Lausten,
Looking for that quick three minute internet search answer are we? Buying in to the latest dig has found all the answers, type of thinking are we? This is where you really need to sit back with a big cup of coffee and look at all the pieces of the puzzle on the table.
The picture we are looking for is the Cradle of Civilization. Or put another way in the more modern times like the Jewish bible, the Garden of Eden. So, what is the Garden of Eden? Simply put an area where domestication took place. Could there be more than one Garden of Eden? Yes, as domestication expands new areas should appear. Understanding what causes domestication to occur can help explain the new domestication areas. Population growth seems to be the cause of domestication.
Genesis tells us that there were seven times the population had great growth and then was reduced by plagues or natural disasters. Therefore we can have at least seven domestication periods in our timeline.
90% of all the protein consumed today comes for plants and animals that were first domesticated in the Gardens.
The chicken for example was a small tree bird from Vietnam, taken to India and domesticated. It would be a guess, but a safe guess to say that the domestications took place over a long periods of time at several periods of domestication.
The domestication may have started with the grasses, then moved to the trees. Almost all the digging in India have found storage building for grains. This would explain how some items that require tens of thousands of years of selective farming can be found with item that can be domesticated in less than a thousand years.
What we are finding is there seems to have been one really large period of domestication that took in the farm animals. And it was the last period of domestication and happened right before the start of the Age of Deities. And it is in the middle of this domestication period that the white man appeared. About eight thousand years ago.
Let’s take a minute and look at the timeline. The latest entry on the timeline is Homo Naledi. Yet to be dated. Expected to be from 280,000 years to 3,000,000 years old. The favored date right now is 2.5 million to 2.8 million years old. The reason Homo Naledi is on the timeline is that they buried their dead and used stone tools. A definite indication of knowledge. And that pre-dates the Neolithic Red Ochre burials which have been found at 80,000 BC.
Point being that knowledge was well established in language, laws, money and farming long before the white skin people arrived. While Mesopotamia was an area of domestication, it was most likely a spill over area or history has said, a migrated area from the main garden. It does not have the beginning of any of the domestication methods, only improvements of the items.
There is certainly no "creator" god but if you call your god something else, at least you have left yourself a little wiggle room.Yea, you got to laugh when you think that people bought into the “creator" concept. And it is kind of scary to think that people today can still believe in that type of none logic thinking.
Lausten, Looking for that quick three minute internet search answer are we? Buying in to the latest dig has found all the answers, type of thinking are we? This is where you really need to sit back with a big cup of coffee and look at all the pieces of the puzzle on the table.No. I'm willing to live with not knowing. I understand that we don't know everything. I don't make stuff up when I can't get a satisfying answer to a question. Also, I don't use the Bible as a source of information. It's one of the few references that you ever cite. It's not an historical reference. You say, " it is kind of scary to think that people today can still believe in that type of none logic thinking", but, what are you doing? Just to be clear, I'm saying I don't know and neither to you. I'm willing to go out on a limb and speculate that white skin is the result of evolution, but I have other things to do than trace down exactly when or why it happened. It certainly has nothing to do with the existence of God or any definition of god.
OK, we do different. I am not willing to live with not knowing. I want to find out. This is really simple stuff we are talking about. Did the white race come from domestication? It is really looking like it did. Science should have that answer in just a few years from now. Right now the UV theory is trash, as it always has been to me. A theory that people, including the scientists, bought into that only works in Northern Europe. And not at all in the Southern Hemisphere of earth. Boy are the next generations going to laugh and think what idiots we must have been.
What does that mean if the white race was domesticated?
That means the bible was mistranslated. And the older Genesis stories are correct. And God was a term that means “knowledge". And man did create god “knowledge" as the story states. And god (knowledge) did create (domesticate, white race) man.
What would I hope to see this information accomplish?
I hope that mankind will end and get out of the Age of Deities.
It is really looking like it did. Science should have that answer in just a few years from now.A red flag for quackery. You can't predict what answer science will have in the future. And you don't get to claim your answer, unsupported by anyone else, is scientifically accurate by claiming that it WILL be proven in the future. You don't understand how science works. And another thing. I never said I didn't want to find out. I said I'm not going to make up answers to questions that are currently unanswered.
I understand that you are greatly handicapped by not understanding the older religions in this post. And due to the length of the post and keeping the main focus from drifting, I did not put a lot of the details into the posting. And if I had, most readers would have no knowledge of the past religions anyway and the posts would have been too long.
Now when it comes to the bible under the Christian thinking. You are ten miles ahead of anyone on this site.
When it comes to timelines and trying to look at the subject in a logical method, I am doing just that.
It is really looking like it did. Science should have that answer in just a few years from now.A red flag for quackery. You can't predict what answer science will have in the future. And you don't get to claim your answer, unsupported by anyone else, is scientifically accurate by claiming that it WILL be proven in the future. You don't understand how science works. And another thing. I never said I didn't want to find out. I said I'm not going to make up answers to questions that are currently unanswered. This is exactly how science works. That is when science is done correctly, it should look at all evidence. Just read and understand post #14 when it comes to history of the past science on this subject. Synopsis and theories are exactly predictions for science. Ever hear of Albert Einstein, he was known for doing a lot of predictions in science. What do you thin Hawkins is doing today? The only science that has been challenged in this post so far has be the UV evolution. And this synopsis prevailed in that challenge. What I am see here on this site is that we have a bunch of Webster Atheists looking at a posting that they know nothing about, on a subject that they think they know a lot about and have very strong ideas and feelings about. All you’re doing Lausten is not being able to find fault in the post, so you are attacking the messenger. Even though the subject is about the oldest history of mankind. The data is cutting edge. Most having been rediscovered after 1950 and just being understood today. Here is what I hear you guys (Atheists) saying. God is a fairy tale, 9 out of 10 people in the world now and though out history are nothing but dumb ass idiots that are born with defective brains that are unable to view things logically unlike us few atheists who were born with proper working brains. What I am saying is that God, being knowledge and the human characteristics of mankind’s craving for knowledge along with the desire to live forever has kept religion flourishing. And as far as not being supported by anyone else. How about thousands of years of history and religion? How about Jesus, Mary and Thomas? Christianity has John and Paul and the Roman thinking. But they had to burn and destroy the Gnostic thinking to make their Christianity work. Now that Gnostic thinking has been unburied the works of Jesus are coming back to fight and Jesus has god on his side. I like Jesus, for one he was an atheist in that he did not believe in deities the way that Christians do today.
This is exactly how science works. That is when science is done correctly, it should look at all evidence. Just read and understand post #14 when it comes to history of the past science on this subject. Synopsis and theories are exactly predictions for science. Ever hear of Albert Einstein, he was known for doing a lot of predictions in science. What do you thin Hawkins is doing today?Science does not work by people simply claiming they are right. You don't get to claim you are right, but you just don't have enough space to explain it. You are free to write a book, a blog post, do a YouTube, do a TEDx in your hometown, anything you want. Or you could go to grad school in history or theology or whatever you want and present your findings to peers there and get others to support your ideas, and, who knows. Now, I understand that would be a lot of time. Most of us can't do something like that. But most of us aren't calling other people names and telling them they are ignorant. That's just you. That's not science. That's the opposite of science. I assume you meant Stephen Hawking, not Richard Dawkins. Hawking is creating theories. He has some incredibly difficult physics to back up his theory. He may have some idea of the expense and time involved in doing an experiment that could potentially prove him right, but I'm pretty sure he's never said that "science will prove me right". Hawking did however say, "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
Where do you get this “claiming your right" stuff? You been dealing with the Christian thinking too much. Thirty thousand different translations of the bible and they all think they are right. Please keep it simple. What I did here was take the oldest information that was available that has been made public. Meaning I think there is a lot of information being held by religious organizations that will never be made public! As the science and research of the religious past is moving from control of religious societies and organizations to the public institutions we are seeing the data changing. Example, just recently the Virgin Mary was admitted that the data never said the “virgin".
Am I right, I don’t know? But what we have is Ray asking a question and a bunch of atheist who have stated they don’t believe in the existence of “God" or “Gods". And I thought it would be a good idea to give Ray my option of years of my non-professional research on the subject as we should pass what we have learned on to the next generations.
I don’t think I resorted to calling people names. I admit that I am no wordsmith and my terms are unpolished. But I am being honest. If I see a horse, I call it a horse.
I like your idea of peers looking at the data. Was even thinking of that myself. Then last month we had the UV finding. And I think that has opened the door for the scholars to move in this direction. Also the older Vega and Rig Vega has become real popular in England. Even being taught in some schools. And we are entering another period of domestication with the stem cells which will take what use to centuries down to a few years.
And about Stephen Hawking. The old Genesis states that earth is made from stardust and the universe if filled with matter. As to how the universe came to be, mankind may never know. What Hawking is doing is trying to answer a question that our ancestors didn’t think could be answered.
“claiming your right"
Science should have that answer in just a few years from now. The answer is simple enough, but the task is next to impossible.And you never said you could be wrong until it brought up. The language you use below indicates you are pretty sure of yourself. This list is not exhaustive. “calling people names". Maybe “accusation" would have been a better term
Here is what I hear you guys (Atheists) saying. God is a fairy tale, 9 out of 10 people in the world now and though out history are nothing but dumb ass idiots that are born with defective brains that are unable to view things logically unlike us few atheists who were born with proper working brains. Looking for that quick three minute internet search answer are we? Buying in to the latest dig has found all the answers, type of thinking are we? Just basic simple understanding can greatly help. It will only make sense to you when you are able to find the answers. But most would agree with Lois that Atheists can’t even define what GOD is. Evolutionists and Atheists aren’t that much different from creationists, when it comes right down to it, they don’t really care or want to know the truth. It is not moving because of what the Atheists are doing. They come here for answers and are getting the wrong information for their questions.
Mike Yohe: “Where did the white man come from"?
Before anyone gets carried away, define “white man,” define “white skin”, define “white race.”
Be specific. What constitutes “white” when we speak of humans?
This question is for everyone on CFI forums.
Lois
“claiming your right"I don’t work for the government! I come from the business world. Get the job done and move on. Don’t pussy foot around patting yourself on the back. Sorry if the real world offends you, but you can’t possibly think that what’s been happening in the atheist world is productive. You better damn well know your subject if you are going to criticize the subject. I’m shocked that an atheist can’t give the history on or define god other than a fairy tale. So if I am a little ruff in those areas, get over it. And please try and stick to the subject matter. Your making me the subject matter. I'm not saying that an atheist has to be highly versed on the subject. But should understand the basic history if asked and responds with anything more than, I don't know.Science should have that answer in just a few years from now. The answer is simple enough, but the task is next to impossible.And you never said you could be wrong until it brought up. The language you use below indicates you are pretty sure of yourself. This list is not exhaustive. “calling people names". Maybe “accusation" would have been a better termHere is what I hear you guys (Atheists) saying. God is a fairy tale, 9 out of 10 people in the world now and though out history are nothing but dumb ass idiots that are born with defective brains that are unable to view things logically unlike us few atheists who were born with proper working brains. Looking for that quick three minute internet search answer are we? Buying in to the latest dig has found all the answers, type of thinking are we? Just basic simple understanding can greatly help. It will only make sense to you when you are able to find the answers. But most would agree with Lois that Atheists can’t even define what GOD is. Evolutionists and Atheists aren’t that much different from creationists, when it comes right down to it, they don’t really care or want to know the truth. It is not moving because of what the Atheists are doing. They come here for answers and are getting the wrong information for their questions.
Mike; You’re quite entertaining in small doses. I have no idea what you mean with your government/business reference. It doesn’t excuse anything you’re doing. I didn’t pat myself on the back either, that’s what I mean by insulting, rather ironic that you later say I’m making this about you. The real world is exactly where I’m coming from, the world of knowledge and authority. You once again put on your air of superiority with phrases like “you better damn well know your subject". And you aren’t “shocked", that is your straw man argument, that atheists can’t contribute to this discussion. Many non-believers have studied the religious texts and have commentary on how God and gods developed. It is a major aspect of anthropology.
When you say “stick to the subject matter", what you mean is, engage you in your argument, using your data, as if that data is legitimate. But you never get off the ground. You make stuff up about Gnostics that isn’t accurate, you make loose references to Egypt that have been gone over in much more detail by others, with much better results. Even when asked, you don’t give dates, you don’t provide names, other than Moses or simple Bible stories that children know. There’s nothing there to engage with, other than what I’ve done, which is to say your references don’t support your arguments, such as they are.
And Lois makes a good point. Define “white people”.
I’m shocked that an atheist can’t give the history on or define god other than a fairy tale.How are we to define something that does not exist?
Mike Yohe: “Where did the white man come from"? Before anyone gets carried away, define "white man," define "white skin", define "white race." Be specific. What constitutes "white" when we speak of humans? This question is for everyone on CFI forums. LoisWhat a great question Lois. Some topics talk about racial typology. While other topics talk about skin color. Caucasian race is thought by some to mean white skin. But that is not the case. What I have been talking about is domestication. Or the white skin. Example, the olive, you have black, green and brown. Yet they are all olives that were domesticated to have different color, taste and size. I have not been talking about the Caucasian race. I may have caused some confusion by saying white race. That is something I have picked up from different articles and is use by some. http://www.ethnicityandrace.com/project-overview.html Now that said, it is not the white skin that is of the greatest interest to me. It is easy to relate to. But if the people of northern Europe were small and had weak backs, then they would not fit the profile of the old Genesis story. Think of the horse. You have the great big plow horse and the little Shetland ponies. Neither horse could live in the wild for long. Both were domesticated for a reason. Going back to Darwin’s “Variation Under Domestication" 1859. Darwin stated that he was reasonably confident that modern varieties are descended form a single wild species. The people of ancient India were the greatest masters of domestication. Domestication never seemed to be as big in the United States as in Europe. But it never really recovered from WWII. The Germans Nazis were really big into domestication and the race. And I think it was pretty much taboo after the war. The potato and the dogs are good case study for domestication. With the potato, did domestication happen in South America or India? The experts were saying India. And the reason was that just about everything that has been domesticated came from India. So it was hard for the experts to think that anything was domesticated outside of India. The answer came just a few years ago with DNA. It was South America. With the dogs we have a newer generation of experts. They were claiming that as much as 60% of the breeds of dogs were domesticated in Europe. DNA proved that they were wrong. Almost all the breeds of dogs came from India. Does history tell us that the ancient people had the ability to domesticate man? The answer is yes. Does history tell us they had a need to domesticate man? The answer is yes. Does history tell us they claimed to have domesticated man? The answer again is yes.
Mike; You're quite entertaining in small doses. I have no idea what you mean with your government/business reference. It doesn't excuse anything you're doing. I didn't pat myself on the back either, that's what I mean by insulting, rather ironic that you later say I'm making this about you. The real world is exactly where I'm coming from, the world of knowledge and authority. You once again put on your air of superiority with phrases like “you better damn well know your subject". And you aren't “shocked", that is your straw man argument, that atheists can't contribute to this discussion. Many non-believers have studied the religious texts and have commentary on how God and gods developed. It is a major aspect of anthropology. When you say “stick to the subject matter", what you mean is, engage you in your argument, using your data, as if that data is legitimate. But you never get off the ground. You make stuff up about Gnostics that isn't accurate, you make loose references to Egypt that have been gone over in much more detail by others, with much better results. Even when asked, you don't give dates, you don't provide names, other than Moses or simple Bible stories that children know. There's nothing there to engage with, other than what I've done, which is to say your references don't support your arguments, such as they are. And Lois makes a good point. Define "white people".This is what I am talking about. Stick to the subject. White people was the subject of the UV postings. Was it not? The arguments has always been that white skin people were the result of natural selection due to the UV radiation. That was dis-proved. So far the best answer is that they migrated to Europe from the hills close to India. So how long have the white skinned people been on the earth? And the most accepted answer is 8,000 years. And that puts them right next to the biggest domestication of animals this earth has ever known and in the middle of the time all this farm animal domestication was going on.
I’m shocked that an atheist can’t give the history on or define god other than a fairy tale.How are we to define something that does not exist? Darron, I must have ask myself that same question a million times. And it is hard because we communicate and learn by relating to things we know and we keep expanding our ability to relate. And we lack the relating items needed to describe god. So, looking back at history, it seemed that people in the past did not have the same problem we are having. It seemed that it was something that was so well understood by everyone that it never had to be explained. In Egypt for example. You want knowledge. You pray to god. You pray during the daytime so your message can travel to the god RA, (the sun). The god RA answers your prayer during the daytime by sunlight. The sunlight goes into your eyes with the knowledge from god and ends up in your heart. Therefore the knowledge was physical and did exist. Now, fast forward to 300 A.D. in Rome. The church painting were still using the Gnostic clouds of knowledge sending out knowledge in the form of light. Except the knowledge went to the brain and not the heart. Some of the thinking was changing. There were ideas that the eyes omitted the light and that’s how people could see. But either way it was still a physical action that did exist to the people back then.
This might be a good time to bring up a concept.
When we look back at how people understood how vision worked and light traveled. And the concept that knowledge was physical. Was it possible to not believe in god? In other words, there was god as how knowledge worked. That explained how people could think and be educated. It explained the Genesis, the afterlife and soul. Then there were deity gods.
I ran into this concept on from the Egyptian experts. They more or less claimed that Egypt had only one god, and the religion was monolithic in nature. But yet we know there were other gods and the pharaohs were also gods.
At the time of Jesus the temple was of little power. And that is understandable because the religions were evolving where people were questioning the house of god. Where god would actually come to earth and sit in the back room of the temple (the house of god) and talk to the high priest.
The Egyptian god was different, the pharaoh would travel to the sun every night. In other words go to god. I still don’t have a full understanding of how the people understood RA. Because the pharaohs never died. Their bodies died. They were resurrected and then resided in the sun.
The point being, to understand how light worked. How people were able to think. And how the earth worked. You had to believe in god. I now have a hard time trying to figure out who would not believe in god back then.
We know in the earlier times that the first deity gods were all married and all had children. But they never had the power of the “WORD". The power of the “WORD" was nothing more than to claim the power of knowledge (god) and move it to your deity god.
So when I say that Jesus was an atheist who believed in god. That was not an unusual happening. At the period of time, everyone believed in god. But not everyone believed in the deities. India had a strong influence and also had religions that had no deities. Until we can understand how they viewed knowledge as god we will not have the ability to understand and define god as known to our ancestors.
Point being, the Egyptian experts that were trying to explain how the people believed back in time, were not able to convince me at the time because the concept was way beyond my understanding at the time. Now it seems to me that it could not have worked any other way.
This is what I am talking about. Stick to the subject. White people was the subject of the UV postings. Was it not?Only because you asked, and my answer was "evolution". My answer included the possible theory of UV, but I clarified that part was not the important part of my answer. So, quit making this about me. When you were asked about the "white race", you didn't answer the question. You jump from 8,000 y.a. to the Nazis and end with a bizarre "I think that was taboo after the war". Genocide and eugenics have always been taboo. You said what "race" is not, but didn't say what it is you are talking about. I'm not even clear about who you think domesticated whom. Your question about race was a challenge from the beginning and you've done nothing but berate me for not getting it. That's not discussion, that's you repeating that you are smarter than others but not providing anything that indicates your intelligence.
This is what I am talking about. Stick to the subject. White people was the subject of the UV postings. Was it not?Only because you asked, and my answer was "evolution". My answer included the possible theory of UV, but I clarified that part was not the important part of my answer. So, quit making this about me. When you were asked about the "white race", you didn't answer the question. You jump from 8,000 y.a. to the Nazis and end with a bizarre "I think that was taboo after the war". Genocide and eugenics have always been taboo. You said what "race" is not, but didn't say what it is you are talking about. I'm not even clear about who you think domesticated whom. Your question about race was a challenge from the beginning and you've done nothing but berate me for not getting it. That's not discussion, that's you repeating that you are smarter than others but not providing anything that indicates your intelligence. Lausten, To define “god" would have been much easier if we didn’t have to work with the disarray of past translations. Added with the long time period and the evolving societies and changing of meanings of words and top it off with the changing technical thinking of mankind. But is any of this really difficult? No. But neither is rocket science if presented correctly. Let’s take this task on with a smile and try and have fun doing it. Life is to short, so enjoy if you can. I need you to do me a favor. We have run into these same bumps in the past. And Tim has stepped in and rephrased the idea in a more logical method while keeping the original thought. Can you try and take the data as Tim does and see if you can re-word it the way Tim did. You never seem to any trouble after the rewording. Thanks. As you can see I have been trying to stay on subject and been spoon feeding the thoughts a little at a time as to not confuse the issues.
I’m shocked that an atheist can’t give the history on or define god other than a fairy tale.How are we to define something that does not exist? Darron, I must have ask myself that same question a million times. And it is hard because we communicate and learn by relating to things we know and we keep expanding our ability to relate. And we lack the relating items needed to describe god. So, looking back at history, it seemed that people in the past did not have the same problem we are having. It seemed that it was something that was so well understood by everyone that it never had to be explained. In Egypt for example. You want knowledge. You pray to god. You pray during the daytime so your message can travel to the god RA, (the sun). The god RA answers your prayer during the daytime by sunlight. The sunlight goes into your eyes with the knowledge from god and ends up in your heart. Therefore the knowledge was physical and did exist. Now, fast forward to 300 A.D. in Rome. The church painting were still using the Gnostic clouds of knowledge sending out knowledge in the form of light. Except the knowledge went to the brain and not the heart. Some of the thinking was changing. There were ideas that the eyes omitted the light and that’s how people could see. But either way it was still a physical action that did exist to the people back then. Thanks for clearing that up. Not. My point with the question is that you rail on about atheists not being able to define god, but neither can you. In fact, the vast majority of your posts in this and other threads contain nothing more than empty words. Trying to discuss something with you is pointless because you cannot say anything meaningful.