Jump to content

Ancestral home of all human beings discovered by scientists


Rushen Spy

Recommended Posts

Quote

Scientists have pinpointed a fertile river valley in northern Botswana as the ancestral home of all human beings

The earliest anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) arose 200,000 years ago in a vast wetland south of the Zambezi river which was the cradle of all mankind, a new study has revealed. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/homo-sapiens-origin-humans-botswana-zambezi-river-a9174396.html

 

Meanwhile, millions if not billions of people still think the earth is only 6,000 years old, and some of them even think it's flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian Spy,  its ridiculous that people today believe that the earth is 6000 years ago. It's PROVEN that the sage of the earth was created at 0845 on the 23rd of October 4004 BC which makes it not 6000 years old, it's 6023 years old.

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rog said:

Russian Spy,  its ridiculous that people today believe that the earth is 6000 years ago. It's PROVEN that the sage of the earth was created at 0845 on the 23rd of October 4004 BC which makes it not 6000 years old, it's 6023 years old.

When did the clocks go back?

It might have been 09:45 in old money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, woolley said:

Very good. Could we now investigate why they decided to call the first day of creation the 23rd October? It suggests to me that the calendar is a celestial phenomenon. 

It has to be.  Usher based his chronology on the only absolutely true and perfect history of creation, the bible.  Or more precisely the Torah.  In Judaism the day of the new year is Rosh Hashana which is determined by the phase of the moon.  Usher rightly believed that base on the creation of the moon (check out Genesis) and Rosh Hashana as having a biblical basis it had to be October. The 23rd is derived from the phase of the moon in that October. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Rog said:

It has to be.  Usher based his chronology on the only absolutely true and perfect history of creation, the bible.  Or more precisely the Torah.  In Judaism the day of the new year is Rosh Hashana which is determined by the phase of the moon.  Usher rightly believed that base on the creation of the moon (check out Genesis) and Rosh Hashana as having a biblical basis it had to be October. The 23rd is derived from the phase of the moon in that October. 

basing something/anything on a fictional book or story has to be somewhat iffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

basing something/anything on a fictional book or story has to be somewhat iffy

Of course it is!  Not just iffy but bat shit crazy. 

But that doesn't stop long billions of people from doing so  and killing those who don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rog said:

Of course it is!  Not just iffy but bat shit crazy. 

But that doesn't stop long billions of people from doing so  and killing those who don't. 

It was in some ways a remarkable bit of scholarship for it's time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rog said:

It has to be.  Usher based his chronology on the only absolutely true and perfect history of creation, the bible.  Or more precisely the Torah.  In Judaism the day of the new year is Rosh Hashana which is determined by the phase of the moon.  Usher rightly believed that base on the creation of the moon (check out Genesis) and Rosh Hashana as having a biblical basis it had to be October. The 23rd is derived from the phase of the moon in that October. 

In Judaism, the sections of Genesis prior to Abraham have historically always been considered semi-mythological and not a literal account of history. This is proper Orthodox Judaism as well, not just the fancy new reform movements. Usher's entire premise is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Declan said:

It was in some ways a remarkable bit of scholarship for it's time. 

It still is. The Bible, taken as a document of history, and not literally as the word of God, is a very useful body of literature which has stood the test of time. It has forever altered the course of civilisation, art, culture, literature. Yes, it has led to witch trials and inquisitions, but it has also led to things like the end of slavery in the Roman Empire, the abolition movement of the 18th and 19th century, civil rights, its residual impact has ensured social welfare still exists as a counterweight to unbridled capitalism/corporatism, not to mention all the art, literature, and architecture. Taken for what it is, a document from history, it's such an important document. There is nothing from that time which comes close to it in scope or range or influence. It has also been an important part of spreading literacy levels all over the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "fan" of the Bible or any religion; but people who dismiss it as just fairy tales are not seeing the big picture. It's a collection of stories, philosophy, poetry, politics, morality, ethics, mythology. Everything. The whole "human story" can be found in it, warts and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:

In Judaism, the sections of Genesis prior to Abraham have historically always been considered semi-mythological and not a literal account of history. This is proper Orthodox Judaism as well, not just the fancy new reform movements. Usher's entire premise is wrong.

Wrong. The Torah is the precise word of God, sorry G-d.  The only point of argument is how much is allegorical and to what extent.  In my opinion the whole thing is a load of rubbish but that doesn't mean it's not a fascinating thing to study even if just to piss off the bible-bashers with irrefutable arguments when confronted by them,  or even worse by Mormons on the door step.   Bearing in mind that there are people who refuse blood transfusions simply based on one of the (mis)translations of the bible and that God hates fags falls at the first hurdle when David and Johnathon appear it's hardly surprising that these fruit loops believe that what Usher described is bang on the button.  

I was brought up Jewish but am now a devout Pastafarian.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:

It still is. The Bible, taken as a document of history, and not literally as the word of God, is a very useful body of literature which has stood the test of time. It has forever altered the course of civilisation, art, culture, literature. Yes, it has led to witch trials and inquisitions, but it has also led to things like the end of slavery in the Roman Empire, the abolition movement of the 18th and 19th century, civil rights, its residual impact has ensured social welfare still exists as a counterweight to unbridled capitalism/corporatism, not to mention all the art, literature, and architecture. Taken for what it is, a document from history, it's such an important document. There is nothing from that time which comes close to it in scope or range or influence. It has also been an important part of spreading literacy levels all over the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "fan" of the Bible or any religion; but people who dismiss it as just fairy tales are not seeing the big picture. It's a collection of stories, philosophy, poetry, politics, morality, ethics, mythology. Everything. The whole "human story" can be found in it, warts and all.

Oh my fucking oath, have you got a lot to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...