Human History You’ve Been Taught is Erroneous--Earliest Humans Here Millions of Years Ago

In your quest for truth, empirical, objective research is imperative and can be done by almost anyone. If you choose to, you can find great clarity in matters such as health and wellness, your love relationships, and current events.

However, even the most obvious findings, when they contrast with conventional standards, aren’t always recognized, or even permitted to see the light of day in some instances.

Take the case of the Great Pyramid, which was supposedly built around 2500 BC. The science authorities reject the theories of “amateurs” and “conspiracy theorists” who suggest that the drilled holes (possibly made by a laser-like tool) in sections of the interior of the Great Pyramid far surpass the primitive methods of the ancient Egyptians. It’s estimated that the holes could only be drilled by a drill that had 500 times the force of today’s most sophisticated drills.

Then there is the water erosion damage of the Sphinx, and the sea salt within the Queen’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid, which suggest that the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx are far older than previously thought.

And what about the 2000 ton+ blocks of stone at various ancient sites that humans could not move with our modern technology today? Vibration, or sound technology is a possible answer.

Don’t forget about the famous Egyptian hieroglyphics that very clearly depict, what appear to be, airplanes, helicopters, cars, submarines, and other modern-day technology.

Many other archeological finds throughout history are totally at odds with accepted orthodoxies, like the notion that the first civilization on this planet dates back to about 6000 BC (Sumerians).

Below we list archeological finds from modern times that, if authenticated, change history:

--A Phoenix Gazette article in 1909 featured a cave in the Grand Canyon leading to underground tunnels which contained Egyptian and Asian-looking artifacts, statues, mummies, hieroglyphs, etc., dating to as early as 2000 BC. The Smithsonian Institute became involved in the find.

It suggests that ancient travelers came to America long before Columbus. The fictional movie, “The Lost Treasure of the Grand Canyon,” is based on the site.

There’s a theory that an ancient Asian culture called the Kam, who were known as voyagers, are connected to this find. Their ancestry is linked to the early Egyptians.

--In 1877, in Tuolumne County, California, while forging the Montezuma tunnel, relics including a mortar and pestle were found. The exact location of the find relative to the bed-rock suggests they are about 33 million years old.

--While drilling an artesian well in Illinois, a copper coin-like object with human figures and symbols on it was found in rock deposits. According to information supplied by the Illinois State Geological Survey, the deposits of rock in which the coin was found are between 200,000--400,000 years old. The find suggests the lost culture it belonged to had an economic system.

--Semi-ovoid, man-made metallic tubes were found embedded in 65 million year-old Cretaceous chalk in France.

--A human skeleton was found in layers of rock, 90 feet down in southern Illinois, that dates back over 300 million years.

--An electrical device resembling a spark-plug was found in coal 3000 feet below the surface in a coal mine in Europe.

--Radioactive evidence found in remote desert areas of India, along with relics associated with an unidentified, lost culture suggest atomic bombs have wiped out  cultures prior to recorded history.

--Apparent man-made walls comprised of uniform blocks buried in coal have been found in numerous coal mines, such as in Ohio, Oklahoma, and in Europe. Most date back to over 200 million years ago.

--Perfectly round hematite balls dating back 2 billion years were found in mines in South Africa. One theory is that they were game pieces, others say they could have been part of a weapon system.

Evidence suggests that many human-based cultures have been lost on this planet, going back hundreds of millions of years. 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs were wiped out, along with, very possibly, other civilizations.

Some evidence points to the idea that humans go back over 500 million years on this planet. If you figure one moderately advanced civilization every 50,000 years or so, conservatively estimated, you have about 2000 civilizations over the course of only 100 million years.

In answering the question of why we don’t find extensive evidence of lost civilizations, it’s estimated to take only about 150,000 years or less for even the most well-built man-made structures, such as skyscrapers, to dissolve into dust, and that’s not considering the impact of massive natural (or man-made) disasters, such gigantic asteroids colliding  with Earth. Such collisions don’t just make a big hole in the desert, or harmlessly splash into the ocean. As they puncture the atmosphere and collide with the planet, they bring raging infernos, tidal waves, and earthquakes to entire continents, if not the entire planet, and send up dust clouds that block the sun’s rays.

When you review the original scientific documentation by the experts who made the shocking discoveries (skip the textbook/academic interpretations), you find all sorts of evidence of extremely ancient human existence, such as from 100s of millions of years ago.

Considering all the evidence, the traditional theory of evolution appears to be invalid, although a variation of it could be plausible, in our view.

It’s common to join the herd mentality and embrace prevailing beliefs without questioning the evidence, or lack of it. Humans generally want to belong, believe, and conform to accepted norms. But that approach means they largely avoid critical thought and stop thinking for themselves.

What in your life do you assume to be true that may not be?

Copyright © Scott Petullo, Stephen Petullo

More by this Author


Comments 33 comments

msorensson profile image

msorensson 6 years ago

In my own life, I have found many inconsistencies from what I believed to be true Scott. I tell everyone this, that the only truth they must believe is what they have experienced themselves and even then, they ought to be prepared to abandon those when the time comes. Truth is accessed in layers and those layers are peeled by awareness. Who one is, in every moment is only determined by his or her awareness.

Thank you for this hub. I enjoyed it.


AlexK2009 profile image

AlexK2009 6 years ago from Edinburgh, Scotland

There are holes in every theory and, unless I looked at each case in detail I cannot exclude the evidence you refer to.

However the drawings of things the look like helicopters etc could be stylised representations of birds or animals. And there is no reason why an ancient technology would mirror ours beyond the needs imposed by the technology and we have to try not to impose our own experience on the evidence.

A time slip from the 25th century reveals that archaeologists there have discovered rows of ritual vessels in tiled rooms. The picture reveals they are urinals

I personally would be pleased if it turned out humans were around all those millions of years ago. The alleged 123 million year old relief map of the Urals which on examination fades into ambiguity and mystery is an example of how careful one needs to be.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

Scott

If humans were around that long, millions or billions of years, then why was only the last hundred years when they made technological breakthroughs?

It took them ten thousand years of recorded history to develop what we have today, and they did 99% of that in the last hundred years.

Imagine what they could do in the next ten thousand years, much less a million or a billion.

~:}


Challagar 5 years ago

This absolutely confirms the Bible. The flood is dated previous to the earliest recorded history. Noah has been erroneously believed to be a backwards primitive who couldn't possibly build something as sea worthy as the ark. This could not be further from the truth! The antediluvian age was not a bunch of cavemen and nomadic goat herders. It was a thriving global civilization with technology comparable to or surpassing our own.

There have even been ancient artifacts uncovered that reveal that ancient man observed facts about the solar system that we modern men had to have a space probe to discover! They had global maps predating the time when Antarctica became covered by ice!

Evolution claims that we developed from animals to primitive man, but the evidence from real archaeology points to just the opposite (similarity between fossils proves nothing except that they were similar, nothing more). We have not been getting smarter, but getting dumber (as evidenced by our belief in an illogical and unscientific theory of evolution)--as much as that grates against the pride of modern man! Creation is "subject to decay" as the Bible states!

Sometimes I get frustrated with know-it-alls who think that God does not exist. Everyday we are uncovering evidence that he does exist, but we, as a whole, are in denial. Sometimes I want the end of the age to hurry up and get here so I can say, "I told you so!" LOL


TheChach 5 years ago

Challager

So you believe that the Bible is more logical than the Theory of Evolution? The story of Noah says that one man built an ark large enough to hold a pair of all the animals in the world. All of them. Then he was able to somehow gather every animal from all corners of the earth and put them on this ark. Then he repopulated the earth with these animals. The amount of inbreeding alone would make the animals less likely to survive in the wild. The ark would have be the size of a small country.

He would need to keep food and water for the animals on board. It would be covered in animal feces and unsanitary to the point of lethality. And how would you stop the animals from doing what they do naturally (kill and eat each other) I'm not trying to be a dick in my response and I apologize if I come off that way, but to say that the Theory of Evolution is illogical and then turn around and say that the story of Noah's Ark is, is like saying killing people is bad as you launch a Crusade, another notable hypocrisy of Christianity.


Challagar profile image

Challagar 4 years ago

Chach

Wow, do you really think that Noah was such a simpleton to not think about such contingencies? He was not a simpleton. Ancient people were much more sophisticated and adept at problem solving than we can ever even begin to fathom.

Have you ever heard of Johnathon Gray and read much about ancient technologies that have been unearthed all over the world? If even a hand full of these astounding artifacts are genuine, then our collective jaws should be hitting the floor because of the advancements produced by these ancient civilizations. We have been taught to believe that early civilizations were no more advanced than dirt farmers, but they developed technologies and techniques that puzzle our greatest archeologists and scientists today.

Also, you seem to be thinking that Noah was commanded to take on board every single known species. He was not. He was commanded to take on every "kind" of animal. There were probably as many, if not more, breeds of dogs as there are today, but it is highly unlikely that Noah brought every breed of dog onto the ark. Most likely he brought maybe one pair of dogs on the ark or two or three pairs at the most.

And about the Crusades, try doing a bit of study on the matter before using it as an example of Christian hypocrisy. You might learn that the Crusades were not what you think (I'd write more but I am pressed for time).


Challagar profile image

Challagar 4 years ago

scottpetullo

"it’s estimated to take only about 150,000 years or less for even the most well-built man-made structures, such as skyscrapers, to dissolve into dust, and that’s not considering the impact of massive natural (or man-made) disasters, such gigantic asteroids colliding with Earth."

Interesting you should say this. And interesting that archeologists have found numerous fossils of organic remains of animals which normally decay at rates much faster than metal and stone, yet these fossils are supposedly evidence of evolution and any mention of a global flood that would have much more easily accounted for these fossils to form rapidly is dismissed offhand as religious nonsense.

So, natural disasters, over millions and millions and millions and millions of years, tended to target and fossilize specifically biological matter, but rarely ever affected anything of metal or man-made wooden structures? I certainly could understand the probability of localized disasters affecting plant and animal life much more often than metal and wooden structures, but the disasters you refer to were supposedly global, not merely localized.

Also something that seems to be too coincidental to be actually coincidental is the "coincidence" that no historical document can be produced that can be verifiably dated before 3000-2500 BC, the approximate timing of the global flood. I once challenged a skeptic to dig up a verified document that dates earlier than 3000 BC. Well, naturally he skirted the issue and did not even try to address it. He either couldn't produce the document or didn't even try because he dismissed the challenge out of hand in his arrogance.

I challenge you to seek the truth and righteousness. Jesus said, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be filled." and "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me."


Challagar profile image

Challagar 4 years ago

The dating methods in your response are based upon Uniformitarian presuppositions. Uniformitarianism assumes that all processes have been uniform for the duration of the history of the universe. Except of course when the facts do not fit, in which case it always seems to be a meteor or asteroid that caused widespread upheaval. The possibility of a global flood is always rejected in every case.

"Ancient modern tools. While quarrying limestone in 1786, workers came to a bed of sand about 50 feet below ground level. In the layer of sand, however, they found the stumps of stone pillars and fragments of half-worked rock." A global flood can easily account for something being buried 50 feet below the surface, yet scientists simply dismiss the idea out of hand because of the implications that it suggests.

"As for your comment about documents being found that date prior to 3000 BC, I like that challenge. It would be something to find paper documents from 1000s of years ago, in tact. It would have to be a phenomenal freak of nature for them to survive, perhaps being buried in a stone vault of some sort."

It seems you misunderstood my challenge, which is more my fault than yours since I did not clarify what I meant. Civilized documents of historical value are not just left to themselves to fend against natural decomposition but are carefully stored and recopied and referenced as sources in other documents. Even if the original document has succumbed to the elements the information within it should have lived on in other ways. No, I was not talking about finding the original documents dating back before 3,000 BC because that would be almost futile, but rather about the flow of the information of history. Why was the stream cut off on a global scale at about the same time?

One document succumbing to the ravages of time is understandable, but a whole civilization worth of history being destroyed and forgotten? Barring stone tablets unearthed in archeological digs, how is it that the earliest documents (not simply the original hard copy, but also the copies and references to them) tend to be around the same time? And how is it that some in one or more parts of the world do not date back to 5,000 or even 6,000 BC? Why is the phenomenon on a global scale?

And why is it even a "challenge" to come up with these documents in the first place? Is it because the idea of a global flood is so disagreeable with one's chosen beliefs that any explanation other than the simple one, that they were destroyed in a global flood and that civilization had to basically start over from scratch, can be acceptable?

"It's well documented that the contents of the Bible were chosen over a 300 year political process. Much information, especially that which contrasted with the ideals of the Church, such as reincarnation, didn't make the cut."

True that many documents were excluded from the final compilation of the Biblical canon. This is simply because of the need for consistency and respect for the value of truth. Truth can not be all-encompassing. Truth is divisive in nature since it makes a distinction between fact and falsehood. If one thing is true, then another thing must be false.

For example, Hebrews 9:27 states, "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,..." Either this is true and reincarnation is false, or vice versa, or both are false, but both can not be true at the same time.

"Who knows, maybe findings of texts prior to 3000 years ago were mentioned in the canon that was edited out of the Bible."

The book of Genesis contains a remarkable amount of genealogical information in it. This information may have come from surviving manuscripts carried aboard the ark and compiled into one manuscript. Not being a biblio-archeologist, any attempt on my part to provide an explanation for this would be pure speculation. However, the remarkable amount of information within Genesis about the pre-flood world would suggest that some documents did survive the flood.


Rob 4 years ago

Challagar

I wish I had come upon this thread earlier to put your "bible" theory to it's end. First off, how logical is a global flood? What could possibly cause a disaster of such proportions? Rain alone? Doubt it. Second, let's put an end to the idiocy of there being no written text that predates 3000bc. Have you ever heard of the Sumerians? Apparently not...Check out thier work of religion called The Epic of Gilgamesh. Oh, and it's also 10,000 years old to add. Cunieform written on sandstone tablets that would not have survived a global flood like you and so many others blindly believe. You need to remember that at the end of the day, religion is just a belief. One can have faith in whatever they chose to believe but, it is dangerous to let your faith blind you.


merkaba 4 years ago

the answer to the reason of why they hide the truth and have been for hundreds of years is more racially motivated. the answers you seek are already well known amongst certain groups or races of ppl on this planet that have passed the truths down and tried to keep the ancient knowledge alive. hint___they tell half the truth that the first life was from africa, what they dont teach is that before 6000 years ago there where mostly or most likely all black ppl on this planet and had been that way for millions of years, that being to much to admit the whole truth so they admit yea the first humans are african decent but they want u to beleive they were cave men with brains the size of a peanut lol. in reality science, math, music, society, astrology and astronomy, chemistry, and all knowledge where invented millions of years ago by african man! all races stem from african man! many cover ups and dis-information have been taught and handed down for many years and taught in school and media to hide this truth that american and european powers dont want being want you to know because of their own racist agendas. many artifacts and avenues of research back this up infact many countrys accept this as common fact. africans figured out many things thought to be recent, they figured it out thousands of years ago. flight, the cosmos, technologies, all known for millions of years before modern man


Rob 4 years ago

Merkaba

While I find your theory interesting, true I do not see it. There has been no disinformation involved in history. History changes and evolves with each new discovery. At one point we have thought that human life must have formed in Africa due to the then new discovery of the oldest human bones on record. Since then, new discoveries have been made that have found older bones and fossils that predate the African discovery.

With that being said,

Humans have been around and civilized for much longer than we can possibly imagine. New discoveries around various continents around the globe are starting to show some pretty astounding evidence for this claim. There have been under water cities found on coastlines of Cuba, India and Africa just to name a few. What these findings suggest is that there obviously must have been more land there at one point for these cultures to build these structures. The only problem is, this only would have occured during our last ice age. The ocean coastline would have been much further out because much more of the ocean would have been ice-locked. The last ice age was around 10,000-12,000 years ago. This also supports a global "flood" scenario. As the planet started to go through it's warming phase, it also released loads of water back into the ocean. This in turn flooded out miles of civilized coastline leaving our ancestors to tell of the story by word of mouth. Mind you this happened everywhere on the planet. Look at religion. Almost every religion on the planet has a tale of a great flood. This flood wiped out our written knowledge of a past we once lived but the story of how we lost it stood intact. If something cataclysmic were to happen today we would also lose much of our history. We would have to start over and tell the story of our demise to future generations. It is just a cycle that we have been entwined in for a very long time in my opinion. The human race is a race with amnesia. We cannot remember where we truly came from.


Rob 4 years ago

*110,000-12,000 years ago


merkaba 4 years ago

certainly

but to recieve the truth you must wipe clean the prior dis information that has definitely been taught to you and me and everyone else through schools and media, or you wont be able to see the clear as daytime truth! i admire this topic youve started but ur only speaking of the exact same knowledge on the history channel ive seen recently and readily available knowledge of history being changed all the time you are right but its by the same ppl that was wrong in the first place.

and i could but theres just wayy to much evidence and research on this out there for me to dig up, i can only give you key things to look up if you really want to know, but first i must say the first evidence is common sense- and mine tells me that if every ancient race depicts ppl of color on there walls and paintings then im doubting they where cauccasion. common sense tells me cauccasion ppl arent native to africa or south america or asia, common sense tells me the ppl that are the minority on the whole planet could not have been here as long.. common sense tells me if all races except for cauccasion have melanin and that africans where te first ppl than the whole world over hunderds of thousands of years was colonised by them.

now i will find more but one could start by watching the movie called hidden colors. second check the names and dates and facts in the film, thats just a start to open your mind so you recognise the truth and the lies when u see them,,

and finally it all comes down to what you want to and have to beleeve... some ppl are set to beleev a certain thing because of many different reasons ranging from religious to the way they have been raised and taught or manipulated there whole life, the undeniable fact is that the ones that tend to sit and wait for some archaeologist to tell u that truth usually die waiting for that knowledge and for the superpowers to announce one day they have figured it all out, but the thing is that day wont and cant ever happen because they would be blowing the lid off of there cover ups,

and by they i mean the 1percent or free masons or power hungry evil assholes,,,whatever you want to call them. yes many will read and hear the things i and millions are saying and will totally disregard it because of what they think they know to be tru is so opposedly different from what science and real history points to. i am not on either side nor am i extreme in any way. just a person lucky enuff to have been shown the truth about civilization and put in tune with many ancient secrets through family and have been shown who what and why the leaders of the cauccasion race have been covering up and hiding since the roman era! good day


merkaba 4 years ago

and im not arguing the side of africans im simply explaining why the truth cant and will never be uncovered, about who we are and where we came from. because theres a group of ppl on this planet that know dam well the answers to these questions. and if u think for one second that governments like the usa's hasnt scowered the earth with satelites and instruments that can see barried structures like cities and ocean bottom anomalies. hell the navy mapped the whole floor of all the worlds oceans back in the 70's. u dont think they found anything?? ofcourse they did and do all the time. only thing is, anything they find is either destroyed, stolen and hidden or never spoken of again or surrounded by a top security military base and gaurded, never to see the public eye.


merkaba 4 years ago

ps. the bible is based on an ancient religion or story predating all that is known that is based around the sun dying at night and arising from the dead in the morning and bringing with it the everyday maricales of life that cant live without the sun. the sun was called jesus.


Rob 4 years ago

Merkaba,

Common sense tells me that you lack common sense. I'm sorry to be rude but this is absolutely absurd.

If you are really trying to base an argument over the fact that cave paintings depict only people of color, you need to do some research and a bit of logical thinking. Cave paintings are not portraits, okay. There aren't even facial features on most of them. They are just humanoid shapes painted or etched into stone. Just Google this one up to broaden your own mind, Gobustan. This area has depictions of white figures on their walls.

Common sense would tell anyone that Caucasian people obviously aren't from South America, Asia or Africa. Caucasian people found their roots in European nations. This is not what I've been taught by " the man ", this is simple LOGICAL thinking.

Also, your argument about Melanin has to do with what? Melanin is found in skin to protect against sunlight. Another obvious observation would be that South America and Africa get much more sunlight than say...England, Russia, Germany, France, Iceland...do you see where I'm going with this? The more sunlight, the more Melanin. There is no big mystery there. Also Caucasian people do not lack Melanin. The only thing on this planet that lacks Melanin is an Albino. It is pretty obvious that Caucasians are not Albino as there have been Albino Caucasian people to be born. They lack all pigment, even the Iris ( colored part of the eye ) is affected and is pink in color. What is funny is you are just further disproving your own theory. A Caucasian can move to Africa and catch a tan. After a few generations their offspring will naturally start to develop this tan skin. A colored person could move to Europe and will remain colored. Even after many generations they will not magically turn white. Catch my drift?

Do not take this the wrong way because I am not racist in the least bit, just a realist. I am half Caucasian and half Colored so race is erroneous in this argument. Maybe you should stop being so one-track minded and stop thinking that the White man is always out to get everyone.


merkaba 4 years ago

no i dont catch your drift,, evolving over hundreds of thousands of years is a little different from moving from africa to africa a few years and catching a tan. you speak from here say, not facts. and yes id say they would have painted them white if they were white. first caucassions are from cacus mountains.

and yes i know thats not what you was taught that they didnt come from africa, thats why its a fraud. all races stem from africa and moor settlers that inhabited the whole planet and every race at its roots has recorded stories of the moors bringing knowledge and society.

and yea i know they dont magically turn white it took many millenia! i didnt kno you beleev in magic no wonder you havent picked up on any of the real truths about this.

and i wouldnt take anything the wrong way from someone that speaketh the discovery channel tongue lol. u obviously have a collection of tv knowledge u hold to be tru and dont have a clue of what has actually happened on this planet and will never becuz of this blindness. sad. and yes you are rasicst and hate yourself and you dont even know it. and yes they are out to get everyone!!! if ur as smart as u try and act on here than u know theres many ways that statment can be taken. if u want to sound moronic you can argue that they are on ur side. u say your mixed but u dont even want to hear ur ancestors true stroy lol dam they really got you. trouble is if ur half whit ur half black and to them u mite as well be african 100%. sorry but u will never be white so you can walk and talk it all you want and watch all there hitory channels and learn all there fake knowledge they have put out but bottom line. ur goin down with the rest of us bud if we let them continue to run planet earth the way they have for the last couple thousand years or so and continue to pull the wool so to speak with not only this subject but others as well. many other things they are upto thats just as evil as changing history to favor their beleifs. but o ofcourse you know that cant be true rite? becuz they say so rite?


Rob 4 years ago

Merkaba,

Obviously everything I said went clear over your head. Trying to manipulate what I said is just a little childish. Try to understand what I'm saying...BLACK PEOPLE DON'T TURN WHITE!!! No matter what environment or climate you place them in. I don't care how many millennium you wait. You are so wrapped up in a nonsense belief that you chose to discount all scientific findings. You are the one who is blind. Just because some crack pot came up with a theory that black people once ruled the world doesn't necessarily make it true.

As far as my knowledge of history and the wold goes, Discovery channel can only take you so far. Funny how you have to insult my intelligence. Maybe you do this because you feel your intelligence is inferior to mine. Try going to school and paying attention, you might learn a thing or two. Might I ask where your amazing sources for knowledge come from? Oh that's right, some independent film maker's documentary? Get real. I also find it funny how you don't even argue your points that you tried to make. What about cave paintings only depicting colored people? What about your nonsense of Melanin? Did you at least learn a little from that? I would like to think that you actually went back and researched my claims but you probably didn't even. I took at look at your claims and confronted you with actual questions and problems with your theory. In return you bash me and call me "Discovery Channel smart" and racist. These are acts of someone who is scared. Scared to confront the truth that surrounds them daily and so they dodge and avoid the facts. You can try to make up your own stories all you want but truth is undeniable.

Give me ONE viable, concrete piece of evidence to support your claims. Just ONE. I want your resources as well.


merkaba 4 years ago

lol you are the one who spoke condinsendingly to my knowledge first. now if you want to keep speaking as tho like saying what you said went over my head, then i can do the same sir. now my resources are the same resources available to everyone, you just dont listen to them. and i can tell ur not a listener becuz i sad u can start with that film, its not even close to what id call my resources lol, i simply said one could start there to prepare yourself for the real truths out there, lets not manipulate my words thats childish remember lol. and to beleev that id honestly think im inferior to u ar any1 in anyway is absolutely hilarious ud even say that. lets not get all bent outa shape lil buddy.

and as far as your knowledge of history and the world?? ha please! u one of these ppl that form ur ridiculous opinions on ur own and speak of them like ur some dam scholar or some shit lol. many cultures and ppla world wide will tell you the exact words im saying,,, its not just my crack pot ideas about the world from some half baked history channels specials and late night net surfing. ur rite i am not arguing my points, thats when and opinion turns to imposing ur world views onto others forcefully. u internet scholars can play that game all you want. im simply stating a view some ppl may not know of that most of the world that make up most of the population beleev.

so yea why argue when the things im talking about is a common knowledge, even a religion or a science in many areas of the globe. how could what u said go over my head when you are so far beneath me in knowledge on the subject.

and finally.. the truth grows like a seed and is unstoppable. maybe tomarro, maybe ten years from now, someday sadly u will be forced to deal with the real truths out there that i speak of, we all will and do alredy on many levels.

o well i wont ruin ur spreading of history channel repeats any longer, and yes very nice talking to you also

good day


Rob 4 years ago

Merkaba

More importantly I want you to try to make me understand your theory in full. Exactly how did it work? Let me just play along for a minute and say that there were only one original race and that race was African. Now lets say that they migrated globally. Now lets take it further and say through time they changed. I ask what process made them jump from being African to Caucasian, or African to Asian? This is your problem. Races do not spontaneously change race just because they move to a different location. If your theory is to be correct than this spontaneous change of race would had to have happened. Do you honestly support that theory?


Rob 4 years ago

Honestly, I don't care what you think. You are just a Troll.


merkaba 4 years ago

the knowledge is very literally the collective type. its the ignorance and spoiled laziness of modern man to want the answers to the universe at the push of a button.

see once you know the truth u kno all becuz the inbetweens are easily predictable or described. ever have dejavu of living another life? the feelings are stronger as a child and most ppl cant remember. wonder wats after death? are we alone in the universe? whats holding us back from evolving into being able to use 100 percent of our brain power at will? all these questions have been answered for millions of years. the worlds most powerful and sinister groups have control of these secrets but couldnt always keep a lid on it so they are now known as the illuminati group that conspiracy theorists dwell on. they are really just the desendandts and keepers of those who have stolen and or hid these secrets such as the roman catholic church and etc etc. and if u think they wouldnt want to hide or discredit an african beggining of life and spark the rejuvenation of all these ancient secrets theyve fought wars over to destroy, change, steal, and or hide, then ur sadly mistaken.

glad i am part of the growing population of the enlightened


merkaba 4 years ago

yes all races did come from africans wh spread out. what ur forgetting is that the time lenghts of history are alot longer than previously taught. instead of 6 thousand years we are talking millions and hundreds of millions as much as 600 million years!!! so yes evolution took place!!! and then alot of those races mixed with other races and this constant evolving and mixing over millions of years is where the races came from. and ud be hard pressed to find to many scientists that would tell u thats impossible!!! hell they beleev we evolved from apes in a couple million years!!!! so to think theyd tell you skin color cant change over hundreds of millions of years tells me ur not as swift on all this as u think u are...


merkaba 4 years ago

a troll?? reaally? u chose to call names and u chose troll?? jeez dont hurt me too bad! i guess that makes you a fairy! lmao


merkaba 4 years ago

good to see ppl talking about it tho... this is the beginning of the part of the ppls life in the convo where they will start to become enlightened. i can tell u are smart but a tad younger than me and havent been thru that moment in life i refer to as the great shattering where u suddenly realise everything in life or the nature of everythingin life is not what you thought it was. and ur forced to look at the bigger picture. i dont blame ya nor will i call names or disrespect you in anyway. keep wandering whats out there!

peace!


merkaba 4 years ago

wow just looked at ur profile lol so u are phsycic huh, a religious one at that. do you know how god feels about phsycics? its a sin! just thought id mention that slite contradictory. so tell me then what happens after one dies. and i actually do alredy know so you dont have to try and convince me, just asking simply what in ur professional opinion happens when a person dies?whats after death?


Rob 4 years ago

Merkaba,

Once again what I say goes clear over your head. Since you do not like to do research, let me do the work for you...

Troll (Internet)In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

Hope this clears things up just a bit.

Also, just for your information the profile you must have looked at was not mine. I don't even have a profile on here. Even if, I am not tied down to any religion. Religion in my eyes all comes from one base story. All that changes from religion to religion are names, places and the amount of gods. God in my eyes is not a physical being but rather a life force. Psychic? Come on. I'm not the one babbling on about humans using a full 100% of their brain. If you actually did research, which I can tell from previous conversations that you don't, then you would also know that statement to be untrue. Here let me enlighten the so called " enlightened " one...

" The myth that humans only use 10% of their brains has been around for a long time, but it is not true. We use 100% of our brains.

Our brains are divided into many different regions that serve different functions. For example, your eyes are directly connected to several specific parts of your brain. These areas connect to several other brain regions called "visual cortices," all of which connect to other regions in turn. Each of these brain regions receives visual information from your eyes, but does different things with that information. For example, some areas in the visual cortices are devoted to detecting the direction in which objects are pointing, or are specifically tuned to detect movement. Other parts of your brain then weave all this information back together to create "what you see."

Similarly, there are brain regions devoted to each of your other senses, regions to control body movements, regions to manipulate memory, regions for language. These regions can be further subdivided; one region of your brain that detects touch, for example, is organized sort of like a map of your body (called a homunculus), except that proportionately more brain area is devoted to touch in especially sensitive regions like fingers and lips. (In fact, this is partly why your fingers and lips are more sensitive to touch than, say, your leg. Try reading Braille with your leg!).

Recently, medical imaging technologies that measure activity in people's brains without surgery have enabled scientists to answer questions like "what parts of the brain are especially active when performing a complex memory task?", "what parts are most active during different types of sleep?", or even "what parts are active during recognition of a particular brand of car?" These techniques can help scientists better understand how the different regions of the brain work together to create the complex web of sensation, experience, and knowledge that we all enjoy. They also demonstrate clearly that every region of the brain lights up for something.

Where did the "10% myth" first come from? It isn't clear. It might be because less than 10% of the cells in our brains are actually neurons (nerve cells) - the rest are called glial cells. Glial cells perform all kinds of different tasks, from insulating the brain's "wires" to maintaining the brain's chemistry to helping regulate the many connections among neurons (called synapses) in which memory can be stored. Glial cells aren't neurons, but they are certainly being used! The myth could also have arisen because much of the brain is fairly adaptable, allowing people (especially young people) to recover most of their capabilities even after losing parts of their brains to injury, cancer, or surgery. This isn't always true, however; it is harder for older adults to recover function after brain injury, and we know that even small amounts of brain damage (such as strokes) in just the wrong places can be devastating. "

Nice read,huh?

Now back to the race thing. Is it really so hard to conceive that if different breeds of the same species exist within the animal kingdom that the same cannot be true for humans as well? I mean after all we are just animals. A rottweiler and a golden retriever are two entirely different breeds but can still mate and produce offspring. A rottweiler breeding with a rottweiler will always make a rottweiler. A golden retriever breeding with a golden retriever will always make a golden retriever. Even the theory of evolution has flaws. It says that one group can spontaneously change into another but fails to describe how. If evolution were so air-tight as you believe it to be, why haven't we been able to find our own roots? Where is " the missing link "? Evolution is a good start, but far from a full proof explanation. Remember that at the end of the day evolution is just a theory. Theory is not fact. Believing that people can just spontaneously change race is no better than believing that spontaneously combustion is true. To add to the point you failed to make, breeding within different cultures will not lead to different races being created. If anything, it does the exact opposite. If a white and a black conceive a child, like me, that child is neither black nor white. That child is a mix whose skin will be brown. This is the future of the planet. One day, everyone will be the same color due to the constant mixing of breeds. There will be no black, no white, no yellow or red. Just brown.

Merkaba, I can tell you are an intelligent fellow. Please, I urge you to use this intelligence in a more productive form.


Rob 4 years ago

Merkaba,

I also have to add how laughable it is that you chose these words, "glad i am part of the growing population of the enlightened".

Oh, so you are enlightened eh? The Illuminati:AKA The Enlightened Ones. LOL! You are just so full of contradiction it is amusing! Now, go ahead and try to come back with a response that only further digs your own hole.


Rob 4 years ago

Merkaba,

And also, you have no one but yourself to blame for my condescending tones with you. If you hadn't started with your whole "common sense" bit, which was an ill attempt to insult my intelligence, then I wouldn't have had to have used those tones with you. So Good day and Good life to you my internet adversary.


MC 4 years ago

Intriguing subject, great debate. It's my personal opinion that someone's inability to spell commonplace words and conjugate simple sentences detracts from their credibility as an intelligent researcher. Sounds like somebody (merkaba) watched Zeitgeist on Youtube and now knows everything there is to know.


NateB11 profile image

NateB11 4 years ago from California, United States of America

Very interesting, I was not aware of the evidence of very ancient civilizations and the existence of human beings millions of years ago.


Al Barrs 3 years ago

When one takes a close look at the technology of the pre-flood, antediluvian, world and its civilization one can easily understand the ancient high technology artifacts occasionally found, usually deep in the earth, one can better understand most, if not all of these "ancient mysteries". Ignore the unproven theory of species evolution and study the Book of Genesis, the oldest human history in existence, and one can begin to grasp logical and simplistic answers for all this ancient mystery and artifacts. Remember the Great Flood wasn't all that occurred during that transitional period. There were great volcanoes erupting, huge earthquakes that cracked open the continents and all the water falling and issuing from the earth churned up the entire earth's surface into a large mud puddle. When all this subsided new continents formed and our post-flood world began to dry out with large basins of lakes and oceans remaining. This churning of the earth's surface buried all the ancient artifacts found to date and many more are probably still buried, including a huge population of humans and animals... No one actually knows exactly how many previous civilizations have lived on the earth...we do know that there were at least two, one pre-flood and the last post-flood in which we live today...


quotations profile image

quotations 3 years ago from Canada

I too have read the accounts of anomalous archaeological finds which suggest that there may have been earlier civilizations, and I have always considered it possible. However, one piece of evidence against the existence of humans that long ago, let alone of civilizations, can be found in genetics. It is my understanding that scientists are able to trace back through genetic analysis the approximate time when we became homo sapiens and became genetically different from our prehuman ancestors. This figure is about three million years ago. So unless these earlier civilizations were non-human we were not around that far back. As for the possibility that these artifacts were left by earlier non homo sapien species, this is unlikely because the fossil remains of cromagnon, neanderthal and earlier humanoids show that they were not advanced and barely used stone implements.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working