outpostofhell

Out of Africa? Whats your view

27 posts in this topic

Hi there! Excellent question.

Personally, I do believe evo is a conspiracy, on many levels. It's a religion of naturalism, a filter through which all data is interpreted. It is demanded worldwide that everyone be a card-carrying member of that religion, or they will find themselves excommunicated from academia, opposed in the courts, and mocked in the media. It is actually against science, since it abandons the scientific method of observation and repeatability. Here's a link to a site that contrasts science and evolution: http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is more of an ideological thought process than scientific conclusion. Our world around us is wrought with intelligent design verses the accidental assembly of molecules, which is the mindset of evolution. To reason that the Eco-world  that sustains humans manifested itself would be a stretch, let alone the the humans that inhabit it. Every piece of the magnificent puzzle that is creation interlocking and sustaining its neighboring pieces, was not chance or random assembly. By removing one piece of the puzzle, say oxygen, or a distance, the sun from the earth, the entire puzzle would cease to exist. Man did not will himself into existence, one atom at a time, but was created, the first Adam, many molecules assembled into a perfect biological containment vessel for a consciousness. God created life. The fossilized record of the creation process is buried beneath our feet. If evolution were a scientific process then all animals would have evolved to a point of higher intellect, apes would be giving lectures at universities on the scientific proof of evolution. All life shares DNA coding because we were all created by the same creator, his signature if you will. Math even tells us the probabilities of all living creatures evolving from a single cell, which evolved from proteins, which evolved from elements, which evolved from space dust, is not probable. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello outpostofhell,
Welcome!
:cheers:

The Out of Africa Theory was debunked some time ago yet the PC crowd still clings to it.

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.
Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, "The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it."
-----
Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that, “the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262”.

http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/out-of-africa-theory-officially-debunked.html

Is the Out of Africa Theory Out?

An examination of over 5,000 teeth from early human ancestors shows that many of the first Europeans probably came from Asia

All the ancestors of contemporary Europeans apparently did not migrate out of Africa as previously believed. According to a new analysis of more than 5,000 teeth from long-perished members of the genus Homo and the closely related Australopithecus, many early settlers hailed from Asia.
-----
"Teeth are the best genetic marker that we have in the fossil record itself," Trinkaus says, because "they are as close as we can get to a reflection of the individual's genetic makeup." The reason: Tooth crowns are genetically determined—and thus reflect an individual's genotype—and are not affected by environmental stress during development.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/

Here's a long but excellent article on race migration:

The Major and Minor Races of Mankind

As you can see by the title, this is an awfully ambitious post. Those who believe that race does not exist, or that Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid are outdated terms of no use, might as well bail out right now and save yourself the exasperation.

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/the-major-and-minor-races-of-mankind/

From the link you provided: 

"Do not be fooled by those who tell you what I have written here is false. I assure you this information is true. It is not publicly debated. It should be televised again, and again, and again because we live in an open democracy. We need openness about race!"

It is False! The reason it's not publicly discussed is because of the erase racism movement.
The people who say "we are all one race, the human race" have been fooled.

Gene Expression

There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition. 
Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races." 
Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature. 
This at once raises a question: are there races in the human species? After all, the characteristics of most animal races are strictly genetic, while human races have been marked by nongenetic, cultural attributes that have very much affected their overt characteristics. Performance in human activities is influenced not only by the genotype but also by culturally acquired attitudes. What would be ideal, therefore, would be to partition the phenotype of every human individual into genetic and cultural components.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html


The one main thing evolutionist can't explain is the presence of Rh negative blood types. They just pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.
The Rh factor in blood has never been observed mutating yet in more recent articles it's labeled a possible mutation when it used to be of unknown origin.
Only a small percent of humans (about 10 to 15 %) are Rh negative and no other animal on the planet is.
I don't believe this little fraction of people mutated to such a great degree while no other life form here did.
Rh negative blood can not be cloned or synthesized even today nor can it be forced to mutate into RH negative.

The Out of Africa Theory is a massive conspiracy and big time B.S.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lucy Barnable said:

Hello outpostofhell,
Welcome!
:cheers:

The Out of Africa Theory was debunked some time ago yet the PC crowd still clings to it.

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.
Australian historian Greg Jefferys explains that, "The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still hold on to it."
-----
Central to results of this extensive examination of haplogroups (7,556) was the absence of any African genes. So lacking was the sampling of African genetic involvement, the researchers stated in their introduction that, “the finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid, as well as all non-African groups do not carry either SNI’s M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262”.

http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/out-of-africa-theory-officially-debunked.html

Is the Out of Africa Theory Out?

An examination of over 5,000 teeth from early human ancestors shows that many of the first Europeans probably came from Asia

All the ancestors of contemporary Europeans apparently did not migrate out of Africa as previously believed. According to a new analysis of more than 5,000 teeth from long-perished members of the genus Homo and the closely related Australopithecus, many early settlers hailed from Asia.
-----
"Teeth are the best genetic marker that we have in the fossil record itself," Trinkaus says, because "they are as close as we can get to a reflection of the individual's genetic makeup." The reason: Tooth crowns are genetically determined—and thus reflect an individual's genotype—and are not affected by environmental stress during development.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-out-of-africa-theory-out/

Here's a long but excellent article on race migration:

The Major and Minor Races of Mankind

As you can see by the title, this is an awfully ambitious post. Those who believe that race does not exist, or that Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid are outdated terms of no use, might as well bail out right now and save yourself the exasperation.

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/the-major-and-minor-races-of-mankind/

From the link you provided: 

"Do not be fooled by those who tell you what I have written here is false. I assure you this information is true. It is not publicly debated. It should be televised again, and again, and again because we live in an open democracy. We need openness about race!"

It is False! The reason it's not publicly discussed is because of the erase racism movement.
The people who say "we are all one race, the human race" have been fooled.

Gene Expression

There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition. 
Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races." 
Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature. 
This at once raises a question: are there races in the human species? After all, the characteristics of most animal races are strictly genetic, while human races have been marked by nongenetic, cultural attributes that have very much affected their overt characteristics. Performance in human activities is influenced not only by the genotype but also by culturally acquired attitudes. What would be ideal, therefore, would be to partition the phenotype of every human individual into genetic and cultural components.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001951.html


The one main thing evolutionist can't explain is the presence of Rh negative blood types. They just pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.
The Rh factor in blood has never been observed mutating yet in more recent articles it's labeled a possible mutation when it used to be of unknown origin.
Only a small percent of humans (about 10 to 15 %) are Rh negative and no other animal on the planet is.
I don't believe this little fraction of people mutated to such a great degree while no other life form here did.
Rh negative blood can not be cloned or synthesized even today nor can it be forced to mutate into RH negative.

The Out of Africa Theory is a massive conspiracy and big time B.S.

 

 

Is the rh negative factor considered a recessive gene, and after the blood transfusion infants receive at birth do they still carry this gene, allowing it to be passed on in the future 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WhiteHorse said:

Is the rh negative factor considered a recessive gene, and after the blood transfusion infants receive at birth do they still carry this gene, allowing it to be passed on in the future 

Yes, it's recessive.
Rh positive parents can have a Rh negative child if they both carry it but it's not common.
The only way to change ones blood type is with both blood and bone marrow transfusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a reader of Sitchin and other translators of ancient texts, I think humans may indeed have originated in Africa.  The Anunnaki/Archons supposedly gene-spliced their own dna with hominids to create a slave species. Different races were created there, then brought back to the place we call the Garden of Eden.

On the other hand, I've read that humans were a genuine race that came to earth and then fell prey to the Archons who keep us from realizing our natural powers.

We seem to be a pitiful species, easily manipulated by just about anyone who knows how to pull our strings.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 21, 2015 at 10:03:05, outpostofhell said:

Why is everything just a 'theory' in a world ruled by science?

simply put- science is really called scientific theory, there are differences between proofs and facts.

 

20 hours ago, grav said:

As a reader of Sitchin and other translators of ancient texts,

the only thing stichin 'translates' is whatever he makes up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2015, 1:03:05, outpostofhell said:

Human Races

Is evolution a conspiracy?

Do you believe in it? if not why not?

Why is everything just a 'theory' in a world ruled by science?

Don't know, don't care about the whole "Out Of Africa" concept. It really doesn't matter.

Evolution in general is a decent theory, imo. It does seem to match up with observations and the fossil record. We have seen the concept in action with the evolution of our technology, and devolution of our societies. Given the observable mutations that exist this very day, I don't see why it wouldn't have played a part in species creation/transformation.

With as much as humans are contaminating this planet with toxins, I suspect the tipping point for hyperactive-evolution is rapidly approaching. (major natural disasters like volcanic super eruptions, glancing cosmic ray strikes, or large asteroid/comet impacts were likely the cause for noticeable evolution in the past)

I sure hope I am not alive to see it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, reg said:

simply put- science is really called scientific theory, there are differences between proofs and facts.

 

the only thing stichin 'translates' is whatever he makes up

Hey, something we can agree on. Dr. Michael Heiser has a whole website called sitchiniswrong. Heiser is an expert in ancient Hebrew and Semitic Languages; Sitchen isn't.

As for theories, facts, and laws, they all describe different aspects of the scientific method. But evo fails at the requirement of observation. While all theories of origins see the same data, they differ in theories to explain them. And just because there is one (somewhat) possible theory does not mean there isn't another (better) theory. For example, the fossil record can be straightforwardly explained by vast amounts of moving water, since the simplest forms would be the first buried, while higher forms would head for high ground and die last. Almost all fossils are found in sedimentary rock, which is laid down by water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitchin broke no new ground. Other translators and exegetes said much the same thing, quibbling about minor details and meanings of words that may never be properly understood. 

R.A. Boulay and Madame Helena Blavatsky, for example, wrote about Sumerian and ancient Hindu serpent- gods who also appeared in the Old Testament. Sitchin carefully avoided describing the Anunnaki as reptiles. He followed religious hierarchies that have culled and propagandized to suit various agendas.

The snake figure plays a major part in human history, from the Garden of Eden to friendly Chinese dragons to Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent the Aztecs worshiped as the creator of mankind.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/serpents_dragons/boulay07e.htm

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Challenger said:

For example, the fossil record can be straightforwardly explained by vast amounts of moving water, since the simplest forms would be the first buried, while higher forms would head for high ground and die last. Almost all fossils are found in sedimentary rock, which is laid down by water.

not really if you know about sediments. some can and it can be traced. I think you put too much 'human' into the general animal population. if a flooding rain were to hit africa, what we would see is what we have seen in the past- some animals will move and reach safety, while the majority are stuck for whatever reason where they live. elephants are considered to be 'bright' and make long term decisions. yet what we see is that their weight prevents those plans from coming to fruition, they get 'stuck' due to weights and communities, and then they die. the only things that head for higher ground are the things that go there anyway. 

15 hours ago, grav said:

Sitchin broke no new ground.

I beg to differ. stichin took a dying industry and came up with 'new' translations that put their gods on a 12th planet. I am one that lumps him with 'literal mythology'; you end up there when you ignore all other cultures that came before and after, and when you want to make money now, instead of when you actually find something.

16 hours ago, grav said:

R.A. Boulay and Madame Helena Blavatsky

if you can believe them, well, then I guess you can believe them.

 

I have a serious question for you grav, not trying to challenge or fight. I have been trying to learn about fe theory. if you can point me to something that *is not a youtube video or an audio file* that explains where these planets are if we live in a dome and the sun is inside the dome with the fake planets painted or hung from the dome? if the earth is not spinning, or rotating around a sun with other planets, but is moving 'up' through space (which doesn't exist), where do these alien planets come from? remember he put forth the theories that they arrived in spaceships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead