Skip to main content

Creation of Humankind, Off Planet or Where?

I seriously doubt if there are even 4 people here who have read Darwin's Origin Of Species which in advertedly started the entire so called 'evolution of man' theories, let alone Lewis Spence's refutation of this theory just after it was published. Logic and the emotions engendered by 'spiritual' beliefs have co mingled to the point of mutual hysteria for most people who have continuous knee-jerk reactions to usually totally misinformed information regarding both sides of the basic questions of creation and evolution.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Albert Einstein revealed that time could play tricks if one travelled at the speed approaching the speed of light. This theory was tested in the laboratory solely for mesons, but the masters of science fiction boldly lead their heroes into adventures quite as outlandish as those experienced by the prophets of the Old Testament.
"The prehistoric idea as to the probable immortality of the soul does not only express the unconscious wish to believe in the existence of God, but also the sense that time does not have the same value everywhere in the universe and that it can flow at a greater or lesser speed."
The German historian, Herbert Kuhn, also refutes the Darwinian thesis, being himself a partisan of the off-world theory of man's origin.
In a work which is splendidly documented, but unfortunately not widely translated extensively, "Discoveries and Art of the Glacial Epoch", Herbert Kuhn relies upon the astonishing artistic accomplishments of so-called primitive man to demonstrate the absurd character of Darwin's postulates which he characterizes as the "philosophy of an irreducible sectarianism."
He is quite outspoken against the scientists who accuse the Church and priests of having retarded progress and placed obstacles in the way of archeological diggings.
He writes: If we read the documents we have attentively, we find that such affirmation is absolutely gratuitous. We cannot find that the ecclesiastics have said a single word against the diggings or exhumation of skeletons of primitive man, especially from the Catholic Church.
"Many priests and men of religious orders are often members of, or leaders of teams which carry on research in many archeological sites, not to mention many are also in all fields of Astronomy, especially Jesuits.
"The reason for the lack of comprehension or indifference of certain specialists must be sought rather in their fear of seeing the upset of the theory of evolution, so dear to them. It is still a mere theory. There are other theories . Some are more cable than others. It was with the greatest difficulty that they had finally succeeded in imposing their narrow concept that humans, animals and vegetals of our world today are the end result of progressive transformation of living species.
"The theory of evolution is based on the certitude that everything in creation which is simple is necessarily much older than which is more highly complex.
"If art only afforded us mediocre works dating from the highest antiquity, we would be quite willing to adopt this theory. But how could we accept it sincerely when we find that the paintings of Altamira are so beautiful, so wonderfully composed, that they can only be compared with the very greatest painters of our culture?
Some call our ancestors who lived in caves "savages" and "brutes", but how could savages and brutes have produced these works of art, so filled with vitality and freedom?
Darwin's ideas were warmly received throughout Europe and America. It reached the point where those who have refused to fall in line have been condemned, academic careers ruined, and in 1880, these theories became an absolute pseudo-religion, a philosophy of an irreducible sectarianism."

Comments (10)

quote from above
"I seriously doubt if there are even 4 people here who have read Darwin's Origin Of Species which in advertedly started …"
I meant to spell indadvertedly…missed it!laugh
I guess I'm one of the four people.giggle
Hi Kattle. Haven´t seen you here before?

I am one of those 4 people who have read it... long long ago..
But I am going to bed now and will continue this conversation with you, if you allow me?
Good night.wave angel
In re-reading my posting, I perhaps should finish it with an appropriate observation made over my travels in regards to ancient artworks.
Of particular importance among the cave paintings like Altamira to which Herbert Kuhn refers, are those of the Tassili in the Algerian Sahara. These rock paintings were discovered by a French Lieutenant Bernard in 1910, studied somewhat later by an archeological mission led by the celebrated Henri Lhote.
What is actually depicted in these designs? Animals, hunting scenes, but also personages dressed in clothing unlike anything worn by the hunters which is like space suits and wearing round, strange helmets. Acording to the reports of ethnologists on the site, these helmets were not the headdress of natives, which look rather more like oyster shells.
It was Henri Lhote himself who gave the name of "Martians" to these personages. It was also he who found that one of these men seemed tp be coming out of an object shaped like an egg and ornamented with concentric circles.
This theme of men coming out of eggs is common to many mythologies. In his work, Man and The Earth, the great geographer, Elisee Reclus reports a Peruvian legend in which"the first men came out of a bronze, silver and gold egg, fallen from the sky."
InGreece, the great sculptures represented the Dioscuri, their sister Helen, and Nemesis with egg shells around their heads because, according to mythology, they had been born from divine eggs fallen down from the sky.
How did the idea of a human, born of an egg, come to inspire both the artists of Tassili and the Greek sculptures as well as the Peruvian myths, each separated from the other in space and in time…
In the absence of any real satisfactory explanation, the door is wide open to whatever an inventive mind might imagine, namely, that the myths of divine eggs might owe its source to real facts poetically expressed…the real fact is the many arrivals on our planet of UFO's having an ovoid form with landing struts...

never did believe in evolution, biggest lie ever told.

ufo's deception.
Kattie, I take your point and agree but, even if we could prove extraterrestrial genetics as a source of, or influence over, the genetics of human beings, it does not mean evolution based on natural selection does not occur. It just becomes a question of WHERE said evolution occurs before it is transplanted elsewhere/here. Neither does the fact of natural selection's influence over evolving phenotype and genotype in any way preclude divinity's intercession. There is no substantive war between religion and science but noncritical thinkers believe there to be and that is to the benefit of the empowered elite. There is a conflict between those who prefer sheep, who are easily duped and led, and free and critical thinkers. For anyone in power encouraging critical evaluation of any theory is not conducive to their staying in power. Fear is a mind killer which is why media is so full of stimuli designed to engender fear.

Nice to see you here. wave smile
Boy oh boy I have read many a theory of the beginings of earth and man, but confused what does it matter in the here and now. I know the so called big bang is trying to be re-created this very minute at great expense while man starves and kills himself.
The outer space theory the religions said it was angels from God others reckon we had visitors.
What does it matter in the grand scheme of things religion brings faiths to help and yes sometimes hinder people. Scientist pour over works for a life time to try and discover this and that at great cost while our earth shrivel at mans onslaught some would have us believe.
So me I make the best of the space around me and people in it, what more can a person do maybe see drawing or carving in rock from millions of years ago but that will not stop wars or people starving.
dinasors bones would make plenty of soup to feed starving people while others carbon date them and now can find dna etc doh
funny old worldteddybear
Evolution -
On the cellular level...DNA is like a blueprint telling a cell how to function. Also how to replicate itself. Cells produce new cells according to the instructions encoded in DNA. Cells couldn't reproduce without the incredibly complex instructions in their DNA. In other words - no DNA = no cells. But...DNA , by itself, is only a.molecule. It cannot produce cells. SO...what came first? DNA? Or a cell?
Personally my money is on the non God theory, now lets Go to the pub for a beer. The soccer is on. Come join us Mr. kattle, you sound intelligent and look nice.
I vote for Darwin. The fact some travelers from a place with it's own evolution path may have visited for a cultural exchange with the savages has zero impact on the question was Darwin on the correct path.
Yeah I guess I am one of the four too. Even have a copy of it somewhere around here.

Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles?

Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles? Have you written blogs that you'd like to share with other members? Posting your blogs shows your skill and creativity and helps members get to know you better. Your blog will appear on the Connecting Singles Blogs page and also in a link on your profile page. Click here to post a blog »

Attention: Report Abuse. If this blog is inappropriate please report abuse.
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here