Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by type0civ
I missed out on this one....and I wonder what the result of a question like - Is homo sapien the product of another NON supernatural life form?

Yes the correct question was ruined by the addition of "Supernatural".

might be an over-reaction to the word "supernatural". to me it reads, hyper natural. natural+

Originally posted by undo

interesting. now an anthropologist would tell you that your ancestors didn't drop out of the heavens, you merely wandered over the straits or what have you, and although that may be true at some point in your lineage, the original story is probably what happened WAY before you arrived in north america.

see i has this little theory that native americans are very much related to egyptian semites, and egyptian semites are related to literally everybody lol they got everything south of egypt and everthing east and north of egypt. it's all in there. theoretically, you are a mix of caucasian and african and asian.

There are isolated groups of people in North America that scientists call "tri-racial isolates", because they appear to be made up of African, European, and Indian populations all mixed into one and isolated to particular geographical areas. Most of these people consider themselves to be "Indians". Examples are the Lumbees of North Carolina, Redlegs of Louisiana, Guineas of West Virginia, and Melungeons of Upper east Tennessee and Southwestern Virginia. Most of these populations were already in place by the time the first white folks arrived in those areas, so they seem to pre-date the European expansion into the interior of America.

There are oddities in some of these populations, such as the claim that the Melungeons spoke Portuguese when the first whites encountered them. There are varying explanations for the racial mixture that is present in these populations, such as the White factor representing the Lost Colony of Roanoke, the Black factor representing escaped slaves, and the Indian factor representing the original inhabitants. Certain surnames do seem to run strong in those populations, such as Chavis among the Lumbees or Goins among the Melungeons. They are all dark skinned (not black, but not white either) to one degree or another, although some have blonde hair (which is a striking appearance!).

I've heard all sorts of speculations to explain those populations. I've heard a Cherokee use them to "prove" that all Indians are muslims who came to America before Columbus, I've heard the explanation that they are the remnants of the Roanoke colony, I've heard that they are jews, remnants of the 10 Lost tribes, that they are remnant Celts who made it to America BC (Before Columbus), Phoenecian seafarers blown off course, etc. All that's really known, though is that they are a mystery.

It makes one wonder how much of the original populations were made up of the varying races present before importation of Africans to America (started in 1619, 12 years AFTER the Jamestowne Colony was planted) and before large scale white expansion into the wilderness, since they were apparently already in situ by that time.

You would be amazed to find out how many white people walked into the woods and never walked back out, simply disappearing into what amounted to a North American jungle between 1500 and the "first" permanent colony in 1607. The same thing goes on to this very day to a lesser degree in the Amazon, but is was endemic right after the "discovery" of America. After reading what was written at the time by Grenville, Coligny, Raleigh, White, and several other primary sources, I was shocked, and had to wonder "where did all of those people go? Then there are the unrecorded incursions, and the little known ones. For example, a Spanish fort (Fort San Juan) has been uncovered in recent years deep in the interior of North Carolina. There is a report of an attack by Indians on a Spanish fort way up in Upper East Tennessee by a white who had been captured by the Indians, and who was present at the raid. There was a Spanish Jesuit mission in the Chessapeake bay region, on the York river I believe, in the early 1500's, long before Jamestowne - destroyed by the Powhatans. Shipwrecks off the coast of Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, where the people simply disappeared. "Explorers" looking for gold and the like who walked off from a temporary camp one day and just vanished. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of them.

Add in the odd inscriptions like the Bat Creek Stone from Tennessee and the stuff from Burrows Cave, the odd things Barry Fell reports on in New England - which he claims are "Celtic", inscriptions claimed to be "Celtic" by some in West Virginia, as well as the ruins of a stone hilltop fort in West Virginia that was already there and crumbling when the first whites came along, the various "runestones" and one begins to see that history isn't always as reported in high school history classes. It's not as clean, not as cut and dried as "well, the English came one day in May, planted a flag, built a fort, and were here to stay, and here we are."

Are any of these artifacts "real"? perceptions of that depend on who you talk to. What IS real is the relict populations, the tri-racial isolates. We may never know with 100% certainty where or how these unexpected things originated, but that doesn't mean we ought to stop trying. I can't say that American Indians are closely related to Ancient Egyptians (although the Mormons claim they have 100 % proof of an Indian - ancient Middle Eastern connection), but there are always questions begging an answer. Genetically, there's not much connection, but also genetically, the "across the Bering Straits" theory needs to be revisited. There seems to have been at least 4 different migrations, and intriguingly at least one of those came from the east, from ancient Europe.

reply to post by nenothtu


i did some studies on central and south america, as well as egyptian royals. let me just say that, according to anthropologists, the royals found at the earliest city in pharaonic egypt (abydos) were not related morphologically (teeth, skull, etc) with the population at large. after learning that, i mounted a study on pharaonic mummies and depictions of those pharaohs while alive. they were all over the map. some looked hindu, some chinese, some japanese, some african, some semitic (some looked very jewish / mesopotamian), some european. apparently they did the whole tradition of marrying children between royal families to seal political/financial deals, and many of those royals they intermarried with, were east of africa. tis here the idea dawned on me that they were like a big melting pot you never really hear about. yet their most documented civ goes back to about 2900-2800 BC, the beginning of pharaonic egypt.

the end result of all that intermarrying of africans, asians and europeans, was a deep red skin color.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/5d56364cb46d8da9.jpg[/atsimg]
as the native americans made their way across the asian continent, they picked up the whole gamut of skin colors from the local populations they passed thru before finally embarking to new lands. theoretically, of course.

one of your bros (and a verrry distant relation of mine, if my theory is correct)

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by KingJames1337


reply to post by undo



The double helix in 2d, AKA the sine-cosine curve, has existed in art for as long back as there is art. One of the oldest pieces of art at Blombos Cave, 75,000 years old, shows a triangulated version of such a form, applied to a primitive grid.

Therefore to assume dna is flawed because the honest truth is that the pattern is ancient.

reply to post by undo


Just to add to your post. Egypt many times sent boats into the Sinai canal. It's very possible they kept going and brought back people for observation.

Bare in mind Africa is the home of mankind, and as such you are likely to find facial typologies of all races on Earth. That does not mean they came from those places far away, it just means that's where they came from.

I'd also like to know where you got that tablet thing from. I keep seeing it but never can find it.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

I'd also like to know where you got that tablet thing from. I keep seeing it but never can find it.

hrmm what tablet thing? you mean the 4 races of mankind thing?

reply to post by Gorman91

A double post response I didn't even know that was possible, back to your earlier response I could see Zoaroaster possibly taking some of the good and evil ideas from another source but I don't see him being a Jew(he would have been called Jewroaster than) it appars Adam and Eve mixed the Jehovah stories(you must obey god or you will be punished) Zoaroaster and good and evil ideas(tree of good and Evil) and Babylon tales (Enki, Enlil) together and come out with one story. Question is is there any mention of Enki being overthrowed by Enlil in the Sumerian tablets if so that might explain the serpent being exiled.

reply to post by undo


Si, my good sir.

Keep seeing it around.

reply to post by KingJames1337


So it appears I've been saying Zoser when I meant to say Zoroaster. My bad :/

Well you never know. Zoroaster sounds like of like Joshua. Some Muslims think he may have been a companion of the prophet Jeremiah whom went and abused him somehow.

The thing with dealing with parallels in such an ancient time is that no culture can be said to take precedents. But to be honest, I think Islam is very good at keeping records for the region, considering they were the first to actually analyze it and write it down.

Theban Mapping Project
Valley of the Kings
Seti I
Tomb KV 17
Images

www.thebanmappingproject.com...

here they are on page 9
www.thebanmappingproject.com...
www.thebanmappingproject.com...


psst. over here: thelivingmoon.com...

reply to post by Gorman91


Makes sense Islam would be the best source as it is the newest. From now on I will call him Jewroaster even though that might be politically incorrect also I will from Here on refer to Enlil as simply the original douche.

reply to post by KingJames1337


haha no. What I'm saying is that these things are not solid. They are blobs. Merging in and out of each other. If you have faith God cares, he will make sure the truth sticks with it and the falseness dies. Judge them by their fruits, as the saying goes.

reply to post by Gorman91


When the Jews were liberated the natural response was they were going to put their god above all others (they had already rejected the Babylonian exiles gods and attempts to assimilate them. Central to the Torah is the theme of being a seperate culture and one might say not dying out as a race. The Israelites also had a very strong belief in their right to the Land of Caanan and the acts described in the book of Joshua might be their way of just saying this is our land we have the right to obtain it by any means possible so was god or something else involved or is it just their perception of what 'god' wants and then Jewroaster jumps in and puts his theme of good and evil in which is strange that the Jews ultimately accept considering their downright rejection of the Babylonians and disintest in other religions.

reply to post by KingJames1337


Once again, Zoroaster himself wasn't accepted until later. No first generation religious leader really is, with perhaps the exception of Muhammad.

Babylonia was worshiping their own gods, their own beliefs, and their own ways.

Furthermore, of course the Jews believed in Good versus evil conflict. That goes all the way back to their days in Egypt.

While in exile, at least what I am told, is that they started documenting their beliefs. When they returned home, this documentation matched, and thus the believed it to be true.

There simply is not clear and obvious historicity for Zoroaster, and thus we can only say that by the time of the 6th century is was a well established religion. beyond that is pure speculation. He could have been a lost or rejected Jew, or hell, he could have even been a traveling man from China. Or perhaps he was a refugee from the Minoan explosion. We just don't know. Without data, there is no proof.

Originally posted by KingJames1337
reply to post by Gorman91

 

When the Jews were liberated the natural response was they were going to put their god above all others (they had already rejected the Babylonian exiles gods and attempts to assimilate them. Central to the Torah is the theme of being a seperate culture and one might say not dying out as a race. The Israelites also had a very strong belief in their right to the Land of Caanan and the acts described in the book of Joshua might be their way of just saying this is our land we have the right to obtain it by any means possible so was god or something else involved or is it just their perception of what 'god' wants and then Jewroaster jumps in and puts his theme of good and evil in which is strange that the Jews ultimately accept considering their downright rejection of the Babylonians and disintest in other religions.

edit on 2-9-2011 by KingJames1337 because: (no reason given)

i'm still trying to figure just which one of the anunnaki moses encountered in the desert. i've been having this debate with myself for awhile now. first, the phrased I AM THAT I AM, is incorrect. it's actually "I AM I AM," which is translated HAYAH HAYAH.
say that 2 times really fast.
or just remove the "h" prefix and say it really fast 2 times.
AYAH AYAH. (what do you hear when you say it?)

further, the word HAYAH means "to be" "to exist." originally when i read the phrase i thought it sounded like this particular elohim was saying, he/she was a time lord of sorts, or rather, an eternal being, timeless, always existing, omnipresent. and it was a clear indicator that it was a reference to yehovah because hayah is the root word of yehovah.

in fact, it was because my research on the translation of yehovah that i realized that the phrase HAYAH HAYAH was at the very least, a 2 god reference. yehovah yehovah. confused me till i started considering that yehovah was both enki and enlil. then it made sense.

however, it doesn't make sense that the israelites, particularly moses, would be entertaining the notion of 2 gods being legitimate. they were monotheists! i had come to believe that they had confused them together, but then why does the one in the desert actually identify himself as 2 and why is it that moses, and the scholars that came after, don't recognize he's just referred to himself as jehovah jehovah? god god.

it's weird.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by KingJames1337
reply to post by Gorman91

 

When the Jews were liberated the natural response was they were going to put their god above all others (they had already rejected the Babylonian exiles gods and attempts to assimilate them. Central to the Torah is the theme of being a seperate culture and one might say not dying out as a race. The Israelites also had a very strong belief in their right to the Land of Caanan and the acts described in the book of Joshua might be their way of just saying this is our land we have the right to obtain it by any means possible so was god or something else involved or is it just their perception of what 'god' wants and then Jewroaster jumps in and puts his theme of good and evil in which is strange that the Jews ultimately accept considering their downright rejection of the Babylonians and disintest in other religions.

edit on 2-9-2011 by KingJames1337 because: (no reason given)

i'm still trying to figure just which one of the anunnaki moses encountered in the desert. i've been having this debate with myself for awhile now. first, the phrased I AM THAT I AM, is incorrect. it's actually "I AM I AM," which is translated HAYAH HAYAH.
say that 2 times really fast.
or just remove the "h" prefix and say it really fast 2 times.
AYAH AYAH. (what do you hear when you say it?)

further, the word HAYAH means "to be" "to exist." originally when i read the phrase i thought it sounded like this particular elohim was saying, he/she was a time lord of sorts, or rather, an eternal being, timeless, always existing, omnipresent. and it was a clear indicator that it was a reference to yehovah because hayah is the root word of yehovah.

in fact, it was because my research on the translation of yehovah that i realized that the word was at the very least, a 2 god reference. yehovah and yehovah. confused me till i started considering that yehovah was both enki and enlil. it made sense.

however, it doesn't make sense that the israelites, particularly moses, would be entertaining the notion of 2 gods being legitimate. they were monotheists! i had come to believe that they had confused them together, but then why does the one in the desert actually identify himself as 2 and why is it that moses, and the scholars that came after, don't recognize he's just referred to himself as jehovah jehovah? god god.

it's weird.

edit on 2-9-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)

It was more than likely that Jehovah was the Jews created god to justify their actions. They probably mixed in what the Babylonians said into their view of things hence the influence of certain Babylonian concepts in judeo-Christian religion. And that brings me to similarities between the Sumerian tablets and Adam and Eve

Not much is known about Pazuzu -- or Zu, as he is sometimes called. According to one web site, "This little-known demon from Babylonian myth was represented as a very thin, emaciated man with the feet and wings of an eagle, and the forepaws and head of a lion. He is nearly always shown with the right paw raised and the left held at his side.

The demon first appeared in early Babylonian myth in the guise of the 'storm-bird' Zu, who stole the Tablets of Destiny from the dragoness Tiamat. In the later Babylonian civilization, he once again appeared, this time under the name of Pazuzu, and was said to be the child of the chief wind-demon, Hanpa. When Pazuzu is summoned by worshippers, he appears in a statuesque form, frozen into the position described above.

The Yezidi tribes of Kurdistan, who worship a Watcherlike god called Malek Taus, or the Peacock Angel, tell a very similar story to the one about Zu and Tiamat. In their mythology, a creature -- who is half-lion, half-eagle -- called Imdugud, or Anzu. "This monster was said to have stolen the Tablets of Destiny from the god Enlil (Ellil) in Akkadian which, in its possession, gave 'him power over the Universe as controller of the fates of all,' enough to endanger 'the stability of civilization,'" Andrew Collins writes in his book "From the Ashes of Angels."

Side note: the yezidis have been known as devil worshippers because of their alternate view of Islam and Maluku Taus(Enki)

Furthermore, the Yazidi story regarding Tawûsê Melek's rise to favor with God is almost identical to the story of the jinn Iblis in Islam, except that Yazidis revere Tawûsê Melek for refusing to submit to Adam, while Muslims believe that Iblis' refusal to submit caused him to fall out of Grace with God, and to later become Satan himself.[19]

reply to post by undo


Yazidi accounts of creation differ from that of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They believe that God first created Tawûsê Melek from his own illumination (Ronahî ) and the other six archangels were created later. God ordered Tawûsê Melek not to bow to other beings. Then God created the other archangels and ordered them to bring him dust (Ax) from the Earth (Erd) and build the body of Adam. Then God gave life to Adam from his own breath and instructed all archangels to bow to Adam. The archangels obeyed except for Tawûsê Melek. In answer to God, Tawûsê Melek replied, "How can I submit to another being! I am from your illumination while Adam is made of dust." Then God praised him and made him the leader of all angels and his deputy on the Earth

One of the key creation beliefs of Yazidism is that all Yazidis are descendants of Adam rather than Eve.[18] Yazidis believe that good and evil both exist in the mind and spirit of human beings. It depends on the humans, themselves, as to which they choose. In this process, their devotion to Tawûsê Melek is essential, since it was he who was given the same choice between good and evil by God, and chose the good.

I'll start the original story of pazuzu from the beginning.

The demon first appeared in early Babylonian myth in the guise of the 'storm-bird' Zu, who stole the Tablets of Destiny from the dragoness Tiamat. In the later Babylonian civilization, he once again appeared, this time under the name of Pazuzu, and was said to be the child of the chief wind-demon, Hanpa

The Yezidi tribes of Kurdistan, who worship a Watcherlike god called Malek Taus, or the Peacock Angel, tell a very similar story to the one about Zu and Tiamat. In their mythology, a creature -- who is half-lion, half-eagle -- called Imdugud, or Anzu. "This monster was said to have stolen the Tablets of Destiny from the god Enlil (Ellil) in Akkadian which, in its possession, gave 'him power over the Universe as controller of the fates of all,' enough to endanger 'the stability of civilization,'" Andrew Collins writes in his book "From the Ashes of Angels."

According to wikipedia, "Although Pazuzu was a malevolent force, his image was used on amulets to ward off his enemy Lamashtu, a female demon that preyed on newborn babies and their mothers. The amulet was either placed on the mother or child or larger ones were placed above them on a wall."

In his essay, "The Demon of the South-West Wind," Stephen Sennitt writes, "In his erudite book, 'The Domain of Devils,' Eric Marple describes the wind demon as the most terrible of all demonic entities, having the power to spread loathsome diseases with his dry, fiery breath. The demo has 'for a head the almost fleshless skull of a dog,' representing death, disease, and as the fleshless death's-head of the desert scavenger, starvation. Significantly, william Woods states in his 'History of the Devil,' 'in Mesopotamia, the horned demon, Pazuzu, rode on the wind and carried malaria,' thus emphasizing the demon's destructive role as 'lord of fevers and plagues.'"

This from the yezidis tribes

In the first days, in the very first days,
In the first nights, in the very first nights,
In the first years, in the very first years...
At that time, it was planted, a tree, a single tree, by the banks of the Great River,
Enki, the Father, did plant the Huluppu-tree,
The God of Wisdom, he planted it by the banks of the Euphrates,
Before he set sail, before the Father departed for the underworld...
The years passed; five years, then ten years.
The tree grew thick,
But its bark did not split.

Then a serpent who could not be charmed
Made its nest in the roots of the Huluppu-tree.
The Anzu-bird set his young in the branches of the tree.
And the dark maid Lilith built her home in the trunk...

The serpent, who could not be charmed, loosened the roots,
The serpent, who could not be charmed, from the Huluppu-tree, went forth;
The Anzu-bird cut off the branches,
The Anzu-bird flew with his young to the mountains;
And Lilith smashed her home and bore the tree into the city,
Into the sacred city of Uruk, she carried it.
From the trunk of the tree the sons of Uruk carved a shining throne for Inanna,..

(from the myth of Inanna and the Huluppu Tree)

read my post again.

that is all.

reply to post by undo

I see it, but what's up with Ayah Ayah?

Interesting survey and results, but the poll almost seems bias as if its an experiment with social manipulation. Even as an atheist, some of the religious questions seem tailored to make one want to choose disagree, for instance: why are the words "supernatural entity" and "creation" in quotes? It makes it slightly (and subtly) appear that it is a silly thing to believe when you read the question.

Being an atheist, I do of course think its a silly thing to believe, but I had to point this out since it is supposed to be a fair poll. It's almost as if the individual who authored the questions is expressing his views through the poll. If anyone even cares about feedback this late in the thread or at all, I would suggest putting more effort not to express any sort of bias or opinion in the questions themselves when crafting these polls, this would probably give more accurate results.

Despite the complaints above, which are trivial, I'm not that surprised at the results. It would be interesting to see if the results change in any way if it was a public poll where everyone could view everyone's answers.