MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
Thee Star ChamberContains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
    
  Mission Statement  
  Hymn  
  Message Center  
  The Speak Easy  
  Pictures  
    
  Links  
  Spiritual Topics  
  Nature  
  History  
  News & Activism  
  Movies & Music  
  Mental Challenge  
  Martial Spirit  
  Sci-Tech  
  Stranger Yet!!  
  Suggestion Box  
  Service Entrance  
  
  
  Tools  
 
Nature : Did Earliest Human Ancestors Have More Apelike Faces?
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 5 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname£ÔRÐ×ß4ÐG3R�?/nobr>  (Original Message)Sent: 4/7/2007 3:14 AM
Did Earliest Human Ancestors Have More Apelike Faces?
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
April 5, 2007
The earliest direct ancestors of modern humans may have looked more like apes than previously thought, a new study suggests.
 


First  Previous  2-5 of 5  Next  Last 
Reply
 Message 2 of 5 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameVork-Sent: 4/7/2007 5:06 AM
"But the findings, based on a reconstructed 1.9-million-year-old skull, are highly controversial among the anthropological community."
 
According to Lloyd Pye, human stock has been around for only 200,000 years, so this skull has no bearing on the topic since it is NOT an ancestor of man.
 
The INTERVENTION theory is about to replace the EVOLUTION theory.
 
There is no proof that anything ever evolved into another specie. It was just an idea Darwin toyed with that ossified into a scientific "religion".
 
Check videos and essays at  www.lloydpye.com
 
 

Reply
 Message 3 of 5 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname£ÔRÐ×ß4ÐG3R�?/nobr>Sent: 4/9/2007 6:57 PM
Very interesing post Vork. I certainly don't discount the possibility that the human species may have been physically genetically engineered by outside sources. I view homo sapiens as a project carried out by higher intelligences, rather than purely a product of random evolutionary forces.
 
--L.B.
 
 

Reply
 Message 4 of 5 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nickname£ÔRÐ×ß4ÐG3R�?/nobr>Sent: 4/9/2007 7:50 PM
 www.lloydpye.com is bookmarked for much further exploration! Great site, ty for the link Vork!

Reply
 Message 5 of 5 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameWisdomsloveSent: 4/11/2007 1:01 AM
Interresting site, but I disagree with a few things. I suspect Venus is Nirabu and that Venus's moon, possibly Mercury or another mass was knocked out of its orbit by some mass that visits us every 3600 years or so. Venus rotates the opposite of all other planets, like Nirabu should. That Nirabu orbits the Sun oppositely is likely a missunderstanding or translation. Some scientists speculate that between 100,000 years ago to one million years ago Venus had oceans and a much more habitable surface. When did homosapiens come into being? 200,000 years at the most and out of nowhere with no missing link. Some translation according to some translators of some Sumer tablets claim they claim we were genetically engineered to slave for our alien masters or gods. Most importantly for gold dust to try and form a reflective shield around their dying world that was beginning to burn up. Sounds an awefull lot like Venus to me and fits Venus's time table perfectly. Unfortunately they were carbon dioxide and sulfuric compound reliant draconians of legend. An evil intelligent draconian beast that manipulates and holds mankind with little regard outside our usefulness for its own selfish interests likely does indeed rule the Earth and its rulers even today much the Bible mentions along with the Chinese.

First  Previous  2-5 of 5  Next  Last 
Return to Nature