Bigfoot, Intelligent Design vs Creationism

The skeletons in Lovelock Cave, Nevada come to mind. I'm not saying they're proof of anything other than the proven evolutionary process, perhaps a subspecies or tribe of human carrying Homo hidelbergensis DNA or something, but they've been quite thoroughly swept under the rug. Anything that goes against scientific norms tends to be hushed up unless the evidence is blatant and obnoxious.

I'm a Catholic and strong believer in God. None of this would shake my faith. Just really curious what the source of the nuclear DNA was? Thoughts?

See, this is why I miss Art Bell.. ever since George Noory took over C2C, he has every crack-pot and their brother on. This guy at no point even makes sense, he goes rambling on from one thing to another and does not even speak in facts. Kennewick Man is Irish? WTF??? John of Revelation was John the apostle??? really??? even though that John lived 75 years after Jesus died?(At minimum. All we know is John of Patmose lived during the reign of Nero. Jesus lived during Augustus who was one of the only Caesars to have a long life.) So that would have made him what?, 120 years old? And Celts is pronounced Kelts with a hard C. not Selts.

Sorry I am banging my head against the wall for having heard all this lying B.S. that only makes me miss Art Bell all the more.

Oh sorry Blondie.. I seriously digressed I believe in Both. Even I.D. has to have a creator somewhere down the line.

Say the Annunaki created us, then what created them?

However, from the Christian POV, I noticed a lot of them saying that Bigfoot is the Biblical Nephilim or that Bigfoot is the descendants of Cain lol. I can argue both points.

When Cain killed Abel, his curse was to forever walk the Earth and know no piece. The ground will no longer yield it's crops and the earth will be his enemy. His descendants will know no piece, only war. So Cain then went to the land of Nod and built the first City, Enoch named after his son. Between us and Bigfoot for likely candidates of Cain's bloodline... Who is always at war? and who is living in Cities? lol If this was the argument, humans would be the children of Cain and Bigfoot the children of Seth.

As for Nephilim... Modern Sasquatch, H.Neanderthal, H.Habolis, H.Heidelberg, H.Erectus, H.Sapiens.... "One of these things is not like the other one... Can you guess which one it is???????" If anything is a Nephilim, again it is us.

I read a book called "The Slave Species of God" , it explains a lot of the theories you all are talking about. Pretty good book. Makes one think about a forced evolution.

instead of answering my question (i am genuinely interested in finding out what you meant by what you said) you deleted my comment?

Tzieth wrote:Oh sorry Blondie.. I seriously digressed I believe in Both. Even I.D. has to have a creator somewhere down the line.

Say the Annunaki created us, then what created them?

However, from the Christian POV, I noticed a lot of them saying that Bigfoot is the Biblical Nephilim or that Bigfoot is the descendants of Cain lol. I can argue both points.

When Cain killed Abel, his curse was to forever walk the Earth and know no piece. The ground will no longer yield it's crops and the earth will be his enemy. His descendants will know no piece, only war. So Cain then went to the land of Nod and built the first City, Enoch named after his son. Between us and Bigfoot for likely candidates of Cain's bloodline... Who is always at war? and who is living in Cities? lol If this was the argument, humans would be the children of Cain and Bigfoot the children of Seth.

As for Nephilim... Modern Sasquatch, H.Neanderthal, H.Habolis, H.Heidelberg, H.Erectus, H.Sapiens.... "One of these things is not like the other one... Can you guess which one it is???????" If anything is a Nephilim, again it is us.

TZ I love you view and information on this.
I love reading what you have to post on the subject.

I myself am not sure If we are Nephilim or if Bigfoot is.
I like that their have been bones of Gaints discovered that can not be accounted for.
Its always been intresting.

Thank you

I love the thought of I.D.
Many people always throw it off to the side because they always make it along the side with religion.

It doesn't have to be a "god"
I.D. is always about Intelligence behind it.
Could be "god" "Alien" "Force" etc...

I don't understand how scientists can't believe in I.D.
We show it everyday that we are Designing animals, plants etc...
We Started with selective breeding of different dogs and cats to make a certain Breed.
Australian Cattle dog comes to mind. Interbreed different breeds to get the rugged smart dog people have today.

We Genetically manipulate Plants. We cross Pollinate plants to create others.
Apples come to mind.
We have created the African "Killer" bees.
We have created Biological weapons.
This all shows that things can be Designed.

We are now looking at DNA how we can Manipulate Life. to weed out defects. We clone Sheep and other animals.
This is all signs of Lab tested I.D.

So why can't we have been I.D.ed at one point?

well according to Sitchin we are the hybrids- Homo Erectus X Nephilim. Fair enough. Obviously when you mix genes some are dominant and some are recessive. I'm thinking some of the off-spring displayed characteristics that the Anunnaki didn't care for. Like hulking size and hairy. They preferred the offspring that looked more like them (in their image). Maybe the former were cast out to the wilderness- certainly talks of that in the Bible. Being isolated out in the wilds their DNA stayed pure, meanwhile we were multiplying like rabbits not being too picky. At the 15,000 year mark (Ice Age?) things were getting pretty desperate and Biggie also liked the looks of the Daughters of Men. Somehow the results survived the flood (being in the mountains helps).

Or something like that

relic wrote:well according to Sitchin we are the hybrids- Homo Erectus X Nephilim. Fair enough. Obviously when you mix genes some are dominant and some are recessive. I'm thinking some of the off-spring displayed characteristics that the Anunnaki didn't care for. Like hulking size and hairy. They preferred the offspring that looked more like them (in their image). Maybe the former were cast out to the wilderness- certainly talks of that in the Bible. Being isolated out in the wilds their DNA stayed pure, meanwhile we were multiplying like rabbits not being too picky. At the 15,000 year mark (Ice Age?) things were getting pretty desperate and Biggie also liked the looks of the Daughters of Men. Somehow the results survived the flood (being in the mountains helps).

Or something like that

That also crossed my mind in a way.. Maybe everything in Homo Genus were prototypes that lead to us. According to Sitchin's last seminar (For lack of a better word... Where he was promoting his book.) He implied that others were made. That there was a war between Enki and Mardukand all the Annunaki got a God-complex and started engineering "people".

isn't it ironic that we sound just like these Anunnaki? things that make you go hmmmmm

CMcMillan wrote:I love the thought of I.D.
Many people always throw it off to the side because they always make it along the side with religion.

It doesn't have to be a "god"
I.D. is always about Intelligence behind it.
Could be "god" "Alien" "Force" etc...

I don't understand how scientists can't believe in I.D.

So why can't we have been I.D.ed at one point?

Mostly because there's absolutely no evidence of intelligent design beyond what a gang of fringe scientists trying to justify creationism like to spout. Sitchin bases his theories on incorrect translations of the original cuneiform, literal interpretation of myth, and indefensible science. It's dismissed because there's less evidence of ID than of Bigfoot.

This could be still Happening.

Many UFO abduction talk about experements or being Implanted with Hybrid fetus's

So could they still be experementing on us and manipulating us?

I don't think the Greys but the Nordics would fit more into the Annunaki role

Ravinoff wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:I love the thought of I.D.
Many people always throw it off to the side because they always make it along the side with religion.

It doesn't have to be a "god"
I.D. is always about Intelligence behind it.
Could be "god" "Alien" "Force" etc...

I don't understand how scientists can't believe in I.D.

So why can't we have been I.D.ed at one point?

Mostly because there's absolutely no evidence of intelligent design beyond what a gang of fringe scientists trying to justify creationism like to spout. Sitchin bases his theories on incorrect translations of the original cuneiform, literal interpretation of myth, and indefensible science. It's dismissed because there's less evidence of ID than of Bigfoot.

How do you know that Evolutionist have not stictched evidence wrong?

Ravinoff wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:I love the thought of I.D.
Many people always throw it off to the side because they always make it along the side with religion.

It doesn't have to be a "god"
I.D. is always about Intelligence behind it.
Could be "god" "Alien" "Force" etc...

I don't understand how scientists can't believe in I.D.

So why can't we have been I.D.ed at one point?

Mostly because there's absolutely no evidence of intelligent design beyond what a gang of fringe scientists trying to justify creationism like to spout. Sitchin bases his theories on incorrect translations of the original cuneiform, literal interpretation of myth, and indefensible science. It's dismissed because there's less evidence of ID than of Bigfoot.

What are you basing that Sitchins translations are incorrect on? And please do not quote who I think you are going to quote.. We been through this before with someone else. Sitchin was was one of he first to be able to read it and unlike the others, he came from that end of the world. Sitchin had over 75 years of experience on Sumerian Cuneiform as he learned how to read it when he was in this teens.

Tzieth wrote:

Ravinoff wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:I love the thought of I.D.
Many people always throw it off to the side because they always make it along the side with religion.

It doesn't have to be a "god"
I.D. is always about Intelligence behind it.
Could be "god" "Alien" "Force" etc...

I don't understand how scientists can't believe in I.D.

So why can't we have been I.D.ed at one point?

Mostly because there's absolutely no evidence of intelligent design beyond what a gang of fringe scientists trying to justify creationism like to spout. Sitchin bases his theories on incorrect translations of the original cuneiform, literal interpretation of myth, and indefensible science. It's dismissed because there's less evidence of ID than of Bigfoot.

What are you basing that Sitchins translations are incorrect on? And please do not quote who I think you are going to quote.. We been through this before with someone else. Sitchin was was one of he first to be able to read it and unlike the others, he came from that end of the world. Sitchin had over 75 years of experience on Sumerian Cuneiform as he learned how to read it when he was in this teens.

Sitchin taught himself cuneiform while working as shipping executive. Never did he take a formal course on reading or interpreting it. His so-called Planet X does not exist, and that's been confirmed by data from the NASA Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer. If there was another major body in our solar system, WISE would've spotted it. His theories are unsupported at best, and utterly disproven at worst.

CMcMillan wrote:

Ravinoff wrote:

Mostly because there's absolutely no evidence of intelligent design beyond what a gang of fringe scientists trying to justify creationism like to spout. Sitchin bases his theories on incorrect translations of the original cuneiform, literal interpretation of myth, and indefensible science. It's dismissed because there's less evidence of ID than of Bigfoot.

How do you know that Evolutionist have not stictched evidence wrong?

Because the theory of evolution has real, hard scientific evidence on its side. Nowhere in the fossil record is there any evidence of anything other than natural Darwinian evolution.

Because the theory of evolution has real, hard scientific evidence on its side. Nowhere in the fossil record is there any evidence of anything other than natural Darwinian evolution.

Really It is all Hard Scientific Evidence?
Really Nothing is ever miss Identified?
Show me the Absolute Scientific proof of Evolution. Don't give me the BS that it takes Millions of years for us to evolve.

Explain the Platapus?

Sitchin taught himself cuneiform while working as shipping executive. Never did he take a formal course on reading or interpreting it. His so-called Planet X does not exist, and that's been confirmed by data from the NASA Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer. If there was another major body in our solar system, WISE would've spotted it. His theories are unsupported at best, and utterly disproven at worst.

Really NASA has proven Planet X isn't real?
you do know they just Identified a NEW ROUGUE planet that has no Solar system that it is just floating around in space?

CMcMillan wrote:

Sitchin taught himself cuneiform while working as shipping executive. Never did he take a formal course on reading or interpreting it. His so-called Planet X does not exist, and that's been confirmed by data from the NASA Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer. If there was another major body in our solar system, WISE would've spotted it. His theories are unsupported at best, and utterly disproven at worst.

Really NASA has proven Planet X isn't real?
you do know they just Identified a NEW ROUGUE planet that has no Solar system that it is just floating around in space?

The WISE telescope was capable of identifying a brown dwarf with a surface temperature around 25°C from a distance of approximately 36 light-years. A planet-sized object within our solar system would've been spotted immediately.

Ravinoff wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:

Sitchin taught himself cuneiform while working as shipping executive. Never did he take a formal course on reading or interpreting it. His so-called Planet X does not exist, and that's been confirmed by data from the NASA Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer. If there was another major body in our solar system, WISE would've spotted it. His theories are unsupported at best, and utterly disproven at worst.

Really NASA has proven Planet X isn't real?
you do know they just Identified a NEW ROUGUE planet that has no Solar system that it is just floating around in space?

The WISE telescope was capable of identifying a brown dwarf with a surface temperature around 25°C from a distance of approximately 36 light-years. A planet-sized object within our solar system would've been spotted immediately.

Really?
July 29, 2005: "It's definitely bigger than Pluto." So says Dr. Mike Brown of the California Institute of Technology who announced today the discovery of a new planet in the outer solar system.
That was what 6 years ago?

November 15, 2012 Astronomers have discovered a potential "rogue" alien planet wandering alone just 100 light-years from Earth, suggesting that such starless worlds may be extremely common across the galaxy.

Pluto is more than 3.6 billion miles
So please explain to me how come we Just discoverd the new planet 6 years ago if we can see so many things?

One only has to look to New York, San Fransisco, and Tokyo Yomiuri to know that Giants exist.






Sorry, couldnt resist

Ravinoff wrote:The WISE telescope was capable of identifying a brown dwarf with a surface temperature around 25°C from a distance of approximately 36 light-years. A planet-sized object within our solar system would've been spotted immediately.

I would agree that we would have seen "something" if it was out beyond Neptune or Pluto with ease...that is assuming the object to be along the plane of our solar system (or galactic plane for that matter). When people think about elliptical orbits...it is always assumed that the body is on this "plane"...but what it it was not. What if the object in question was in an orbit that takes it "above" and "below" the place of our system? When we look for objects that might be approaching us, we do not look up and down. Our telescopes are generally not looking there.

So could a planet sized object be at a distance equal to or less than one AU "above" us...yes.