Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

I've no idea what you went with that. What I do know is that you've not proven to me biologically how cavemen had scales.

i think they are too many specialized fields of science, that answer questions specific to their own area of expertise without taking advantage of knowledge from other areas. this is most glaring where certain brain functions are completely removed in the process of fact finding.

for example, a person with artistic skill is more likely to recognize certain patterns than someone without that skill. a person who counts floor tiles (i think psychiatrists called it obsessive-compulsive disorder) over and over again, would find patterns in everything and probably much faster than someone relying on time and repetitive empirical process.

also, philosophers and scientists are today, so very far removed from each other by choice. although the tendency of philosophy to call a theory a fact, is not lost on science, the rest of the philosophical format is deemed useless. i dunno how you can truly advance a science if its so bogged down with preciseness and hardened to the point you'd need to know the leaders of the united nations just to make a big scientific discovery and not have it stolen from you or ridiculed into obscurity. what chance is there that we will learn anything really useful unless it's discovered by people with enough clout that they can't be ignored?

bleh. *goes back to reading ancient history*

reply to post by undo


Like I said, I'm an architect major. I've had some time around patterns and the lot.

I'm just providing critique. You have to prove your theory. Sure it's cool, but it's got no back bone yet.

reply to post by KingJames1337


I'll agree with you from faith on the Bible. But what do I have besides that? I speak in scientific terms for scientific matters, and I will speak what I know from what I believe. But the two cannot mix unless there is evidence.

reply to post by Gorman91


But how can Enki and Enlil be explained why the continuation of their stories in the Sumerian tablets to Christianity and other religions, why do we even have an end of days theory? How is the End of Days theory in every religion helpful to spiritual englightenment.

Originally posted by Gorman91

There's a number of pre 3000 bc venus statues. The Venus of Schelklingen, Venus of Dolní Věstonice, Venus of Lespugue, The Venus of Willendorf.

I've cataloged 83 of them so far, from roughly 31,000 bc up to around 16,000 bc. Their production seems to have fallen off with the advent of cave paintings. 31,000 bc is about a factor of 10 older than the requested 3000 bc, All of them are very clearly mammalian rather than reptilian, given the exaggerated physical features.

The Venus of Brassempouy very clearly has African hair. She was found in France. Dated 23,000 bc. Kind of proves that straight hair is a later evolution. Or who knows, perhaps she came by sea.

Brassempouy appears to have braided hair, rather than "African" hair. Gross facial structure appears caucasioid, but there aren't enough details present to make a positive identification.

Willendorf has a better argument for "African" hair, but it could as easily be a woven cap or piled braids.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

Like I said, I'm an architect major. I've had some time around patterns and the lot.

I'm just providing critique. You have to prove your theory. Sure it's cool, but it's got no back bone yet.

k mr. architect, what do you make of this?


it's like the eiffel tower building itself. no, it's even worse. it's like the city of paris building itself.

Originally posted by undo

Venus of Schelklingen !!
that's a reptile body if i ever saw one. good grief
upload.wikimedia.org...

WHERE have you ever seen a reptile with chesticles or a vulva like that? Very clearly mammalian, of the human persuasion.

Willendorf is in my prior post with pictures. the bumpy patterns on her head reveal themselves be scales when seen from the side.

I've seen it up close. No scales in the hair. it's either braids or a woven cap. the rest of the anatomy very clearly shows it to be a mammalian human, which is why I presume you left that part out of the picture you posted.

are you sure this is a human being???
www.arthistory.sbc.edu...

Lespugue is very clearly a mammalian human female, and is one of the few Venus figurines to be wearing clothing - an apron can be seen hanging in the rear.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by undo

Venus of Schelklingen !!
that's a reptile body if i ever saw one. good grief
upload.wikimedia.org...

WHERE have you ever seen a reptile with chesticles or a vulva like that? Very clearly mammalian, of the human persuasion.

Willendorf is in my prior post with pictures. the bumpy patterns on her head reveal themselves be scales when seen from the side.

I've seen it up close. No scales in the hair. it's either braids or a woven cap. the rest of the anatomy very clearly shows it to be a mammalian human, which is why I presume you left that part out of the picture you posted.

are you sure this is a human being???
www.arthistory.sbc.edu...

Lespugue is very clearly a mammalian human female, and is one of the few Venus figurines to be wearing clothing - an apron can be seen hanging in the rear.

you have to read the rest of my posts to know why i can call it a reptile. it isn't fully reptilian. i think this is the point people skip over. you have reptilians, reptilian-mammalians, amphibians, amphibian-mammalians, and variations inbetween. i will agree that willendorf does look like she's wearing a knitted cap or has a hair weave going on but under the right lighting conditions, you can see she originally had lips and eyes and the ribbing in the cap looks just like scales. i don't know if time has worn down the features or if someone altered them, but willendorf appears to have had a face at one point. it's just barely visible now. my theory or rather hypothesis, since i don't have anything other than text and artifacts to support it, is predicated on a similar premise as the theory that we came from apes. with the exception that it doesn't involve the evolutionary process in our creation. it only suggests evolution because the final product, i.e. the homo sapiens, is composed of the parts of three different species...hypothetically. who may or may not have, evolved at some level.

i do believe in micro evolution, just not macro. i know they say micro evolution is just the basic building block of macro, but then that goes back to can the eiffel tower build itself.

the "human" woman with the "Apron" in the back (could that be a tail? cause she's butt naked otherwise)

that's a really interesting "human" head
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e95a6f2acb81.jpg[/atsimg]

and another one. she doesn't look very human other than the mammaries and mammalian belly button. although other than her head, her skin doesn't show signs of being scaly, i suppose.

www.donsmaps.com...

The results are in. Science, you ARE the father. Creation, sorry buddy.

reply to post by nenothtu


if you'll notice, you already have 2 stars for your post, even though it doesn't appear you had read most of my hypothesis on the subject. this is exactly where the problems on these subjects are. people don't read each other's research and wave each other off because they've already made up their minds. they are rewarding you for not reading what i wrote and giving a half baked answer for what i wrote, as if my efforts and research were totally worthless.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by nenothtu

 

if you'll notice, you already have 2 stars for your post, even though it doesn't appear you had read most of my hypothesis on the subject. this is exactly where the problems on these subjects are. people don't read each other's research and wave each other off because they've already made up their minds. they are rewarding you for not reading what i wrote and giving a half baked answer for what i wrote, as if my efforts and research were totally worthless.

I starred Nenothu...I've been a subsciriber to your Stargates are real thread, Don't be so condescending just because people disagree with you...

reply to post by aorAki


didn't realize i was being condescending, just disappointed that he didn't even read why i thought that before criticizing it, and that people starred him for it.

reply to post by undo


You'll be simply ecstatic over the Kostienki Venuses, then. Just check out the "hair" and minimalist "clothes" on these bad babies!

realhistoryww.com...

www.utexas.edu...

www.donsmaps.com...

www.donsmaps.com...

www.donsmaps.com...

And don't forget the Avdeevo figurines:

www.donsmaps.com...

www.donsmaps.com...

www.donsmaps.com...

Gagarino:

www.donsmaps.com...


Whether scales or hair and braided "clothes", these ought to help you out in your theorizing...

Just because there's some statues and remains that look like a cross between humans and animals doesn't mean they automatically existed. Only the history channel with their ridiculously bad "Ancient aliens" comes to another conclusion. Although, they don't outright say statues like that are alien, they always phrase it like "Could it be, that this statue, looking like we'd imagine aliens to look, came from thousands of lightyears away?"...and then never answer that question, but strongly suggesting the answer to that question is "yes".

People worshipped animals back then, at least some did. So guess what, they mixed human and animal features in their ART.

Scales on a tiny statue aren't proof...they aren't even a guess given the other explanations make so much more sense than "reptilians" or "aliens"

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by nenothtu

 

if you'll notice, you already have 2 stars for your post, even though it doesn't appear you had read most of my hypothesis on the subject. this is exactly where the problems on these subjects are. people don't read each other's research and wave each other off because they've already made up their minds. they are rewarding you for not reading what i wrote and giving a half baked answer for what i wrote, as if my efforts and research were totally worthless.

No, I read your posts. I don't subscribe to the notion, and don't see the same things you do in the art works, but I'm willing to help you on your quest for lizard folk nonetheless. You've no doubt seen my post above already.

The physical attributes present in the Venuses lead me to believe they are mammalian rather than lizard folks. VERY mammalian in most cases, but I can see where you are seeing "scales" in places where I don't see them, I think.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by aorAki

 

didn't realize i was being condescending, just disappointed that he didn't even read why i thought that before criticizing it, and that people starred him for it.

Nah. don't sweat it. I'm fairly thick skinned, and didn't take it as condescention. My answers are just a tad over "half baked", though - I've been researching through these figurines as some of the oldest art on Earth for several years now.

You just see different things in the carved patterns than I do. I'd hate to think what you might see in some of the "art" I've done over time, but I assure you that any lizard-like appearances in mine are purely stylistic coincidence!

Originally posted by MrXYZ

People worshipped animals back then, at least some did. So guess what, they mixed human and animal features in their ART.

The Löwenmensch / Löwenfrau from Germany is a good example of an anthropomorphized animal, and is one of the oldest examples of that in Europe. it surely did go on - there's the evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think some of the other Venus features are just stylistic. Note the similarity of the braided "hair" in the Venuses where present, the general morphologic and proportional similarities, right on down to the fact that it's hard to find feet on any of them, and most appear to have been pointed at the ankle end of their legs, perhaps to facilitate sticking them in something to stand them up.

The "witness leading" that you mention the History channel engaging in is a standard practice when someone is selling you a bill of goods - "see? Here is something that looks like what it could be thought that this other but improbable thing would look like..." and then they leave you hanging to make up your mind, but with a clear suggestion, rather than direction, on how you should make it up - in favor of the improbable, based on the obvious but unconnected.

The book I put together in the link in my sig has some examples of that from the Faltskog/Herschel alien signal hoax, among all the other methods they tried to promote their scam. Charlatanry at it's best. Wayne Hershel in particular is bad for it, with his "the fan on the back of the sphinx in this ancient Egyptian drawing looks like a flying saucer, and therefore really is one and proves that Ra was an ancient astronaut god from the Plieades - trust me I'm a symbologist" spiel. The basic premise may or may not be true, nut I'm leaning havilay against that possibility just based on the amount of reaching he had to do to make something unrelated "fit" and "prove" the hypothesis.

reply to post by undo


Yes? That's electromagnetism at work.

There is nothing in this video relevant to your post.