Ancient human metropolis found in Africa

You missed an opportunity to start a reality show!

Yeah, and smoke a big fat fatty!

Kenny, I thought every generation now was a new civilization.

"Who needs science, let us pray."

LOL Fitting slogan for 21st century America.

Again:

"The creation of man seems to be described as a type of cloning and what we would today consider in vitro fertilization."

Do you mean to say that you believe that this is a possibility?

Let's not forget that people didn't accept that the earth was spherical and not the center of the universe for religious reasons. It is because they failed to be skeptical of their religious beliefs and they ignored the scientific and mathematical data that showed that the earth was spherical.

When did the Catholic church finally admit that Galileo was right? 1993!

Do you say its impossible?? I cant say one way or another, which is why I have stated that there needs to be scientific investigation.... Things on that nature cannot be proven or disproven, which is why they are so good at causing hypothetical debates..... Still with this and any other type of "new discovery" one must keep options open and also read between the lines when reading something in which the author has imputed their own personal beliefs onto......

Exactly, he source is questionable and the news has not appeared in any major publication. That, coupled with the strange consipracy-theory-like clams about Aliens and Hybrid Humans tells me this is all gooblygook (Not to mention the guy is a 2012 doomsdayer).

Interesting, but unfortunately doesn't pass the test for credibility. Thats why it hasn't been mentioned in any geographic or archaelogical publication, magazine, or journal of any repute.

Agreed... just pseudo-science. Good call.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tellinger

According to Wikipedia he's a musician that latched onto this theory. I took an Archaeoastronomy course in college and spent a lot of time talking about the Sumerians. There definately were some strange things about that culture that support this hypothesis, but I agree that Tellinger lacks scientific rigor. It would be equally unscientific to dismiss this claim until sufficient evidence is produced to discredit it.

Did you read the whole article? Particularly the quote:

"The creation of man seems to be described as a type of cloning and what we would today consider in vitro fertilization."

Seriously?

and immaculate conception is so plausible

Thank you. :)

Exactly

dispite translational diffrences that could be drawn any where between 'alien' or 'angel' and 'slave' or 'second class citizen' this is still cool

Fo sho.

Can you refute such? There is much that we don't know, in fact, what we don't know is infinitely greater than what we do know.

There's no proof of aliens gods or hybrid humans. It's unscientific to make a claim that there were. Just like it's unscientific to make the claim that God made everything.

This is creationism. Different story though. I'm going to guess that if this was actually examined by credible scientists we'd find that this whole story is a bullshit set of arguments based on fallacious conclusions made from made up "facts."

everyone without the scientific background that is unable to personally refute it should NOT take this as true because we do not know and as you say, there is much that we don't know. so not knowing doesn't equate to taking as truth. That is known as being gullible. The old adage applies "if it is too good to be true it probably is." This is too cool to be true. I could only hope I am a half god hybrid but to take this literally is comical.

Until a significant body of scientific evidence and scientific consensus (rather than this guy) tells me that aliens came down, then I would have to reevaluate. I sincerely doubt that is the case, although as I said before it would be AWESOME if it were true.

There are two things I would like to point out from this story that actually do have a scientific basis:

1. It mentions that the Sumerian tablets indicates that a race of beings was engineered about the same time as our first common female ancestor existed, about 150,000 to 250,000 years ago. DNA evidence gathered by the Human Genome Project has confirmed this to be true, stating that all the mitochondria of human beings that are alive today come from this individual. For the Sumerians to know that much about our origins is quite impressive, since it was unknown to our civilization until just recently.

2. The story also mentions a flood that wiped out mankind and a man who survived it, due to intervention of a "god" that took pity on him and instructed him to build a boat. Obviously, as was stated in the article, this seems to be the source of the story of Noah, which is found in the Bible. What is interesting to note about this claim is that there actually was a flood that occurred about 4,000 years ago, based on geological evidence taken from around the world. The layer of soil, from which evidence of a great flood sweeping the earth has been proven, is known as the "antediluvian layer," and its existence implies that a flood did in fact sweep the globe for unknown reasons. Once again, for the Sumerians to record that is really remarkable since there is no evidence of geology in their civilization.

As a disclaimer, I am not making any assertions that the claim of aliens, rouge planets, and human hybrids is true. What I am saying, and this is coming from someone with a scientific background (I am a biochemist,) is the fact that ancient people knew about these things without any direct evidence seems to be more than coincidence.

"It mentions that the Sumerian tablets indicates that a race of beings was engineered about the same time as our first common female ancestor existed"

No it doesn't. The dating method they used to get that answer is first of all very questionable, especially when they don't want to reveal the name of who did the dating. Second, that website doesn't mention that the Sumerian story of Atrahasis mentions a year, date, or time that corresponds to this ancient civilization claim. The only correspondence there is that the mitochondrial DNA modern humans have dated back to 150-250,000 years ago. Nowhere in the Sumerian text can I find any correspondence. What is being said on the website is that this ancient civilization and the questionable way of dating it corresponds to the mitochondrial DNA. So there is no proof validating 1) the date being correct from extrapolating Orion's belt. 2) Sumerian texts indicating a time or date or some way of figuring out a time or date of this ancient civilization. The only thing they are saying that is correct is that IF this date IS correct, they would been contemporaries with mitochondrial DNA 'eve' (as much as it pains me to say call her that). That's it.

Onto the next point... So you are a proponent for the global flood which is a creationist theory in order to support the bible which that story was taken from egyptian beliefs and so on... Ok well I think the wikipedia page on Flood Geology sums it up best

"While it is not geological evidence, believers in Flood Geology also point out that flood stories can be found in many cultures, places, and religions; this, they suggest, is evidence of an actual event in the historic past because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories.[46]
Anthropologists generally reject this view and highlight the fact that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts, where unusually severe floods can be expected to occur occasionally and will be recorded in tribal mythology [47]. Geologists William Ryan and Walter C. Pitman, III have suggested that the rapid filling of the Black Sea (c.7,000 BC) at the end of the last Ice Age may be responsible for the flood myths in the Near East."

And if you search for flood geology... you will find creationist websites... yeah. NOT CREDIBLE. and it is appalling a person of science is pretty much regurgitating pseudoscience, although geology is not your expertise.

Read this http://www.atlantaapologist.org/rtb/resources/Papers/floodgeology.htm

To basically sum it up...the dating method is questionable at the least, the sumerian text doesn't correspond to anything, the mitochondrial DNA modern humans have traced to 150-250,000 years ago is ONLY LINKABLE when you ASSUME that the DATING was CORRECT.

THERE IS NO ANTEDILUVIAN LAYER! ha! There has been NO PROOF OF A FLOOD SWEEPING THE EARTH! omfg i can't believe you're a scientist. please someone with a geology degree get on this conversation

"Astronomical dating can be a powerful tool for establishing absolute chronologies, but...
it can easily produce precise and impressive looking results based on invalid assumptions –
results so precise and impressive they may not be questioned by scholars in other fields.
—John Steele, "The Use and Abuse of Astronomy in Establishing Absolute Chronologies.

It looks like there are lots of things that you can't believe.

No matter what you may think, there is no amount of condescending phrases that can change my profession and the information that I have obtained from acquiring it. I was instructed in college that the layer of soil does exists and that there is evidence it all over the world. Perhaps believing in an instructor's expertise was naive. However, I am sorry that your level of self-esteem makes it necessary for you to insult those who don't agree with you.

Even if we were to have a debate on whether or not the arguments presented were credible, your reply made it quite clear that you are not looking for a debate. Hence, you'll receive none from me because to argue with someone who chooses insults over reason and researches their arguments with only the internet seems like a pointless waste of effort. In my opinion, there are more reliable sources of information than a publicly edited bulletin board. However, I suppose the next time I see your opinion posted on the net, I should keep mine to myself.

It looks like you'll believe anything. yeah i did say condescending things and that was simply because your points were not cohesive in explaining anything that I didn't get from the first time reading through the article. i'm sorry, lets get over that. you avoided all of my points so why bother responding at all? the instructor in college told you that there was a layer of soil that is from the same age ALL over the globe? and that layer of soil was caused from a global flood that covered the WHOLE earth at ONE TIME? Alright I'll ask my geology professor about it on monday, deal?

as far as the whole insult over reason thing... did you read anything i wrote? I didn't do ANY research (it was obviously not needed just from the lack of sources, explanations, and failed connections...oh yeah and gods from the sky...) and apparently NEITHER DID YOU! you're repeating what you heard from that website and from your professor so get off your high horse. I did a quick search of your so called layer of flooding and guess what it came up with nothing. If you want I will further research it through geology journals and get back to you. this bulletin board is NOT a source of information and i dont know where you got that idea, this is a discussion board...

Kari_Heaberlin

My information has it that there are eight to nine 'great floods' in ancient records.

That is very interesting sleepdirt. By ancient records do you mean written accounts or do you mean geological evidence? I wouldn't be surprised that there were more floods because, according to the Sumerian accounts, the floods were caused by planetary disturbances stemming from intersecting orbits of this and another planet. Without saying that there is another planet that crosses earth's orbit, it would explain a naturally occurring force behind a worldwide flood and the amount of events.

To II386: Can I give you some advice? If you want to share ideas and discuss topics with someone, don't try to belittle them into agreement at every turn. It doesn't always appeal to the delicate and sophisticated natures of those in academia. If I may, the bulletin board I was referring to was both the internet and Wikipedia, not this current feed. However, to explain my rationale or my talking points to you is, as I said before, a wasted effort. In an attempt to merely put my 2-cents in, I was instead insulted by a rude, callow and unaccountable person on the internet. Why would I retort to such an immature mode of discussion and drop below a standard level of propriety in order to ratify with you what I have already discovered for myself? My reply to your ugly comment was simply food for thought. In other words, a caveat to inform you that your intellectual success will not be measured by how many theories you can offensively depreciate, but how reasonably you can argue your own. In this case, your sullied an opportunity to present a valid argument by severing the civil discourse which is the infrastructure of a true debate. In all honesty, I hope that you do find the real truth in this matter, but try not to spit in its face when it reveals itself to you.

Once again, you avoid all of what I had previously stated in a weak straw man attempt. All of what I had presented is ignored and you claim I hurt your feelings "at every turn," instead of providing substance. In an attempt to ratify to another person you are obligated to ratify it to yourself first. You attempted to do so but after my response you make no further attempts and complain only how mean I was to you. In my "callow" opinion you have a duty as a person of science to do a reasonable investigation before you put your 2-cents in. The comment you posted combined with your claim to fame as a scientific person put you in the limelight for criticism. A scientist making claims outside of their realm of expertise without at least doing their own investigation (whether it be a survey of google, wikipedia, or journal searches) is irresponsible. Should you have researched or had any intuition to question what disputable facts were present (as a scientist should do) you could have seen how the comments you posted were combined in a way that cannot be proven. Linking the reality of the data from the Human genome project and saying that the Sumerians somehow knew that date and origin is a stretch and cannot be derived from anything I read in that article.

The comment from Sleep Dirt provides exactly what I am attempting to communicate--there are great floods but there are not global floods, as you stated, that can be found in the geologic record from around the world at the same time.

Just to spell it out for you...
"What is interesting to note about this claim is that there actually was a flood that occurred about 4,000 years ago, based on geological evidence taken from around the world. The layer of soil, from which evidence of a great flood sweeping the earth has been proven, is known as the "antediluvian layer," and its existence implies that a flood did in fact sweep the globe for unknown reasons."

This would be a valid statement with the exception of a few key words. Those words are "from around the WORLD" and "implies a flood did in fact SWEEP THE GLOBE." Those parts are grossly invalid. Therefore you two cents on both points were invalid. They were claimed without any research done on your part and yet you claimed to have credibility as a person of science. This, and don't take it personally, is a despicable thing to do.

Now that I am pointing it out a little nicer, do you finally have any rebuttal?

Actually this is a creationist story. The people at this website posit that we were created from apes through cloning and genetic engineering by Aliens from the planet Nibru.

Still creationism. Still bullshit. Different story.

Sorry, I'm not sure how this in any way damages the Creationists viewpoint.

"160,000 to 200,000 BCE"

That part.

Totally seperate from what has been said before but that doesn't mean one should always ignore it. I like how you waited for evidence to even consider the arguement(honestly).

It seems that they would have found evidence of beings from outer space by now. And many ancient civilizations mined gold. Isn't it just possible that there were advanced civilizations in Africa and they were not dependent upon space travelers to be advanced? Civilizations rise and fall. There is still debate over what caused the Mayan Empire.
As far as slavery, it was probably common everywhere very early.

umm we have massive ammounts of evidence that we were vistied by aliens..what planet you been living on?All we need is the aliens themselves...it still boggles my mind how grown people don't understand that most likely beings from another place would not be physical entities...LOl silly humans

Iamfree, don't forget they all have bulbous heads, big round eyes and they are no where as smart as us humans. I am totally dumbfounded though on how they make and fly those spaceships. The odds of them finding a place to exist with as many galaxies as there are is just plain ludicrous. It is totally unlikely! We have to be on the only life supporting rock in all of creation. Seriously!

I poke fun at the silly humans as well. Ego's, religion and politics are probably the biggest stumbling blocks to the true reality that exists. We continue to discover new and fascinating things all the time. Truth is, these discoveries or possibilities have always been present and just waiting for us to find them. I am quite certain as humans on earth, we are far ahead of some and very far behind with our evolution compared to other civilizations belonging to other planetary systems. Logical thinking can only support this line of thought, providing we don't put our indoctrinated religious blinders on.

Just my opinion and observation.