PDA

View Full Version : Myth of brotherhood of humanity-Adam not first man


saxon1979
31-10-2008, 02:35 PM
http://truth-against-the-world.blogspot.com/2008/10/myth-of-brotherhood-or-common-origin-of_08.html

The myth of the "brotherhood" of humanity; Adam not the first man, but father of only the white race

Whether you consider the issue from a secular or Biblical perspective, all "humans" do not share a common ancestry. The idea that all humans are "family" is a lie propagated by the ruling Jewish Establishment and the apostate "Judeo-Christian" churches -- and supported by the fraudulent theory of evolution -- which serves as a basis for the "multicultural", race-mixing, and "one world community" agenda.

Biologically and scientifically speaking, how is it possible for the pure-blooded black, asian, and white races to have descended from Adam and Eve, Noah and his wife, or any other common ancestor? Could Adam and Eve reproduce and have black, white, and asian children? Of course not. That's biologically impossible.

The black, white, and asian races (in their pure-blooded states...absent any mixing among the races) are of completely different lineage. They were created separately, and are essentially different species of "humans." The fact that separate races can interbreed (and produce hybrid species) is not proof of common origin or common species, as this phenomenon exists among other animals (eg, lion and tiger, horse and donkey to produce mule, etc).

The Bible -- when translated and interpreted correctly-- confirms the fact that Adam was not the first "human." There were other people on the earth before Adam was created. That is why Cain feared other people would kill him after he was banished from the garden of Eden, and how Cain was able to find a wife, have his own descendants, and build a city after being banished from Adam & Eve and their descendants.

Whom, then, are the descendants of Adam and Eve? The evidence strongly indicates that it is the white race. The word "Adam" in the Hebrew is "aw-dam'", which means "to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy". See for yourself in Strong's Hebrew Lexicon here (http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=Adam).

This is also supported by the fact that the people primarily concerned with the "traditions of Abraham" over the course of modern history have almost exclusively been the white peoples (and "hybrids" or mongrels with significant white ancestry...eg, Arabs). For thousands of years, black and asians were isolated in Africa and the Far East and overwhelmingly unconcerned or unaware of the traditions of Adam, Abraham, and their descendants -- with the exception of the last few hundred years when white missionaries spread Christianity among blacks and asians.

Archaeology also lends support to the "recent" appearance of the race of Adam. It is well known that human skeletons have been found all over the world that are much older than 6 or 7 thousand years, some being tens of thousands of years old. As background, one should be aware that there are substantial differences in the skeletons (and especially skulls) of whites, negroes, and asians -- such that the race of a person is easily identifiable by the skeleton.

These skeletons over 6-10 thousand years old are those of the non-white, pre-Adam humans. Even secular archaeologists note the difference of these early "humans" as distinct from that of "modern" (ie, white) man. Evolutionists say that the modern (white) man has "evolved" from these earlier humans -- acknowledging that the white man appeared on the earth later.

History lends further support for the recent appearance of Adam. Historians agree that "modern civilization" (farming, etc) appeared in the area of Mesopotamia around 6 thousand years ago. If humans have been on earth for possibly over 10 thousand years, why did civilization suddenly appear then? Well...what else happened around 6 thousand years ago? The appearance of the race of Adam. The appearance of the white man.

From a Biblical or Christian perspective, this truth regarding the origins of the races is of no small consequence. Yahweh (God) mandated that "kind produce after kind." And he specifically commanded the Israelites to practice racial segregation and separation, including forbidding the Israelites to intermarry with foreign or "alien" peoples.

To those interested in further research in this area, I would recommend the work of "Christian Identity" researchers Willie Martin, Bertrand Comparet, Wesley A. Swift, and Jack Mohr.

madthumbs
31-10-2008, 03:11 PM
The Bible is crap. We're all from black originally. Pale skin, blue eyes, and straight hair is from a corrupted dna that's been inbred. It can be seen in dogs, deer, gorillas, etc.

Where Did White Man Come From? (http://opposingdigits.com/whiteman/)

saxon1979
31-10-2008, 03:40 PM
The Bible is crap. We're all from black originally. Pale skin, blue eyes, and straight hair is from a corrupted dna that's been inbred. It can be seen in dogs, deer, gorillas, etc.

Where Did White Man Come From? (http://opposingdigits.com/whiteman/)

Black albinos are still black in facial structure and every other respect aside from skin and eye color. They don't look anything like a white person. And if this were true why weren't there tribes of white people in Africa before Europeans arrived?

Mutations are almost without exception negative in effect. They do not lead to advancements in species, or the "creation" of new species.

More evolutionary theory hogwash.

"Primordial soup turns into bacteria. Bacteria turns into fish. Fish turns into a monkey. Monkeys turn into black people. Black people turn into white people. And all through nothing more than random chance and the passage of time."

What's next? White people turn into purple-skinned, four-armed, winged-flying beasts? Through genetic mutation of course.

armoured_amazon
31-10-2008, 03:45 PM
Black albinos are still black in facial structure and every other respect aside from skin and eye color. They don't look anything like a white person. And if this were true why weren't there tribes of white people in Africa before Europeans arrived?

Mutations are almost without exception negative in effect. They do not lead to advancements in species, or the "creation" of new species.

More evolutionary theory hogwash.

"Primordial soup turns into bacteria. Bacteria turns into fish. Fish turns into a monkey. Monkeys turn into black people. Black people turn into white people. And all through nothing more than random chance and the passage of time."

What's next? White people turn into purple-skinned, four-armed, winged-flying beasts? Through genetic mutation of course.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/no-big-difference.jpg

saxon1979
31-10-2008, 04:15 PM
0.2% difference

Even assuming this supposed "0.2%" difference in DNA is true, that certainly does not prove we are of common ancestry. Scientists also say that humans and apes share ~98-99% genetic similarity.

I would guess that lions and tigers are approximately ~99.5% + genetically similar. Does this mean they are the same species, and of the same ancestry?

By the way, lions and tigers can interbreed, and produce a hybrid species called a "liger." So ability to interbreed does not prove common ancestry or species.

armoured_amazon
31-10-2008, 04:31 PM
Even assuming this supposed "0.2%" difference in DNA is true, that certainly does not prove we are of common ancestry. Scientists also say that humans and apes share ~98-99% genetic similarity.

I would guess that lions and tigers are approximately ~99.5% + genetically similar. Does this mean they are the same species, and of the same ancestry?

By the way, lions and tigers can interbreed, and produce a hybrid species called a "liger." So ability to interbreed does not prove common ancestry or species.

Your hypothesis still means nothing.

1694
31-10-2008, 04:45 PM
Ok I recomed you all get a copy of Kosmos by Dennis Milner http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kosmos-Evolutionary-wholistic-Creation-Dennis-Milner/dp/0755202473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225467740&sr=1-1

It pretty much explains everything. It's a hefty read with plenty o science and even pretty pictures which illustrate the point very well.

We don't have to share a common source, but no doubt the atoms that we are made off have been subject to similar "forces/stressfeilds/vibrations" etc. which will have caused them to form similar patterns in parrallel thousands of miles apart.

If you poured sand from a bucket onto the floor in london it would form a pile, if you poured sand on the floorin africa it would form an almost identical pile.

1694
31-10-2008, 04:50 PM
Off Amazon the review of the book:

In quieter moments, I do wonder why we are here; whether we really are spiritual, or just purely material. I'm a fan of popular science books such as "The First Three Minutes" and "The Secret Life of Plants" that tell more about our world, how it came about and the mysterious things that go on in it. This book packs a big punch here and actually delivers an answer. An answer smack in-between Intelligent Design and Evolution. The simple explanation is that creation is brought about by a positive evolutionary "pressure" driving everyone and everything to fulfil their potential.

The book starts the story before the "big bang" and traces development of the material and spiritual universe through to life on earth and development of humans. Scientific, cosmological and historical evidence given is extensive, ranging across the creation of matter, the structure of the universe and atoms, the biology of evolution, the arising of consciousness and the development of civilisations.

There is an interesting body of experimental evidence demonstrating the fundamental forces which create shapes we see in nature. These same forms are shown to arise in simple processes of capillary dynamolysis, crystal growth and liquid flows. These fundamental forces are also revealed by electrical discharge photography. There is some tantalising evidence of effects of homeopathic remedies on crystal growth. Full details are given on how to repeat these experiments.

This weighty book is the culmination of decades of research by Dennis Milner and his team at Birmingham University, and contains a very useful reference guide to further reading. The scope is vast with sections also touching on healing, expanded consciousness, and psychic phenomena. Nevertheless, easy to read and well illustrated. I think the conclusion is well summarised by the quotation in the foreword:
God sleeps in the mineral,
Dreams in the vegetable,
Stirs in the animal,
Awakens in Man

Truly an astonishing and ground-breaking book; but one you will have to put down several times before finishing in order to digest what has been said.

disorder2k8
31-10-2008, 06:45 PM
Its a popular misconception that we share a common ancestry with apes, it is actually chimpanzees

madthumbs
31-10-2008, 11:35 PM
Black albinos are still black in facial structure and every other respect aside from skin and eye color. They don't look anything like a white person. And if this were true why weren't there tribes of white people in Africa before Europeans arrived?

We're not talking about Albinism, and not all dark skinned people looke the same. ;)

Mutations are almost without exception negative in effect. They do not lead to advancements in species, or the "creation" of new species.

Agreed. Pale skin is inferior.

More evolutionary theory hogwash.

I don't support Darwian evolution at all. We're witnessing devolution, which some may call adaptation.

"Primordial soup turns into bacteria. Bacteria turns into fish. Fish turns into a monkey. Monkeys turn into black people. Black people turn into white people. And all through nothing more than random chance and the passage of time."

What's next? White people turn into purple-skinned, four-armed, winged-flying beasts? Through genetic mutation of course.

:rolleyes:

eternal_spirit
31-10-2008, 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by soap http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/buttons_green/viewpost.gif (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=525786#post525786)
stupid apes

It is pretty much accepted now that we did not evolve from apes, but rather, a common ancestor. We have two less chromosomes than the ape therefore making it impossible for any direct evolution from them.

What do you think?

marpat
01-11-2008, 12:26 AM
I thought Adam was a collective term for humanity.

1694
01-11-2008, 12:31 AM
Seriously get the book. Explains it all.