Re: Ice Age Settlement At High Altitude

[Rockhopper]

P.S. -- You two would irritate each other less if you would get to know the Foe button.

All in good fun Ken. 

All of the things you mention do not refer to Antarctica in any name, shape or form. The book of Genesis was written many years after Biblical times. It is based on the writings of the 6 Rabbi's of Alexandria, written in about 700BC, (the basis of Judaism). The other religious books were taken from that. All were taken from The Epic of Gilgamesh et al.

There were 160 Scholars who translated the Sumer texts, all from different places, cultures and languages, who all came to the same conclusion only Sitchin and Veilokovsky didn't. So who do you believe? Scholars with no axe to grind or the latter two who were into commercialisation? (Selling books to gullible people perhaps?) I know who I believe Ken.

Furthermore when Sitchin etc. say that the translation says that the Kings of Sumer lived for 10,000+ years and we know that no human can live that long, then it calls into question everything else that is stated in those texts.  Yes, myths and legends have a tiny basis in truth but are embellished over time. To believe them is to have faith in them and faith is something that is not based in reality. Many rulers in the past used self-agrandisement to make them sound bigger and better than they really were. Myths and legends are filled with such material.

As I said before, I have Celtic and Viking ancestry and I am pretty familiar with all their myths and there is nowhere where a land mass (Antarctica) or any other land mass on the south is mentioned. That's why I asked you for any such myths.

Tim.

[Ken McClellan]

there is nowhere where a land mass (Antarctica) or any other land mass on the south is mentioned.

Well, I suppose it depends on where you would place Atlantis, St. Helena or whatever giant landmass was along Earth's equator and outside the Straits of Gibraltar at the time of Ogygia, the Fortunate Isles, Greater Ireland, Avalon, the Isle of the Blessed, Thierna na Oge, land of the departed spirits, etc.

[Rockhopper]

First of all Atlantis refers to the Island of Thera/Santorini. The Minoan colony there was destroyed by a huge volcanic eruption. The story by Plato was conflated by H.P. Lovecraft in one of his many scifi stories.

Ogygia; was in the Greek story of the Odyssey, purely fictional. Homer, like Plato was a story-teller. The Odyssey is a fantastic story but fictional.

the Fortunate Isles; were a construction of Plutarch and Setorius and referred to the Canary Islands.

Greater Ireland; is in the Saga of Eric the Red. 'Írland it mikla' in old Norse (means a Great Island). I am aware of it. It probably refers to Newfoundland or Greenland. The Vikings never ventured further south than Gibraltar by sea.

Avalon; (Apple Trees in old Cymric) is the old Welsh (Cymric) name for the Isle of Man. Named because of the apple trees that were prolific there. Geoffery of Monmouth discussed it in his book "The Kings of Britain" circa 1150AD. He's credited of creating the myth of King Arthur. His writings are regarded as "Pseudohistory".

Thierna na Oge; The creator is unknown but it first appeared in Aquaman in 1986. 

land of the Departed Spirits; A biblical tale from Proverbs I think.

None of them make any reference to Antarctica or even any land south of the equator.

All of them are just stories Ken, not necessarily factual at all. You could say that Grimm's Fairy Tales are all true too. But would that be correct? I think not!

It wasn't until the Norse explorers had got back from the Americas circa 1200AD that people in Europe new that land was there. Columbus was aware that land was there he just thought it was Asia.

Tim.

[Agartha]

P.P.S. -- "the human genome contains 223 genes that do not have predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree."  -- The Genesis Race by Will Hart, p. 27

^^ haven't heard of this and will research and come to my own conclusions.

I love these threads and how differently we all think.... we don't have to irritate each other by not agreeing with one another, this is what great discussions are all about... and I learn something with every post here.

[Monk (in hiding)]

Fee-fi-fo-fum;

I smell the blood of an Englishman.

Be he alive or be he dead,

I'll grind his bones to make my bread.


lsol

[Monk (in hiding)]

I repeat just in case you missed it before: There is no evidence that Aliens had anything to do IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANS!


No evidence we evolved from apes.

Optical Illusions: The Challenge of Tracing Human Origins


If tracing this lineage from our earliest ancestor seems inconsistent or spotty, that’s because it is. We have a makeshift model of human history that had been cobbled together by geneticists, archaeologists, anthropologists and biologists. Finding common ground and an overall consensus among these different disciplines makes finding the truth even harder. Looking back at human history is an optical illusion; new archaeological discoveries are always challenging what we already know, and constant revisions are being made.

In 2013, a major find would cause further controversy within the already complex grouping of hominids. In Dmanisi, Georgia, an archaeological dig was under way. After finding a series of four similar-looking skills during the dig, the fifth one looked irregular. This skull had a small braincase, large teeth and a powerful jaw, but judging by the skull’s shape and structure, it must have been attached to a long-limbed, human-like body, not a short-limbed, muscular body like Australopithecus. An apelike skull attached to a human body are features that never co-existed prior to this discovery. This has led scientists to believe that the Homo Subspecies of Ergaster, Erectus, Rudolfensis, Habilis and so forth, may have actually been one species that simply looked different - much like the varying appearances of different races we encounter today. This find has been known as “Skull 5”, and has already caused a debate about how the homo species should be classified. This finding will spawn a debate until a newer find is unearthed and new data is presented. These revisions will continue until we either run out of fossils or more advanced technology allows us to shed light on this ongoing mystery.


Researchers claim Neanderthals were NOT a sub-species of modern humans


Researchers have identified new evidence supporting the growing belief that Neanderthals were a distinct species separate from modern humans (Homo sapiens), and not a subspecies of modern humans. The study also found that the Neanderthal nasal complex was not adaptively inferior to that of modern humans, and that the Neanderthals' extinction was likely due to competition from modern humans and not an inability of the Neanderthal nose to process a colder and drier climate, as has been previously suggested.

http://www.ancient-origins.net

[Ken McClellan]

It wasn't many years back all the scientists were saying there was no way in hell that homo sapiens sapiens ancestry had anything but maybe a distant cousin line in common with Neanderthal. And I was a contrarian on the DNA Forums claiming Neanderthal ancestry based on markers in my mtDNA. And, sure enough, years later they got around to admitting that if your line came out of Eurasia the chances were good that 2.5 to 3 percent of your mtDNA was descended from Neanderthal. (Which makes total sense if a foreign ... as in ET ... humanoid came to Earth and wanted to eat and breathe appropriately for this planet, what you would do is have a three-parent child with alien Ydna and Xdna and earthly mtDNA.) Believe as you wish.

[Sponsored content]