The general excepted opinion in regards that we as a human species have evolved from apes. In fact the whole evolution theory is exactly that, only a theory, yet most accept this without ever questioning it or looking for the evidence. When doing so you become shocked at the amount of opposing data, that shows we could not have come from apes. Darwin himself was not convinced and only offered his conclusion as a theory which lacked scientific evidence. Researcher and author Lloyd Pye provides some startling data that demonstrates that the apes and humans are two different species.

Spyderman said:

---

The general excepted opinion in regards that we as a human species have evolved from apes. In fact the whole evolution theory is exactly that, only a theory, yet most accept this without ever questioning it or looking for the evidence. When doing so you become shocked at the amount of opposing data, that shows we could not have come from apes. Darwin himself was not convinced and only offered his conclusion as a theory which lacked scientific evidence. Researcher and author Lloyd Pye provides some startling data that demonstrates that the apes and humans are two different species.

---

I watched about the first ten minutes of this, but before I go any further, how is this critique of evolution much different than the creationist critique? It seems effectively the same to me so far. What in here, if anything, do you find particularly convincing?

Quote:

---

Researcher and author Lloyd Pye provides some startling data that demonstrates that the apes and humans are two different species.

---

Just for the sake of full disclosure, if you're using descriptors like this to give him credibility, you should probably include what he's a researcher of. He's a paranormal researcher. And I haven't watched the video, but if it's in reference to the Starchild Skull, that's been conclusively proven to be a human skull.

craigernaught said:

---

Apes and humans are two different species? Evolution just a theory? Aliens?

This post has everything.

---

Indeed it does. The paragraph inserted below the link came from the description of the video once opened up. Sorta like a short synopsis I suppose.

The missing link?

This should be the warning heading into this thread

Spyderman said:

---

The missing link?

---

Definitely interesting. The divine council in Deut. 32 and Genesis 1-3 are a polemic against the Annunaki, which were the cultural heroes of the Babylonians. I disagree with Zechariah Stitchin's hypotheses, but I appreciate the video because at least they try to use real evidence.

Bogdonovich said:

---

This should be the warning heading into this thread

---

I don't really see how calling this thread a "satanic web" in the words of the video is accurate. Don't you think we have come past the days of the Spanish Inquisition?

OP,
I certainly agree with you regarding the need for the church and followers of Christ to stick to scripture.

I have a couple questions from your comments though:
1) when you talk about men leaving the church, what do you mean by "The church"?

2) To what were you referring with this- " God beamed information into Moses head that did not occur until 600 years after Moses death"

Thanks.

Catag94 said:

---

OP,
I certainly agree with you regarding the need for the church and followers of Christ to stick to scripture.

I have a couple questions from your comments though:
1) when you talk about men leaving the church, what do you mean by "The church"?

2) To what were you referring with this- " God beamed information into Moses head that did not occur until 600 years after Moses death"

Thanks.

---

(1) By church I mean any organized body that professes Jesus as risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of the Father.

(2) If you think that the sins in the Levitical code, which has a core written around 950 BC has primarily a basis in human sin. The story of Adam and Eve uses Babylonian words existing circa 550BC, nearly 400 years and up to 600 years after the levitical code and Yahwist/Elohim sources exist. The law is primarily to stop ritual and demonic influence. Not to stop personal moral sin. I said "beam" because some people treat Genesis as applying before Leviticus even though Leviticus is written first. How could Moses intend for his law to apply because of Adam and Eves sins if Adam and Eve weren't even an idea in human thought yet? It makes no sense. I am merely asking people to quit using the Bible to guilt trip people that's all.

Spyderman said:

---

---

Have you found anything on Apocalypse if Abraham?