Meet the first African…
|Scientific reconstruction of a Homo habilis|
Picture source: Wikipedia
Now let’s get serious…
Whenever I decide to write a blog post about topics related to the discipline of human evolution or matters related to ancient historical facts, or any subject whose contents can easily fill the pages of a hefty book, I never know where to begin. In fact, I tend to waste hours of precious time deciding where to start. One of the dilemmas I find difficulty coping with relates to the divide between politics and religion, which apparently don’t mix very well, or so they say! Yet, this is precisely the reason why our modern history is a confused mess.
Politics and religion, and the consequent lies that have been repeatedly told by so-called ‘professionals’ in the various branches of learning, are the main reasons why South Africa’s history has been hideously, albeit dexterously, distorted. It thus comes as no surprise that the majority of people living in the country have never heard of the earlier influence of the Southern Indian (Dravidian) goldminers, and why names such as “Khoisan”, or simply “San” are extremely fresh - and also extremely appalling inventions of confused modern men (and women).
At this initial stage of drafting I can already see that there is no ways a single blog post will be able to present all the data in a straightforward, uncomplicated, easy-to-read fashion, even if 100’s of external links to other sources are also provided. This posting can thus be considered the first in a series of postings that will be presented over an X period of time. I will not follow the norm by naming the posts “part 1”,” part 2”, et cetera, but will give them individual headings. The series may also be interrupted once in a while with postings unrelated to this present topic, all depending on what’s going to happen with the current dismal state of affairs in South Africa.
Take note: Links to previous articles on this blog (if any) will open in the same window, but links to external sources will always open in a new window or tab. I unfortunately have no idea how navigation works with cellphone users.
A passage on the website of Live Science reads as follows:
“The most bitterly debated question in the discipline of human evolution is likely over where modern humans evolved. The out-of-Africa hypothesis maintains that modern humans evolved relatively recently in Africa (sub-Saharan Africa) and then spread around the world, replacing existing populations of archaic humans. The multiregional hypothesis contends that modern humans evolved over a broad area from archaic humans, with populations in different regions mating with their neighbours to share traits, resulting in the evolution of modern humans. The out-of-Africa hypothesis currently holds the lead, but proponents of the multiregional hypothesis remain strong in their views.”
The above passage succinctly explains what the mainstream media is feeding us today, and on casual scrutiny there appears to be nothing wrong with it. The passage makes a clear distinction between modern humans (that is us), and archaic humans (out-of-date or prehistoric). The catch is that the “archaic” are also called “humans”, when in reality they are extinct apes, and furthermore – that miscegenation (interbreeding) took place between us and the extinct apes.
In reality, what has happened here is that our minds have been conditioned over the years by the many awe-inspiring ‘scientific’ findings claiming that such-and-such a species (another link to modern humans) has been discovered and dated back to some-or-other mind-boggling time -- millions of years ago.
It is all RUBBISH; the missing links in human evolution will never be found, not in our current earth age, or in the next one! The same website mentioned above (Live Science) published another article titled: Human Origin Impossible to Pinpoint.
“You can’t find the origin of people by measuring the variability of their skulls… There are differences in the skull between populations, including their variability, but it is mostly due to very recent effects and not the origin of modern humans… At the end of the day, a resolution to the "Out of Africa" debate may be impossible. Most of the evidence can be interpreted as supporting both human-origins theories. It’s really hard to find observations that distinguish the two… The multiregional idea is identical to the recent African origin idea, except for its prediction that Europeans and Asians were part of the single population of origin and didn’t become extinct.” - John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Without going into too much further detail on this subject, it is crucial to understand that there was another age on earth before our current age. The planet we live on is billions of years old, based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material - (Age of the Earth). However, any prehistoric animal remains found on the earth, older than say 14,000 years are not human. Archaeologists may find tools and remains of settlements dated beyond 14,000 years (approx), but these are from a time before Genesis. Click here to gain a better understanding of the Three-Earth-Age concept. You will then also understand why we are being deceived.
The previous age was destroyed by a flood (not Noah’s flood), and it features in the legends of many cultures. The waters covered the entire earth – “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” – (Gen 1:2 KJV) – Much later, we read about the covenant made with Noah: “…neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.” – (Gen 9:11 KJV)
Now keep that great destruction by water, at the very beginning of our current age in mind, when you surf over to read the following article, published in Popular Archaeology:
Preserved flesh of 2-million-year-old human ancestor found?
The discovery was made in the Malapa cave system of South Africa, situated within the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site - a site that has produced a large number of the oldest, hominid (extinct ape) fossils ever found, some dating back as far as 3.5 million years ago.
Now read the following passage sourced from the article, and notice how scientists use terms that personify apes:
(I’ve emphasised the relevant text in bold. The text in brackets is my own)
"The possible mineralized skin tissue was found on top of the skull of the fossil remains of what was identified as a young boy (???), and on the jaw near the chin of a fossilized woman (???). Scientists suggest that such surviving evidence is possible because the remains of the individuals (???) found at Malapa were rapidly deposited and entombed in a thick layer of sand and clay through natural causes (a flood) in a cave or shaft at or soon after their deaths (drowning). The relatively rapid burial (flood waters) of their bodies (apes) in this single layer of clay and sand, combined with the comparatively protected environment of the cave or shaft system, significantly slowed their decomposition."
|Amazon.com | Kalahari.com|
What - Do these people really think we’re all apes?
Stay tuned for a continuation of this series – coming soon!