology or that which was very shortly to come.
Worth a read if you are interested
Alien Intrusion
www.answersingenesis.org , www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php |
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
As a matter of fact I dont believe that human beings originated from aliens. Aliens must have been there before human but that dont hold roots as to where we originated. I can also side with those who call it pre-adamites, either they are humans or not but I can only assume that they almost looked like humans. One other thing i nay want to believe if I may side with the scientists is that of anti-matter. Only if they can say that the first man was present in the form of anti-matter even though that can bring a complex disscussion.
What then can we say about the questions which science can not provide anweres to? Right let us assume that thre is nothing like the first man on earth, what then or where then did the first thing that looked like human come from? Forgive me if that has been answered already.
Chheerss!!
Edit: Check the Pre-Adamites
_________________
A clean desk is a sign of a sick mind says me authour of
The firtst man on earth thread
[ This Message was edited by: Twometre on 2008-01-22 13:05 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2008-01-18 11:57:11, arvinlad wrote:
Creationists believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. - However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations—a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma.” This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population.
Creationists always use whatever scientific material they find easiest to discredit. They never reference the material that is hard to refute. 
They refer to the haldane dilemma, but the fact is geneticists have largely moved on from the hypothesis that background radiation causes evolution> It is now well understood that genetic variations arise much more quickly as a response to environment, not in response to random mutations caused by background radiation. The genetic engine is a computer, and it is capable of responding to the environment in an intelligent and highly adaptive fashion.
Creation scientists also like to think that disproof of one possible explanation of a hypothesis disproves the whole hypothesis. For example they will say Evolution can't be possible because background radiation can't account for the frequency of mutations need to explain evolution. But all that proves, is that background radiation is not the engine of evolution that it was once thought of. It certainly doesn't "disproove" the Theory of Evolution. Darwin never specificied exactly what caused evolution - he simply observed that such a phenomenon existed.
For example, recombinant genetic adaptions can occur over the passage of only a few generations, and the affect of mutation due to radiation is insignificant. For example insects adapting to insectisides. So it's not necessary to rely on background radiation to support the theory of evolution.
| |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2007-09-21 18:39
