Professor Richard Smalley, a Nobel prize winner said, ". . .with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear, evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death."
Strong words indeed, for a Nobel scientist. Readers can find out more about Professor Richard Smalley, and other nobel prize winning scientists who support intelligent design for man, including an Atheist here.
Source
An alarming academic trend has emerged in recent years: a growing intolerance of dissent from Darwinism. This trend is so pronounced that some college professors have advised their students not to voice their doubts about Darwinism in public, if they want a successful career. Yet 700 scientists in 2001 signed a statement that read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
SourceStrong words indeed, for a Nobel scientist. Readers can find out more about Professor Richard Smalley, and other nobel prize winning scientists who support intelligent design for man, including an Atheist here.
Source
An alarming academic trend has emerged in recent years: a growing intolerance of dissent from Darwinism. This trend is so pronounced that some college professors have advised their students not to voice their doubts about Darwinism in public, if they want a successful career. Yet 700 scientists in 2001 signed a statement that read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
That said, I must warn you. . . you may not like the content of this post. It is controversial, will throw out many of your presuppositions and assumptions you were taught about origins. This info can be, only taken two ways, either you will accept it and move on or you will deny it, but it is nonetheless fact. The truth may both shock and hurt those invested in a lie. . .but it shouldn't. So please take a seat, if you aren't already, as this will be the ride of your life!!
To avoid confusion, if you haven't read the rest in this series you should, and you will probably want to go over every link reading this over a few times to get it all, as it's deep and life changing stuff, but to sum it all up:
First in my post On the question of slavery or rights? Part 1 I discuss some deep questions of morality to do with slavery and who the constitution says has rights. All "men" were said to be equal, but the very people that penned that had slaves? Why? Because they did not call blacks human! Pretty hypocritical it seemed to me, but where did that thought come from?
In my next post called: The story of creation. . .as seen by an Atheist/evolutionist. Part 2 I explain that the variations in all the sources of mythology (speaking about creation and the flood) are just evolutions in myth from the original lost Sumerian text. As it is now found, and in good shape, we have reason to believe that the story closest to the time of the actual event would be most likely accurate. I show evidence of the Biblical Hebrew actually coming directly from the Sumerians, and that the foundational stories of the Old testament were inaccurate copies of the originals. Theorizing about the creation story in it's original form actually being not just a made up story (that happened to be passed down in some form to the entire world), I took the readers through my journey with giving credit to the ancients and their writings, to see if any actual truth could be there.
Telling the story, and showing the motivation for creation of what seemed to be a slave race, it seemed questionable to me that the slave was "man". The long evolved homo Erectus may not have been the main player in the creation myths at all. . .maybe it was an ape. If so, how did that fit in. Maybe we need to find God, if he really existed, to find out who man was.
My next post called: Real evidence of God, part 3 deals with the real definition of "God" in history through the original Sumerian creation myth (that the Bible's writers just copied), as well as the Bible. Taking from all we can see in antiquity about them. Culminating in where we can find the flesh and blood "God" in archaeology, the Denisovan. I figured that, just as the magical Santa of today has evolved, and is unrecognizable from either the St. Nicholas (or earlier Odin) he is tied to, so "God" must have evolved from
a real person. (This I also blogged on in: "All myths change and evolve, it's just human nature. . . "God" is no exception. Part 8")
And if the Sumerian text was right, and he mad man with his sperm, in the womb of a goddess, then he wasn't a mythical being at all, nor hardly an alien, as we would see one anyways. (More like a "Dr. Who" sort of alien, just a tad different then us.)
I also showed how the dates for the Denisovan and everything worldwide has been confused because of how carbon dating works. There is overwhelming evidence of a major unnatural disaster. That being a nuclear war of the technologically advanced gods. This radiation it is believed would have greatly exaggerated the radiocarbon dating of everything before and around the Cretaceous period. (As well as caused a need for life to retreat underground, or to space. This would have caused the ice age, and with the snow and ice we have preserved evidence from that time. What killed all life, and brought a tidal wave called the flood, seems to have been only local, and in areas that are probably still desert from it today. . . If you want a lot more data that is pretty indisputable evidence that the supposed comets that destroyed life on earth were in fact nuclear weapons, check out this site.
Source
Most scientist and educated folks rightly exclude the typically perceived magical Santa type "God" concept from their worldview as mythical, and discredit all religion and mythology as fairy-tales, when in fact the origin of the gods of all the legends of mythology hold the key to very own our past! (And likely even our future.)
In this post I will show evidence and give you links to studies from genetics, pathology, paleoanthropology, orthodontics, skeletal studies, pathology, ageing studies, computer simulations, history, geography, archaeology and geology in addition to the mythical creation stories to show that "man" was intelligently designed! Though not very. . .
If you are a young earth Creationist you will probably love most of this post. . .although I will tell you right now, that the conclusive evidence I will be showing you in here will have one of two inevitable conclusions, and those are: that the Bible's creation story is at least perceived wrongly by pretty much everyone, or our modern Christian belief in Adam being the originator of all we call "man" is wrong. (Or you can bury your head in the sand, and stop reading, or just deny the facts.)
Creation was something that I've always struggled with as an Atheist, coming from a background where I was well educated in "creation science." While I didn't believe in the mythical god concept, and mocked those who believed in their unique form of him (that I knew wasn't even historical), I couldn't really completely swallow Macro evolution for his development. The evidence for creation in man showed me that there for something fishy going on. So I picked it apart, and looked at both sides of the argument.
I found that much of the evidence creationists will show for the modern man having no transitional forms, evolutionists just danced around or outright hid the evidence of, because it didn't fit their presumptions, or the rest of evolution. The evidence for man's evolution is very shaky, even if the rest of micro evolution is solid.
So as Creationists insist on, it seemed pretty obvious to me that if there was any truth to the story of creation in the Bible, or the Sumerian original, the bloodline that started civilization, intelligence, complex language (and writing), burying their dead, agriculture, husbandry, clothes, fire, art, etc. would of course be the family of Adam, with the rest of the supposed transitional forms being just apes.
So in researching who seemed to both look, and act "human," in our apparent evolutionary past, I first found the big brained Neanderthal. (Although now I know it was really the Denisovan, as I discussed in my last post: Real evidence of God? part 3.) I was interested to hear that the creationists admit that Adam or his son Noah were Neanderthals. So in an effort to be fair and open minded I considered putting the Neanderthal as a Hebrew and God's creation, Adam. You tell me if this fits like a glove!
"Neandertal Man" was the name given to bones found in 1856 in Germany’s Neander Valley (“tal”, or “thal” in old German spelling). The name Neander was a pseudonym of the 17th-century minister Joachim Neumann, the Greek translation of his name (“new man”). He certainly was new to the known primates of the time. He is even now being given a new face as we reconstruct his genes.
Neanderthal Man is considered to be a link leading to modern from the supposed ape-like ancestor. Evolutionists of course would claim that we are connected to a long line of primates, but that is only partially true. . .
There is a small and ancient link in all of us to the primates, that is where evolution seems to have won the debate. . . but it can only be seen on the mother's side, the mitochondrial DNA. . . the fathers side is much harder to trace. According to Wikipedia, "In human genetics, the haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome (Y-DNA) haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups, both of which can be used to define genetic populations. According to research, Y-DNA is passed solely along the patrilineal line, from father to son, while mtDNA is passed down the matrilineal line, from mother to offspring of both sexes."
If "man" had all the transitional forms, looking and acting practically like their predecessor, as evolutionists claim (and as is true in the rest of evolution), then the Bible is all wrong. As science has already proven it to be mostly wrong about creation, that wouldn't be surprising exactly. Most scholars already know it is an exaggerated and evolved myth from the original Sumerian text. (Like I described in detail in my post the story of creation . . .as seen by an Atheist/evolutionist. Part 2) If the Sumerian text, the earliest creation story, is also wrong (though there is no evidence of it being wrong about any history or astronomy yet) then we can disregard everything about all the world's gods, and our history to do with them as myth. . .because that was the origin of them all. If not though, we need to reexamine how these stories can be best understood to fit with known science and data of that dreaded word "EVOLUTION".
A question one could ask a scientist is, "if one primate branch from the chimp got so evolved in mostly Europe (the Neanderthal) then why are millions of years later those same chimps still around in Africa?" I think it is a legitimate question, even though I have heard all the classic evolutionist excuses for mutations being the answer to everything. Yet the changes we see in the primate lineage are not significant without millions of years! It is what everyone would basically call microevolution. In fact, even the supposedly separate species we see before homo Erectus have been called into question as just being all homo Erectus after all. And in fact science says the same genes of the homo erectus still exist on earth, which is why they say, the homo erectus walks amongst us. Check them out!
Source Source
What makes us presume at the fast rate of mutations that we call Macro evolution? Is it science, or just presumptions?
"Scientists use DNA to estimate when things have happened in the past by assuming a certain rate of mutations over time. [1 new mutation a generation] The mutation rate scientists have used in the past was based on circumstantial evidence because there was just too much DNA to sequence. Until now."
"For the first time, groups in Indiana and New Hampshire have figured out a mutation rate based on sequencing huge amounts of DNA from lots of the roundworm, C. elegans. . .What the researchers found was that the mutation rate was 10 times higher than previously believed. . . if the new number is true, it calls into question all sorts of things."
"For example, partly based on DNA evidence, scientists believed that. . . Humans began their migration out of Africa 100,000 years ago. Or was it 10,000? Did "Adam" live 50,000 or [around] 5000 years ago?"
Source
So if the many mutations for Adam can be dated to the Biblical timeline, according to genes, he COULD fit into the time frame of the first civilization! But could he be the old Neanderthal? With the carbon dating revised, as mentioned above and in the last post (because of the nuclear war of the gods), it seems that would also fit in.
They have now done it! We now know that the Neanderthal was not only special in many ways to the earlier "man", but they were connected to the gods (otherwise known as the Denisovan) through the fathers side, and the homo Erectus on the mothers' side. . .just like the Sumerian text tells us. (Spoken of in my second post at the top of the page.)
" In 1908, Neanderthal as a primitive, brutish, caveman was literally invented by Marcellin Boule of France. That image of the Neanderthals was to persist for the next 50 years (Drell 2000; Schrenk and Muller 2008)."
"It has been generally conceded by evolutionists, however reluctantly, that they would have to accept that Neanderthals were as human as we are."
Now instead of the image above, scientist have put a new facial construction on the Neanderthal, to the right. People are now saying that if you just clean them up, Neanderthal look surprisingly, just like us. . .In fact, everything we use to think of as ape-like in their appearance has been explained away by forensic and genetic science, that I will get into in my next post. . .
As it is clear that the blood of the gods runs from the Denisovan through to the Neanderthal, it is only logical that the gods and their children would look alike, and be similar in most ways, but more tall and advanced. There are many myths depicting giant white advanced men, that are presumed by others as well to be the Denisovan/gods of the native people. A guy wrote a book about it that sounds interesting.
Source
If Neanderthal is Adam, the first to act like man, and was a child of the gods (as defined in my last post to be Denisovan), then he should carry some pretty unusual blood mutations not previously found on earth, and things unique to those who carry the genes of the Neanderthal. Not shockingly, there is evidence of this in their O- blood.
"Rh- (Rh-negative) is an allele which is found predominantly among white populations (40-45% in Europe), it must clearly be a mutation which followed after man's migrations from Africa to Europe. [Except the original Egyptian kings whose blood has been shown to have it.] Black Africans in Africa who have not mixed either with white populations or with mixed-race persons have ONLY this Rh allele and no evidence of Rh-. Rh-negative is rare among persons with B and AB blood types, but less so in A blood, and most common in O." (In fact the O bloodtype is also said to have been the original human blood, as it is considered pure, and is consequently a universal donor.)
RH- is only one mutation that those who have European in them at all, presumably got from the gods/Denisovan through the Neanderthal. In fact, "Europeans owe half of their variants [mutations] to interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans."
Source
Maybe this is redundant, but if Adam and the Neanderthal were the creation of the gods, according to the original creation story, can they also be traced to the chosen people, the Jews? (This is a hotly debated point, and there is a lot of confusion and misinformation the further past Adam you go!)
Here's a test, if the Neanderthals were made unnaturally with two completely separate species in them, like the Sumerian text testifies to, they would have fertility issues, and in the story they did. . . because they were a hybrid. And so do the Neanderthals! Check it out.
How is this possible, if we see the European/Neanderthal genes in nearly every person around the world?! Hmm, we can only trace the males as interbreeding with "modern man", so that would mean the European Neanderthal men found "foreign wives"? How did they get so many you ask? Maybe they put an ad in the paper like this ;)
In all seriousness though, who else had fertility issues? Could we trace the blood of the gods to the Jews with this trait of being a sterile hybrid? Let's see, the Bible speaks of the patriarchs of Israel all having infertility without god's intervention, or without using a dark "handmaiden/concubine".
Those who are the true Jews (who I will define in detail later) are still less fertile, and this is why those in the industrialized nations of the world are hardly replacing themselves. I blogged on this in my post: "Infertility in America, what races have it and why?"
The original gods, and those of their bloodline seemed to have infertility or unnatural conceptions, the most noteworthy story of course being the story of God's pure, genetically modified, and artificially implanted son of God, Jesus's conception and birth.
While mythology evolves as time goes on, the ancient art tends to clarify that this is exactly what happened. Even 1,200 years after the story of the miraculous birth of Christ, they knew it was connected to a circle in the sky with people in it. (The supposed "star" that hovered over the place where Jesus lay, and was seen by people to the East.)
This illustration above is entitled "The Birth of Christ" from a 12th century Greek manuscript "The Book of the Evangelists". If you look to the right of the picture there are two figures looking up at a semi-circular object with figures inside. The object appears to be shining a beam of light down onto the birth. One of the pair of observers is shielding his eyes, possibly the artist was trying to convey the brightness of the object.
Jesus's death was heralded with just as much fan fare from the alien gods apparently, as the artists picture here illustrates.
This fresco entitled "The Crucifixion" was painted in 1350. Two objects with figures inside can be seen in the top left and top right of the fresco. Two enlargements of these objects are shown as well.
There are many more, from many artists, just to do with Mary and Jesus from around this time as well in this source. I think it is quite obvious (as I said in my post Could the Angel's fiery chariots really be space ships and/or flying saucers? Part 16), that unlike in the depictions we see, Angels only had wings to signify flight or levitation. At least at that point in history, Angels -also translated as gods, and sons of god- were mostly just average looking aliens, like us whites (their children). . . only they had space ships! (Or Abraham and Sarah wouldn't have been surprised by the unexpected visitors being Angels. And Hebrews 13:2 wouldn't have to say to us "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.") Furthermore, Jesus (who was said to be a "God", and equal to "God"), quoting Ps. 82:6 speaking to the Jews said "Ye are gods."
If you know anything about the Sumerian king list though (to the right), you will note that the dating seems all wrong! As the kings list was translated by different people, and in different parts, using a different numerical system (hardly understood at the time), I ask you, if it is now widely acknowledged that the original foundational stories in the Bible and Koran are simply copy cat versions of the original Sumerian creation stories (and they are), wouldn't it be wise to use it to help us translate the Sumerian king's list timeline? While this may not generally be a good idea, in this case, it may fit better with the rest of the evidence.
So, to recap: the Neanderthals, the original white man, had infertility, partly because of their hybrid status, and partly from the RH- blood, said to be a blood factor that came out of no where, and is "alien to the planet." As well they had the O bloodtype (which is considered a pure blood), impossible for it to come from the A or B blood of apes supposedly before it. Scientists believe the O- originated with modern man as well. All of which just happened to have come from the areas of the Denisovan and Neanderthal, which happen to correlate with the biblical and Sumerian creation stories in the area of Sumer, the cradle of civilization, a place at least a few whites can trace their ancestry to. So, the only conclusion I see, is that the Neanderthal is Adam of the Bible, and a king of the Sumerian king list. Thus all those in the world who "interbred" with the Neanderthal blood would have their ancestry go straight back to Sumer too. (President Bush's does.)
So the Neanderthal was a white skinned and red headed "Adam", but then, that shouldn't surprise anyone, as the name Adam does mean "red". The same nickname some have given to my husband, who ironically looks rather Neanderthal. . .
(Which I will go on to prove later with genes.)
One could ask, when did the dark genes or melanin come into what we now deem "modern man" if it wasn't Adam? Could there have been another species? Well, let's go back to the Bible.
We don't know who any of Adam's sons married. It could be presumed that if anything, Cain married someone from the "other nation" (of the homo erectus's) he was sent to. (That he feared being killed by.) People have said that the people all over the world that Cain was needing a mark to protect him from, were just his siblings. As it took his parents to age 130 just to have 3 boys, do you suppose at that rate there would be enough siblings to be of concern to Cain before he died on this huge planet?! No, he obviously was sent away to live with those who were not the created man. He may have started the Incas, who built like the gods, honored the founder as a god, but had only Sub Saharan African genes in the ancient DNA that they have tested.
Or perhaps he went to China to be the "Yellow emperor" who gave the ancient grains and basically civilization to the natives. . .although I believe he came with others of his race, and was joined later by even more of the European people, evidenced by the Tarim Mummies, like the one to the right. (I'll get into the origin of the people of the orient in a later post though.)
For now I want to trace, not the mixed stragglers, but the race chosen of "God" to stay pure.
Well according to the Bible, there was a "bottleneck" in the population of "man" at the flood, (Which would only have had to be local to have wiped out the few -probably intermixed race- on earth at the time.) so that makes history before then inconsequential. Reason being that Noah was hand picked with his family by God, and was said to be "pure in his generations." That purity only lasted up to Abraham though, who fathered Ishmael from a servant of Sarah to make what we know today as the Arabs. Genetics tell us that Palestinian Arabs were representative of ancestral Israelites to a degree and yet they show significant African gene flow. In fact, “the Caucasian component. . . may simply be a indigenous Middle Eastern ancestral element which has now been somewhat displaced northward . . ."
Then there came along God's real choice as the founder of his chosen people in his image, Isaac from Abraham. Who married a specially picked out bride: Rebekah from his fathers people. (Who had fertility issues.)
There was apparently a sort of flop in the splicing of genes somehow when the gods helped Rebekah with her infertility, because the gods made one of each species. The Bible both described different looks and personalities of the twins. The text claims that God said that the older would serve the younger, and that they would be two waring nations. No special bride was picked for the older twin named Esau, yet the younger named Jacob was told to go find a wife from his mothers brother Laban's kids. (Laban BTW means "white".) We know, based on the Bible, and other sources that Esau started the dark Edomites. (Whom God cursed to be destroyed! So the Bible's "God" wasn't fond of his people apparently.)
Then God started over in picking a "chosen people" with Jacob. Jacob married two fair cousins who were sisters. . .but in a silly competition of the sister/wives, Jacob was given the wive's servants, Bilhah and Zilpah, who were presumably half (or all) black, to impregnate. If it isn't clear to us yet, the writer of the Bible had no interest in the bloodlines from them, evidenced by the fact that the Bible doesn't trace their children's family tree.
O-DIN, the God of Norse mythology (who's myth inspired Santa Clause and Gandalf the Grey BTW) is a title indicative of Kingship or Shepherd lineage. (Also known as WO-DEN, WO-TAN and DAN).
From the kings list of Sumer, it connects with lists of royals in Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Ireland, Scotland, etc. until it gets to the royal families of the NORTHERN NATIONS OF EUROPE -- they are all of the TRIBE OF JUDAH (also confused with the tribe of Dan, as seen above though.) The many intermarriages of these royal lines would thus all be within the one great royal family of which so much is prophesied in Scripture. Queen Elizabeth II has stated that she is "WODEN-BORN". A picture of him to the right.
Source
So, many who boldly and proudly try to claim the title "Israelite" today (from Jacob, renamed Israel), come from the blood of those who are dark and associated with the middle east, instead of where the Neanderthal mostly roamed, leading many to say Israel is a nation of dark Jews. Why do they call themselves "Israelites" even, instead of children of Abraham? In Luke 3:8 Jesus bragged (or mocked?) that God could raise up children of Abraham out of the rocks.
Makes me wonder if Jesus was speaking to those who were very defensive and insecure of their half breed status and yet proud of their link to Abraham (the Arabs or Samaritan half Jews you see in Israel today),who are also known for their petty fighting. In a similar way today you also see a lot of out right blacks (like Obama) believing or even fighting to be the true Jews. (Everyone wants the advanced alien bloodline to be theirs! Sadly for them, genes don't lie.)
Furthermore, if you believe the blood of the gods is in the Neanderthal, and/or Adam is a Neanderthal (who is the father of the Europeans that run through most of the world to one degree or another), then you would have to say that only the Ashkenazi Jews, (who are genetically very distinct from the rest) are relatively pure children of God, along with many others who do not know to claim the title of Jew or Israelite even.
The Ashkenazi Jews are basically the purist Europeans of all the Jews, yet originating in the Middle East their genes would say. (And yes, they are white, and a bunch of very influential and intelligent people. In fact, studies say they are where we find the highest IQ! Think Einstein, Sigmund Freud, many Nobel prize winners, scientists, mathematicians, chess champions. . . and it is said by some that they are "those who run Hollywood" as well. "Researchers have determined that human genes do influence intelligence, saying the percentage of that influence may range anywhere from 40 to 60 percent." So again, you can apparently thank "God" for your intelligence if you are even part white!)
Source
Did Hitler know that the pure chosen people/Jews were white I wonder? He was very religious, and into theology and genealogies. Though it is claimed that he was a monster and that he tried to kill all Jews (some even say mostly the white Ashkenazi Jews), I have heard that he only tried to contain the troublesome dark Jews, like the ones in Israel. . .and freed the blond or red headed and pale ones even when all their family was dark. I read some pretty convincing and true reasons why Hitler may have been not only wrongly judged, but actually a good guy! Check it out here if you dare, it shocked me!
I have read that he was only trying to control a troublesome people in containment camps during wartime, for the protection of his white people. (They apparently took advantage of the war by looting, being destructive and raping . . .) I do not know the accuracy of this, but I have been to the Holocaust museum in Washington, and from the pictures I saw, those in the camps were not any of the pure whites, but the dark haired, long nosed "Samaritans", who have notoriously been trouble to any country they are in.
Was Jesus in Luke 3:8 saying that if they wanted to be part of the blood of Abraham, then they needed to act like it, I wonder? Most claiming the title of the chosen people, whether that be Jewish. Israelite or Christian today (evidenced by the incarceration/religious affiliation stats, and crime rates in highly religious areas) don't act anything like Jesus/Christ. The title "Christian" is a title meaning "little Christ" which was no doubt originally only intended for those of his bloodline, as he apparently only came to save "man" from the original "sin" . . . You should only be called a "Christian" if you act or look "Christ-like", or "godly", a feat apparently impossible without some alien blood running through your veins. . .
Whatever the case, it seems that there is so much confusion about the Jews these days that many whites have no idea they have Jewish roots, while dark groups often believe the bloodline of the slaves of the patriarchs are the original pure Jewish race. Some Black Supremacists, usually mixed breed leaders (like Obama) will make an argument that the Jews originally were black, in the hopes of squelching Zionists who say that only the white Jews are the bloodline of the chosen people. Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik has shown this to be false though. "The confusion comes about with the overlap between Ashkenazi Jewish populations and native populations that gave rise to the Samaritans."
Sadly, there is confusion over who were Semites too. "Today, the word 'Semite' may be used to refer to any member of any of a number of peoples of ancient Southwestern Asia descent including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews (Jews), Arabs, and their descendants." While the term "Semite" may have originated from the purist branch of the white man, Shem, (that the Bible traces) it was likely also the only branch at that time! So it is similar to saying, "I am a Adamite!"
So, as the Semites are obviously a mixed people group, we know that they at some point started claiming a lineage that was only half theirs. . .as people who are immensely insecure in their heritage would be prone to do. There were certainly clear lines in the original civilization between the "wildman" slaves and the kingly race of man though.
If the Neanderthal was made in the image of "God" as defined correctly, as an alien to the planet, and the Neanderthal got their blood and looks, then we have to conclude that anything before the Neanderthal or Adam, was the earthly or "wild" version of "man". So not surprisingly, this was mentioned in The Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest known written literature and an epic poem from Sumer. So in the story of the Sumerian king, Gilgamesh. The epic speaks in detail about the king and his friend/servant, Enkidu, a wild man domesticated both by a woman and by the gods. He was, according to the text, not of the alien or kingly blood of the gods, like the king, but instead of the oldest and primitive primate. (Yet he became adopted like a pet by them.)
"The technologically advanced Sumerians, Akkadians and [white] Assyrians of Mesopotamia mention the West Semitic speaking peoples in disparaging terms;- The MAR.TU who know no grain... The MAR.TU who know no house nor town, the boors of the mountains... The MAR.TU who digs up truffles... who does not bend his knees (to cultivate the land), who eats raw meat, who has no house during his lifetime, who is not buried after death."
Source
Do these sound like they acted or were treated like humans? No, they sound like the were thought of as animals, and they sound like homo Erectus. . .yet they apparently had language from the Denisovan or Neanderthals. Language was said to be "a gift from the gods" of the ancient dark civilizations.
The wild men were called the "gentiles" and could be summed up with one word in the Bible: "ungodly". Not that the word "ungodly" means wicked, but just not in the image of God, or the tall, white alien. . .
The term "Christ-like" (meaning to be like God's genetically pure son), is now generally associated with goodness, intelligent living, Spirituality and having influence or a connection with the gods. . .
The alien gods used the kings/emperors/pharaohs of the world in the past, and even now the pure, RH-, O blooded, elite bloodlines hear his voice in their head and are his ambassadors or channelers (with "god" still speaking in dreams and visions to them, often in drug induced states). The emperors, Pharaohs and kings were always considered to be both spiritually and intelligently superior, and the earthly representation of the gods, which is one reason they were said to be given the divine right to rule. To this day, those who have RH- in their blood have a high rate of mystics, healers, and wise men. (And a host of other cool stuff mentioned in a past blog post below.)
Source
"This is a sketch of an untitled 15th century Italian fresco from Mount Athos, Greece . It depicts the Apostle John dictating the Biblical book of Revelation to a young disciple. In the upper lefthand corner is a segment of a glowing oval object from which a beam of light is aimed at the head of John."
The problem with aliens channeling with humans is that they need to communicate with the words and technology they know, and have seen. . .thus John's Revelation from God, as well as Enoch's account (in the book of Enoch) of his "translation" up to God, have always sounded crazy to us. Reading especially the latter now in this time of enlightenment though, it is clear what he was seeing was a UFO, which was not uncommon in those days. . .which you can see if you check out the link to the ancient (from the wild man) and medieval art I mentioned earlier. (Here it is again.)
Back to the pure Jews though, all this evidence from connections from the RH- and O blood of the Neanderthal, their looks and hybrid infertility issues connecting to Adam and his kin the white Ashkenazi Jews in mythologies (drawing from the original creation story as well as the Bible) is nice, but if you need even more proof, what does the DNA say about if true Jews are those from the Neanderthal/European bloodline?
A 2013 study of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA found that "All four major founders. . . have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore, most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European ancestry. Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe." If more of there genome was tested, I can guarantee that they would find Neanderthal on the fathers side too.
Source
I'm guessing that these 4 founding woman were non other then Noah's wife, and 3 daughter in laws. We can trace Noah too! He is called Eurasian Adam or Y chromosome Noah. His sons would have had his Y chromosome, so he would be the first, even though they can also go back to Y chromosome Adam.
". . .It is also clear that there was no single 'Adam' and 'Eve' but rather groups of 'Adams and 'Eves' living side by side. . ."
So modern humans started only with these 4 woman, who apparently had mates, all related to one man. Sounds like Noah and his sons to me. The founders of the original Jews were apparently then all Eurasian, just like in the resent movie "Noah" that has caused such a stir of racism. On that note though, according to a recent racial study from Princeton University, "It has been confirmed that all people of Europe, the Middle East, and India belong to a single Caucasian type race, before they mixed with another race.
This means that they had to have come from the same source."
Source
Scientists, geneticists, theologians, paleoanthropologists and other armchair philosophers are free to prove me wrong, but I propose that the original source that modern man all over the world came from is the Denisovan (or god) genes, seen only on the father's side of the Neanderthal. Meaning the Y chromosome of all part whites should touch on everywhere we see civilization, and look like basically like this.
And funny thing, it is a real chart from a white guy's Y chromosome!
Source
So, Neanderthal is basically us white modern man, and the darks are mostly just a little less Neanderthal and consequently often seem less "modern". It seems that the more they unfold the human genome, the more connection they find to Neanderthals and European white man. They now say that "there is strong support for Neanderthal admixture in Eurasia at a higher rate (3.4-7.3 per cent) than suggested previously."
In my next post called: The story of creation. . .as seen by an Atheist/evolutionist. Part 2 I explain that the variations in all the sources of mythology (speaking about creation and the flood) are just evolutions in myth from the original lost Sumerian text. As it is now found, and in good shape, we have reason to believe that the story closest to the time of the actual event would be most likely accurate. I show evidence of the Biblical Hebrew actually coming directly from the Sumerians, and that the foundational stories of the Old testament were inaccurate copies of the originals. Theorizing about the creation story in it's original form actually being not just a made up story (that happened to be passed down in some form to the entire world), I took the readers through my journey with giving credit to the ancients and their writings, to see if any actual truth could be there.
Telling the story, and showing the motivation for creation of what seemed to be a slave race, it seemed questionable to me that the slave was "man". The long evolved homo Erectus may not have been the main player in the creation myths at all. . .maybe it was an ape. If so, how did that fit in. Maybe we need to find God, if he really existed, to find out who man was.
My next post called: Real evidence of God, part 3 deals with the real definition of "God" in history through the original Sumerian creation myth (that the Bible's writers just copied), as well as the Bible. Taking from all we can see in antiquity about them. Culminating in where we can find the flesh and blood "God" in archaeology, the Denisovan. I figured that, just as the magical Santa of today has evolved, and is unrecognizable from either the St. Nicholas (or earlier Odin) he is tied to, so "God" must have evolved from
a real person. (This I also blogged on in: "All myths change and evolve, it's just human nature. . . "God" is no exception. Part 8")
And if the Sumerian text was right, and he mad man with his sperm, in the womb of a goddess, then he wasn't a mythical being at all, nor hardly an alien, as we would see one anyways. (More like a "Dr. Who" sort of alien, just a tad different then us.)
I also showed how the dates for the Denisovan and everything worldwide has been confused because of how carbon dating works. There is overwhelming evidence of a major unnatural disaster. That being a nuclear war of the technologically advanced gods. This radiation it is believed would have greatly exaggerated the radiocarbon dating of everything before and around the Cretaceous period. (As well as caused a need for life to retreat underground, or to space. This would have caused the ice age, and with the snow and ice we have preserved evidence from that time. What killed all life, and brought a tidal wave called the flood, seems to have been only local, and in areas that are probably still desert from it today. . . If you want a lot more data that is pretty indisputable evidence that the supposed comets that destroyed life on earth were in fact nuclear weapons, check out this site.
Source
Most scientist and educated folks rightly exclude the typically perceived magical Santa type "God" concept from their worldview as mythical, and discredit all religion and mythology as fairy-tales, when in fact the origin of the gods of all the legends of mythology hold the key to very own our past! (And likely even our future.)
In this post I will show evidence and give you links to studies from genetics, pathology, paleoanthropology, orthodontics, skeletal studies, pathology, ageing studies, computer simulations, history, geography, archaeology and geology in addition to the mythical creation stories to show that "man" was intelligently designed! Though not very. . .
If you are a young earth Creationist you will probably love most of this post. . .although I will tell you right now, that the conclusive evidence I will be showing you in here will have one of two inevitable conclusions, and those are: that the Bible's creation story is at least perceived wrongly by pretty much everyone, or our modern Christian belief in Adam being the originator of all we call "man" is wrong. (Or you can bury your head in the sand, and stop reading, or just deny the facts.)
Creation was something that I've always struggled with as an Atheist, coming from a background where I was well educated in "creation science." While I didn't believe in the mythical god concept, and mocked those who believed in their unique form of him (that I knew wasn't even historical), I couldn't really completely swallow Macro evolution for his development. The evidence for creation in man showed me that there for something fishy going on. So I picked it apart, and looked at both sides of the argument.
I found that much of the evidence creationists will show for the modern man having no transitional forms, evolutionists just danced around or outright hid the evidence of, because it didn't fit their presumptions, or the rest of evolution. The evidence for man's evolution is very shaky, even if the rest of micro evolution is solid.
So as Creationists insist on, it seemed pretty obvious to me that if there was any truth to the story of creation in the Bible, or the Sumerian original, the bloodline that started civilization, intelligence, complex language (and writing), burying their dead, agriculture, husbandry, clothes, fire, art, etc. would of course be the family of Adam, with the rest of the supposed transitional forms being just apes.
So in researching who seemed to both look, and act "human," in our apparent evolutionary past, I first found the big brained Neanderthal. (Although now I know it was really the Denisovan, as I discussed in my last post: Real evidence of God? part 3.) I was interested to hear that the creationists admit that Adam or his son Noah were Neanderthals. So in an effort to be fair and open minded I considered putting the Neanderthal as a Hebrew and God's creation, Adam. You tell me if this fits like a glove!
"Neandertal Man" was the name given to bones found in 1856 in Germany’s Neander Valley (“tal”, or “thal” in old German spelling). The name Neander was a pseudonym of the 17th-century minister Joachim Neumann, the Greek translation of his name (“new man”). He certainly was new to the known primates of the time. He is even now being given a new face as we reconstruct his genes.
There is a small and ancient link in all of us to the primates, that is where evolution seems to have won the debate. . . but it can only be seen on the mother's side, the mitochondrial DNA. . . the fathers side is much harder to trace. According to Wikipedia, "In human genetics, the haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome (Y-DNA) haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups, both of which can be used to define genetic populations. According to research, Y-DNA is passed solely along the patrilineal line, from father to son, while mtDNA is passed down the matrilineal line, from mother to offspring of both sexes."
If "man" had all the transitional forms, looking and acting practically like their predecessor, as evolutionists claim (and as is true in the rest of evolution), then the Bible is all wrong. As science has already proven it to be mostly wrong about creation, that wouldn't be surprising exactly. Most scholars already know it is an exaggerated and evolved myth from the original Sumerian text. (Like I described in detail in my post the story of creation . . .as seen by an Atheist/evolutionist. Part 2) If the Sumerian text, the earliest creation story, is also wrong (though there is no evidence of it being wrong about any history or astronomy yet) then we can disregard everything about all the world's gods, and our history to do with them as myth. . .because that was the origin of them all. If not though, we need to reexamine how these stories can be best understood to fit with known science and data of that dreaded word "EVOLUTION".
A question one could ask a scientist is, "if one primate branch from the chimp got so evolved in mostly Europe (the Neanderthal) then why are millions of years later those same chimps still around in Africa?" I think it is a legitimate question, even though I have heard all the classic evolutionist excuses for mutations being the answer to everything. Yet the changes we see in the primate lineage are not significant without millions of years! It is what everyone would basically call microevolution. In fact, even the supposedly separate species we see before homo Erectus have been called into question as just being all homo Erectus after all. And in fact science says the same genes of the homo erectus still exist on earth, which is why they say, the homo erectus walks amongst us. Check them out!Source Source
What makes us presume at the fast rate of mutations that we call Macro evolution? Is it science, or just presumptions?
"Scientists use DNA to estimate when things have happened in the past by assuming a certain rate of mutations over time. [1 new mutation a generation] The mutation rate scientists have used in the past was based on circumstantial evidence because there was just too much DNA to sequence. Until now."
"For the first time, groups in Indiana and New Hampshire have figured out a mutation rate based on sequencing huge amounts of DNA from lots of the roundworm, C. elegans. . .What the researchers found was that the mutation rate was 10 times higher than previously believed. . . if the new number is true, it calls into question all sorts of things."
"For example, partly based on DNA evidence, scientists believed that. . . Humans began their migration out of Africa 100,000 years ago. Or was it 10,000? Did "Adam" live 50,000 or [around] 5000 years ago?"
Source
So if the many mutations for Adam can be dated to the Biblical timeline, according to genes, he COULD fit into the time frame of the first civilization! But could he be the old Neanderthal? With the carbon dating revised, as mentioned above and in the last post (because of the nuclear war of the gods), it seems that would also fit in.
In order for the evidence to fit with the original story completely though, we would need to find something showing up in the homo line as significantly different, without a "known" shared ancestor with the homo Erectus on the father's side. (As I explained in my post: The story of creation. . .as seen by an Atheist/evolutionist. Part 2)
They have now done it! We now know that the Neanderthal was not only special in many ways to the earlier "man", but they were connected to the gods (otherwise known as the Denisovan) through the fathers side, and the homo Erectus on the mothers' side. . .just like the Sumerian text tells us. (Spoken of in my second post at the top of the page.)
" In 1908, Neanderthal as a primitive, brutish, caveman was literally invented by Marcellin Boule of France. That image of the Neanderthals was to persist for the next 50 years (Drell 2000; Schrenk and Muller 2008)."
"It has been generally conceded by evolutionists, however reluctantly, that they would have to accept that Neanderthals were as human as we are."
Now instead of the image above, scientist have put a new facial construction on the Neanderthal, to the right. People are now saying that if you just clean them up, Neanderthal look surprisingly, just like us. . .In fact, everything we use to think of as ape-like in their appearance has been explained away by forensic and genetic science, that I will get into in my next post. . .
As it is clear that the blood of the gods runs from the Denisovan through to the Neanderthal, it is only logical that the gods and their children would look alike, and be similar in most ways, but more tall and advanced. There are many myths depicting giant white advanced men, that are presumed by others as well to be the Denisovan/gods of the native people. A guy wrote a book about it that sounds interesting.
Source
If Neanderthal is Adam, the first to act like man, and was a child of the gods (as defined in my last post to be Denisovan), then he should carry some pretty unusual blood mutations not previously found on earth, and things unique to those who carry the genes of the Neanderthal. Not shockingly, there is evidence of this in their O- blood.
"Rh- (Rh-negative) is an allele which is found predominantly among white populations (40-45% in Europe), it must clearly be a mutation which followed after man's migrations from Africa to Europe. [Except the original Egyptian kings whose blood has been shown to have it.] Black Africans in Africa who have not mixed either with white populations or with mixed-race persons have ONLY this Rh allele and no evidence of Rh-. Rh-negative is rare among persons with B and AB blood types, but less so in A blood, and most common in O." (In fact the O bloodtype is also said to have been the original human blood, as it is considered pure, and is consequently a universal donor.)
Source
A woman who carries the RH- gene will treat the baby of a RH+ man as if it is a germ. Her body will become immune to the "germ" in the future, and she will in essence become sterile or immune to that man's children. (Unless he has recessive RH- in his blood, and it comes out in the occasional child.) I suspect that this is why those who have either the O blood, or are negative for the monkey factor (as that is what the RH factor is called, as it comes from the Rhesus monkey.) have some issues with having babies.
Many will try to link this with reptilian blood, or starseeds or illuminati or being special or evil, but in truth, as I will show later, it is just a little variant in the original blood of modern man. Through this blood, either recessively or dominantly passed down, it seems most people actually have it deep down. While 85% of people have the monkey gene dominently they say, people rarely fully test for what type they are from both parents. . .so if Adam is the Neanderthal, and he had O- blood, then all from him would carry the gene. One person who has a lot of it in their family did a study on it, and was able to trace this family to Sumer! Something others have done as well I've heard. . . Check it out! Maybe we all could!
There is a lot more to say about the RH- , which is believed to be "alien to the planet". There are many very fascinating mental or physical traits that having this "mutation" or "variant" as dominent seems to bring with it. . .saying that the more pureNeanderthal you are, the more of them you should have. . . but I will let you curious folks check that out further in another post here.
A woman who carries the RH- gene will treat the baby of a RH+ man as if it is a germ. Her body will become immune to the "germ" in the future, and she will in essence become sterile or immune to that man's children. (Unless he has recessive RH- in his blood, and it comes out in the occasional child.) I suspect that this is why those who have either the O blood, or are negative for the monkey factor (as that is what the RH factor is called, as it comes from the Rhesus monkey.) have some issues with having babies.
Many will try to link this with reptilian blood, or starseeds or illuminati or being special or evil, but in truth, as I will show later, it is just a little variant in the original blood of modern man. Through this blood, either recessively or dominantly passed down, it seems most people actually have it deep down. While 85% of people have the monkey gene dominently they say, people rarely fully test for what type they are from both parents. . .so if Adam is the Neanderthal, and he had O- blood, then all from him would carry the gene. One person who has a lot of it in their family did a study on it, and was able to trace this family to Sumer! Something others have done as well I've heard. . . Check it out! Maybe we all could!
There is a lot more to say about the RH- , which is believed to be "alien to the planet". There are many very fascinating mental or physical traits that having this "mutation" or "variant" as dominent seems to bring with it. . .saying that the more pureNeanderthal you are, the more of them you should have. . . but I will let you curious folks check that out further in another post here.
RH- is only one mutation that those who have European in them at all, presumably got from the gods/Denisovan through the Neanderthal. In fact, "Europeans owe half of their variants [mutations] to interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans."
Source
Maybe this is redundant, but if Adam and the Neanderthal were the creation of the gods, according to the original creation story, can they also be traced to the chosen people, the Jews? (This is a hotly debated point, and there is a lot of confusion and misinformation the further past Adam you go!)
Here's a test, if the Neanderthals were made unnaturally with two completely separate species in them, like the Sumerian text testifies to, they would have fertility issues, and in the story they did. . . because they were a hybrid. And so do the Neanderthals! Check it out.
How is this possible, if we see the European/Neanderthal genes in nearly every person around the world?! Hmm, we can only trace the males as interbreeding with "modern man", so that would mean the European Neanderthal men found "foreign wives"? How did they get so many you ask? Maybe they put an ad in the paper like this ;)
In all seriousness though, who else had fertility issues? Could we trace the blood of the gods to the Jews with this trait of being a sterile hybrid? Let's see, the Bible speaks of the patriarchs of Israel all having infertility without god's intervention, or without using a dark "handmaiden/concubine".
I believe "God's chosen people" are not the Israelites of today, but the lost tribes that overtook Europe. Because thanks at least in part to the RH- that is dominate or recessive in their blood, Europeans and whites are more infertile then the rest of the world that have none or less Neanderthal in them. . .until they are helped along by Doctors giving them Rhogam shots, probably just what the original gods did too.
The original gods, and those of their bloodline seemed to have infertility or unnatural conceptions, the most noteworthy story of course being the story of God's pure, genetically modified, and artificially implanted son of God, Jesus's conception and birth.
While mythology evolves as time goes on, the ancient art tends to clarify that this is exactly what happened. Even 1,200 years after the story of the miraculous birth of Christ, they knew it was connected to a circle in the sky with people in it. (The supposed "star" that hovered over the place where Jesus lay, and was seen by people to the East.)
This illustration above is entitled "The Birth of Christ" from a 12th century Greek manuscript "The Book of the Evangelists". If you look to the right of the picture there are two figures looking up at a semi-circular object with figures inside. The object appears to be shining a beam of light down onto the birth. One of the pair of observers is shielding his eyes, possibly the artist was trying to convey the brightness of the object.
Jesus's death was heralded with just as much fan fare from the alien gods apparently, as the artists picture here illustrates. 
Back to the topic of connections in history though. The Sumerian text was really the key. When I realized that civilization and the Biblical tale of creation of man started in Turkey, more specifically Mesopotamia, and Sumer (other then small pockets of megalithic structures that show evidence for the gods, as I spoke of in Real evidence for God part 3) it just made sense to figure they would have the oldest and thus more accurate account of everything to do with Ancient history.
So when the well preserved Sumerian writings told of their kings coming out of nowhere to start instant reading, writing, math, agriculture, husbandry, tall buildings, indoor plumbing, etc. I figured I should probably equate the kings with the biblical patriarchs. The Sumerians of course had their own names for the patriarchs. Even calling them "the Sumerian kings" though, doesn't fly with some, because Adam being called a "king", brought the issue of needing subjects. That is, unless he was like Tarzan, and the king of the jungle. . . The subjects certainly couldn't have all been Adam's kids, as at his apparent slow rate of maturity, and the few mentioned kids, that could be a little problematic, but that is something I will get into later. . .
If you know anything about the Sumerian king list though (to the right), you will note that the dating seems all wrong! As the kings list was translated by different people, and in different parts, using a different numerical system (hardly understood at the time), I ask you, if it is now widely acknowledged that the original foundational stories in the Bible and Koran are simply copy cat versions of the original Sumerian creation stories (and they are), wouldn't it be wise to use it to help us translate the Sumerian king's list timeline? While this may not generally be a good idea, in this case, it may fit better with the rest of the evidence.
On the list is the mention of a flood (which as I stated in an earlier post, was actually a war that caused a local tidal wave/deluge from a nuclear bomb), as well as kings that through other sources have actually been shown to exist!? So it is highly unlikely that the list is fictional, as it ties into so much history. Yet, the kings lived even more ridiculous lifespans then in the Bible in one part of it, while the other part was the same as the Bible. While not good at math myself, nor do I read the language it is in, thankfully Creationists have already done the figuring, and found there was a translation error. Rectifying them, they found the Sumerian kings list correlated pretty well to the lives of the patriarchs.
The Bible and the Sumerian text seem confirmed to be speaking about the first man "Adam" as then being a Sumerian king!
So, to recap: the Neanderthals, the original white man, had infertility, partly because of their hybrid status, and partly from the RH- blood, said to be a blood factor that came out of no where, and is "alien to the planet." As well they had the O bloodtype (which is considered a pure blood), impossible for it to come from the A or B blood of apes supposedly before it. Scientists believe the O- originated with modern man as well. All of which just happened to have come from the areas of the Denisovan and Neanderthal, which happen to correlate with the biblical and Sumerian creation stories in the area of Sumer, the cradle of civilization, a place at least a few whites can trace their ancestry to. So, the only conclusion I see, is that the Neanderthal is Adam of the Bible, and a king of the Sumerian king list. Thus all those in the world who "interbred" with the Neanderthal blood would have their ancestry go straight back to Sumer too. (President Bush's does.)
(Which I will go on to prove later with genes.)
One could ask, when did the dark genes or melanin come into what we now deem "modern man" if it wasn't Adam? Could there have been another species? Well, let's go back to the Bible.
We don't know who any of Adam's sons married. It could be presumed that if anything, Cain married someone from the "other nation" (of the homo erectus's) he was sent to. (That he feared being killed by.) People have said that the people all over the world that Cain was needing a mark to protect him from, were just his siblings. As it took his parents to age 130 just to have 3 boys, do you suppose at that rate there would be enough siblings to be of concern to Cain before he died on this huge planet?! No, he obviously was sent away to live with those who were not the created man. He may have started the Incas, who built like the gods, honored the founder as a god, but had only Sub Saharan African genes in the ancient DNA that they have tested.
Or perhaps he went to China to be the "Yellow emperor" who gave the ancient grains and basically civilization to the natives. . .although I believe he came with others of his race, and was joined later by even more of the European people, evidenced by the Tarim Mummies, like the one to the right. (I'll get into the origin of the people of the orient in a later post though.)For now I want to trace, not the mixed stragglers, but the race chosen of "God" to stay pure.
Well according to the Bible, there was a "bottleneck" in the population of "man" at the flood, (Which would only have had to be local to have wiped out the few -probably intermixed race- on earth at the time.) so that makes history before then inconsequential. Reason being that Noah was hand picked with his family by God, and was said to be "pure in his generations." That purity only lasted up to Abraham though, who fathered Ishmael from a servant of Sarah to make what we know today as the Arabs. Genetics tell us that Palestinian Arabs were representative of ancestral Israelites to a degree and yet they show significant African gene flow. In fact, “the Caucasian component. . . may simply be a indigenous Middle Eastern ancestral element which has now been somewhat displaced northward . . ."
Then there came along God's real choice as the founder of his chosen people in his image, Isaac from Abraham. Who married a specially picked out bride: Rebekah from his fathers people. (Who had fertility issues.)
There was apparently a sort of flop in the splicing of genes somehow when the gods helped Rebekah with her infertility, because the gods made one of each species. The Bible both described different looks and personalities of the twins. The text claims that God said that the older would serve the younger, and that they would be two waring nations. No special bride was picked for the older twin named Esau, yet the younger named Jacob was told to go find a wife from his mothers brother Laban's kids. (Laban BTW means "white".) We know, based on the Bible, and other sources that Esau started the dark Edomites. (Whom God cursed to be destroyed! So the Bible's "God" wasn't fond of his people apparently.)
Then God started over in picking a "chosen people" with Jacob. Jacob married two fair cousins who were sisters. . .but in a silly competition of the sister/wives, Jacob was given the wive's servants, Bilhah and Zilpah, who were presumably half (or all) black, to impregnate. If it isn't clear to us yet, the writer of the Bible had no interest in the bloodlines from them, evidenced by the fact that the Bible doesn't trace their children's family tree.
O-DIN, the God of Norse mythology (who's myth inspired Santa Clause and Gandalf the Grey BTW) is a title indicative of Kingship or Shepherd lineage. (Also known as WO-DEN, WO-TAN and DAN).
Source
So, many who boldly and proudly try to claim the title "Israelite" today (from Jacob, renamed Israel), come from the blood of those who are dark and associated with the middle east, instead of where the Neanderthal mostly roamed, leading many to say Israel is a nation of dark Jews. Why do they call themselves "Israelites" even, instead of children of Abraham? In Luke 3:8 Jesus bragged (or mocked?) that God could raise up children of Abraham out of the rocks.
Makes me wonder if Jesus was speaking to those who were very defensive and insecure of their half breed status and yet proud of their link to Abraham (the Arabs or Samaritan half Jews you see in Israel today),who are also known for their petty fighting. In a similar way today you also see a lot of out right blacks (like Obama) believing or even fighting to be the true Jews. (Everyone wants the advanced alien bloodline to be theirs! Sadly for them, genes don't lie.)
Furthermore, if you believe the blood of the gods is in the Neanderthal, and/or Adam is a Neanderthal (who is the father of the Europeans that run through most of the world to one degree or another), then you would have to say that only the Ashkenazi Jews, (who are genetically very distinct from the rest) are relatively pure children of God, along with many others who do not know to claim the title of Jew or Israelite even.
The Ashkenazi Jews are basically the purist Europeans of all the Jews, yet originating in the Middle East their genes would say. (And yes, they are white, and a bunch of very influential and intelligent people. In fact, studies say they are where we find the highest IQ! Think Einstein, Sigmund Freud, many Nobel prize winners, scientists, mathematicians, chess champions. . . and it is said by some that they are "those who run Hollywood" as well. "Researchers have determined that human genes do influence intelligence, saying the percentage of that influence may range anywhere from 40 to 60 percent." So again, you can apparently thank "God" for your intelligence if you are even part white!)
Source
Did Hitler know that the pure chosen people/Jews were white I wonder? He was very religious, and into theology and genealogies. Though it is claimed that he was a monster and that he tried to kill all Jews (some even say mostly the white Ashkenazi Jews), I have heard that he only tried to contain the troublesome dark Jews, like the ones in Israel. . .and freed the blond or red headed and pale ones even when all their family was dark. I read some pretty convincing and true reasons why Hitler may have been not only wrongly judged, but actually a good guy! Check it out here if you dare, it shocked me!
Was Jesus in Luke 3:8 saying that if they wanted to be part of the blood of Abraham, then they needed to act like it, I wonder? Most claiming the title of the chosen people, whether that be Jewish. Israelite or Christian today (evidenced by the incarceration/religious affiliation stats, and crime rates in highly religious areas) don't act anything like Jesus/Christ. The title "Christian" is a title meaning "little Christ" which was no doubt originally only intended for those of his bloodline, as he apparently only came to save "man" from the original "sin" . . . You should only be called a "Christian" if you act or look "Christ-like", or "godly", a feat apparently impossible without some alien blood running through your veins. . .
Sadly, there is confusion over who were Semites too. "Today, the word 'Semite' may be used to refer to any member of any of a number of peoples of ancient Southwestern Asia descent including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews (Jews), Arabs, and their descendants." While the term "Semite" may have originated from the purist branch of the white man, Shem, (that the Bible traces) it was likely also the only branch at that time! So it is similar to saying, "I am a Adamite!"
So, as the Semites are obviously a mixed people group, we know that they at some point started claiming a lineage that was only half theirs. . .as people who are immensely insecure in their heritage would be prone to do. There were certainly clear lines in the original civilization between the "wildman" slaves and the kingly race of man though.
If the Neanderthal was made in the image of "God" as defined correctly, as an alien to the planet, and the Neanderthal got their blood and looks, then we have to conclude that anything before the Neanderthal or Adam, was the earthly or "wild" version of "man". So not surprisingly, this was mentioned in The Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest known written literature and an epic poem from Sumer. So in the story of the Sumerian king, Gilgamesh. The epic speaks in detail about the king and his friend/servant, Enkidu, a wild man domesticated both by a woman and by the gods. He was, according to the text, not of the alien or kingly blood of the gods, like the king, but instead of the oldest and primitive primate. (Yet he became adopted like a pet by them.)
Source
Do these sound like they acted or were treated like humans? No, they sound like the were thought of as animals, and they sound like homo Erectus. . .yet they apparently had language from the Denisovan or Neanderthals. Language was said to be "a gift from the gods" of the ancient dark civilizations.
The wild men were called the "gentiles" and could be summed up with one word in the Bible: "ungodly". Not that the word "ungodly" means wicked, but just not in the image of God, or the tall, white alien. . .
The term "Christ-like" (meaning to be like God's genetically pure son), is now generally associated with goodness, intelligent living, Spirituality and having influence or a connection with the gods. . .
The alien gods used the kings/emperors/pharaohs of the world in the past, and even now the pure, RH-, O blooded, elite bloodlines hear his voice in their head and are his ambassadors or channelers (with "god" still speaking in dreams and visions to them, often in drug induced states). The emperors, Pharaohs and kings were always considered to be both spiritually and intelligently superior, and the earthly representation of the gods, which is one reason they were said to be given the divine right to rule. To this day, those who have RH- in their blood have a high rate of mystics, healers, and wise men. (And a host of other cool stuff mentioned in a past blog post below.)
Source
"This is a sketch of an untitled 15th century Italian fresco from Mount Athos, Greece . It depicts the Apostle John dictating the Biblical book of Revelation to a young disciple. In the upper lefthand corner is a segment of a glowing oval object from which a beam of light is aimed at the head of John."
The problem with aliens channeling with humans is that they need to communicate with the words and technology they know, and have seen. . .thus John's Revelation from God, as well as Enoch's account (in the book of Enoch) of his "translation" up to God, have always sounded crazy to us. Reading especially the latter now in this time of enlightenment though, it is clear what he was seeing was a UFO, which was not uncommon in those days. . .which you can see if you check out the link to the ancient (from the wild man) and medieval art I mentioned earlier. (Here it is again.)
Back to the pure Jews though, all this evidence from connections from the RH- and O blood of the Neanderthal, their looks and hybrid infertility issues connecting to Adam and his kin the white Ashkenazi Jews in mythologies (drawing from the original creation story as well as the Bible) is nice, but if you need even more proof, what does the DNA say about if true Jews are those from the Neanderthal/European bloodline?
A 2013 study of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA found that "All four major founders. . . have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore, most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European ancestry. Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe." If more of there genome was tested, I can guarantee that they would find Neanderthal on the fathers side too.
Source
I'm guessing that these 4 founding woman were non other then Noah's wife, and 3 daughter in laws. We can trace Noah too! He is called Eurasian Adam or Y chromosome Noah. His sons would have had his Y chromosome, so he would be the first, even though they can also go back to Y chromosome Adam.
". . .It is also clear that there was no single 'Adam' and 'Eve' but rather groups of 'Adams and 'Eves' living side by side. . ."
This means that they had to have come from the same source."
Source
Scientists, geneticists, theologians, paleoanthropologists and other armchair philosophers are free to prove me wrong, but I propose that the original source that modern man all over the world came from is the Denisovan (or god) genes, seen only on the father's side of the Neanderthal. Meaning the Y chromosome of all part whites should touch on everywhere we see civilization, and look like basically like this.
And funny thing, it is a real chart from a white guy's Y chromosome!
Source
So, Neanderthal is basically us white modern man, and the darks are mostly just a little less Neanderthal and consequently often seem less "modern". It seems that the more they unfold the human genome, the more connection they find to Neanderthals and European white man. They now say that "there is strong support for Neanderthal admixture in Eurasia at a higher rate (3.4-7.3 per cent) than suggested previously."
Source
They'll figure it out eventually that the purest Europeans are just plain Neanderthal, but in the mean time, I hate to say it as an Atheist evolutionist, but Creationists were right. . .at least about the Neanderthal. He was not the dirty looking apeman in this illustration, but the kings of the world, with the divine right to rule it, given by the gods who conquered it and set down their flag. If they didn't have that right coming from another planet, then why did we do it on the moon? Why do we rule over and dominate all in nature? Does nature or god demand that we whites control the world?
God commanded us to have dominion over the earth in Gen. 1:26. . . slavery of blacks was to God's children, the whites, on par with owning a horse, dog, or cat to us today. Have we have grown in our morality from the gods who's blood runs in our veins and whom we have ignorantly worshiped as "perfect" for thousands of years? Is it really fine and dandy to keep other species as domesticated pets, work horses/slaves and food sources? Do we judge the ants for milking aphids, the whale for having other fish groom it, or the lion for being the king of the Jungle? Or do we all just have our place in the cycle of life, pecking order and the food chain.
Having another species that is dependent on your food and support/care is a sign of slavery and domestication. That said, how are the African Americans (predominantly on welfare and medicaid and predominantly supported by the white taxpayers dollars) any different then the slave in the past? ?
A better question would be, "Is it moral to keep different species (even peaceful ones) in zoos?" If so, then where do we draw the line with treatment of those with dark skin, and no Neanderthal in them? Do we want fairness for conquered dark species that are going extinct? (That is, the ones not being assimilated into the whites. Yes, this is something scientists have backwards in saying that the Neanderthal has gone extinct, they are simply mixed in with the blacks more now. Even the mixed blacks are only 14% of the world shockingly.) It seems obvious that they can not compete with either our immunity or intelligence. . .this simply is a "white man's world", and as much as we try to be missionaries to help them along, they can not compete, and they know it! This seems to be why they have such anger and depression, killing their own children by the droves!
What about the mixes, can we live together peaceably, knowing the dark color came from the earthly evolved wildman, a different species from the advanced alien creation? If not, do we need to continue to resort to jails and borders and walls to keep them contained? Or are there other ways like walls and boarders around US, to keep species apart? They do say, "Good walls make good neighbors."
The problem is, we are MIXED! Some blacks are good friends of mine and are incredibly intelligent, and spiritual people, with bone structure, color, temperament and intelligence that tells everyone they are part Neanderthal. Though they don't know it, I suspect most would love to know that they share in the royal white ancestry. And I suspect that they would also love to know why they feel so different then the pure Sub Saharan blacks, like in the South. . .I believe this knowledge can bring understanding, contentment, and peace in the end, even if it isn't comfortable.
In conclusion, the very fact that there are some on earth that are pure Sub Saharan African still, and who's blood cannot be traced to the Y chromosome Adam that the rest of humanity came from, conclusively proves that there were two species, and that the true creation story in the Sumerian about a hybrid race being created, was not talking about the black man at all. Thus, the Bible has been dis-proven as an evolved, imperfect book, and evolution from the black African is only partially right.
Source
So as I predicted the only one without Neanderthal in them, a Sub Saharan African, was found to be unrelated to us on the father's side. First one, then numerous others were DNA tested on the paternal side to show a very old, thus homo
Erectus, lineage. Unlike the rest of the world with Neanderthal in us, it is not just on the mothers side (mitochondrial Eve, who is also very old like a homo Erectus), but
on the fathers side as well. So instead
of his genes tracing back to Y chromosome Adam, like almost everyone they have ever tested, and who just happens to be the father of the Y Chromosome Noah (also called Eurasian Adam as he obviously started all whites), these blacks go back to Homo Erectus.
Get the picture now? Both species had a hand in making what we see in the world. We can't change each other, anymore then a sheep can change a goat. We need to stop trying to force our lifestyle and high white expectations on blacks, especially in Africa, as it is rarely appreciated anyhow from what I have read. We can learn to be honest about two different race's existing, and stop the idiocy of the religion behind all the fighting and misunderstandings. And if we work together fairly, and understand our place in the world, we can all be friends. Peace to the world.
To be continued in
All about the hybrid Neanderthal named Adam. part 5
They'll figure it out eventually that the purest Europeans are just plain Neanderthal, but in the mean time, I hate to say it as an Atheist evolutionist, but Creationists were right. . .at least about the Neanderthal. He was not the dirty looking apeman in this illustration, but the kings of the world, with the divine right to rule it, given by the gods who conquered it and set down their flag. If they didn't have that right coming from another planet, then why did we do it on the moon? Why do we rule over and dominate all in nature? Does nature or god demand that we whites control the world?God commanded us to have dominion over the earth in Gen. 1:26. . . slavery of blacks was to God's children, the whites, on par with owning a horse, dog, or cat to us today. Have we have grown in our morality from the gods who's blood runs in our veins and whom we have ignorantly worshiped as "perfect" for thousands of years? Is it really fine and dandy to keep other species as domesticated pets, work horses/slaves and food sources? Do we judge the ants for milking aphids, the whale for having other fish groom it, or the lion for being the king of the Jungle? Or do we all just have our place in the cycle of life, pecking order and the food chain.
Having another species that is dependent on your food and support/care is a sign of slavery and domestication. That said, how are the African Americans (predominantly on welfare and medicaid and predominantly supported by the white taxpayers dollars) any different then the slave in the past? ?
A better question would be, "Is it moral to keep different species (even peaceful ones) in zoos?" If so, then where do we draw the line with treatment of those with dark skin, and no Neanderthal in them? Do we want fairness for conquered dark species that are going extinct? (That is, the ones not being assimilated into the whites. Yes, this is something scientists have backwards in saying that the Neanderthal has gone extinct, they are simply mixed in with the blacks more now. Even the mixed blacks are only 14% of the world shockingly.) It seems obvious that they can not compete with either our immunity or intelligence. . .this simply is a "white man's world", and as much as we try to be missionaries to help them along, they can not compete, and they know it! This seems to be why they have such anger and depression, killing their own children by the droves!
What about the mixes, can we live together peaceably, knowing the dark color came from the earthly evolved wildman, a different species from the advanced alien creation? If not, do we need to continue to resort to jails and borders and walls to keep them contained? Or are there other ways like walls and boarders around US, to keep species apart? They do say, "Good walls make good neighbors."
The problem is, we are MIXED! Some blacks are good friends of mine and are incredibly intelligent, and spiritual people, with bone structure, color, temperament and intelligence that tells everyone they are part Neanderthal. Though they don't know it, I suspect most would love to know that they share in the royal white ancestry. And I suspect that they would also love to know why they feel so different then the pure Sub Saharan blacks, like in the South. . .I believe this knowledge can bring understanding, contentment, and peace in the end, even if it isn't comfortable.
In conclusion, the very fact that there are some on earth that are pure Sub Saharan African still, and who's blood cannot be traced to the Y chromosome Adam that the rest of humanity came from, conclusively proves that there were two species, and that the true creation story in the Sumerian about a hybrid race being created, was not talking about the black man at all. Thus, the Bible has been dis-proven as an evolved, imperfect book, and evolution from the black African is only partially right.
Source
So as I predicted the only one without Neanderthal in them, a Sub Saharan African, was found to be unrelated to us on the father's side. First one, then numerous others were DNA tested on the paternal side to show a very old, thus homo
Erectus, lineage. Unlike the rest of the world with Neanderthal in us, it is not just on the mothers side (mitochondrial Eve, who is also very old like a homo Erectus), but on the fathers side as well. So instead
of his genes tracing back to Y chromosome Adam, like almost everyone they have ever tested, and who just happens to be the father of the Y Chromosome Noah (also called Eurasian Adam as he obviously started all whites), these blacks go back to Homo Erectus.
Get the picture now? Both species had a hand in making what we see in the world. We can't change each other, anymore then a sheep can change a goat. We need to stop trying to force our lifestyle and high white expectations on blacks, especially in Africa, as it is rarely appreciated anyhow from what I have read. We can learn to be honest about two different race's existing, and stop the idiocy of the religion behind all the fighting and misunderstandings. And if we work together fairly, and understand our place in the world, we can all be friends. Peace to the world.
To be continued in
All about the hybrid Neanderthal named Adam. part 5
No comments:
Post a Comment