Title: Which Religion Came First ?
Description: WAR FED BY INTOLLERANCE
Description: WAR FED BY INTOLLERANCE
alive and still talking - June 14, 2007 04:18 AM (GMT)
THIS MURAL WAS PHOTOGRAPHED IN THE MUSLIM COUNTRY ISTANBUL---->---->
which came first in istanbul ? christianity, islam, or another religion ?
Hagia Sophia, now known as the Ayasofya Museum, was the greatest
Christian church of the Middle Ages,later converted into an imperial mosque
in 1453 by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, and into a museum in 1935. It
is located in Istanbul, Turkey, on the Turkish Thrace. It is regularly
considered one of the greatest and most beautiful buildings in history.
Its conquest by the Ottomans at the fall of Constantinople is considered one
of the great tragedies of Christianity by the Greek Orthodox faithful.
The name comes from the Greek name Ἁγία Σοφία, a contraction of
Ναός τῆς Ἁγίας τοῦ Θεοῦ Σοφίας, meaning "Church of the Holy Wisdom of God".
It is also known as Sancta Sophia in Latin and Ayasofya in Turkish. Although it
is sometimes called "Saint Sophia" in English, or similar terms in other
languages, it is not named after any saint named Sophia — the Greek word sophia means "wisdom."
Zulfiqar - June 14, 2007 04:40 AM (GMT)
Looks like we have a proffesor of religious theology on LooseChange.com.
:lol:
:lol:
alive and still talking - June 14, 2007 04:43 AM (GMT)
Myths are stories made up by men that attempt toexplain why the world is the way it is. All cultures have them. Throughout history, artists have been inspired by myths and legends and have given them visual form.
Through the ages, only art forms have stood the test of time. Sometimes these works of art are the only surviving record of what particular cultures believed and valued. But even where written records or oral traditions exist.
These art forms are proof of the roll religion played in controlling entire civilizations. which is why questions posed to candidates during presidential debates concerning religion was not surprising, even though such a topic does not fit in to written law for governing this democracy
We must make people realize that RELIGION should not be an issue when
ELECTING a president or JUDGING another culture, one religion is no different than any another ...all original forms of religion have the same ORIGIN
From the earliest known evidence of human religion by Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis around 100,000 years ago to the present day, religion continues to be a very influential aspect of human lives.
Today, there are numerous challenges and problems faced by humans from every possible background, location and social class. Every day people must face issues of health, safety and mortality. It is because of these daily challenges that religion continues to exist. Religion is the universal tool for explaining things which we do not understand through the context the known physical world.
Although there are countless religions, each different from the other, they all serve the same purpose. Each answers questions which all humans seem to be programmed to ask: Why are we here? What happens when I die? How shall I live my life? More often than not, religion has been made an issue when deciding how
another culture is treated.
Religion helps us to transmit our values from one generation to another, and influences the way we interact with the natural environment. Influences the way we act toward one another, teaches us about one another. It teaches us how to see ourselves in light of the universe and gives purpose and meaning to life.
Whether you are a member of a particular religious group, unsure of what you should believe, or do not have any religious beliefs, this topic will introduce you to the world's six major religions, and attempt to explain each belief. They are not meant to convert, or to be the synopsis of every aspect of the religion they explain. They are intended to serve as an introduction, to whet your appetite for further study and to help you understand those around you better.
With our global society, it is likely that in your lifetime you will meet people from every corner of the planet. Understanding the religious beliefs of these people is one of the many steps which ALL OF US must take in order to someday prosper together in peace.
alive and still talking - June 14, 2007 05:18 AM (GMT)
BELIEFS OF ANIMISM
In anthropology, animism can be considered to be the original human
religion, being defined simply as belief in the existence of spiritual beings.
It dates back to the earliest humans and continues to exist today, making it
the oldest form of religious belief on Earth.
It is characteristic of aboriginal and native cultures, yet it can be practiced
by anyone who believes in spirituality but does not proscribe to any
specific organized religion. The basis for animism is acknowledgment that
there is a spiritual realm which humans share the universe with. The
concepts that humans possess souls and that souls have life apart from
human bodies before and after death are central to animism, along with the
ideas that animals, plants, and celestial bodies have spirits.
Animistic gods often are immortalized by mythology explaining the creation
of fire, wind, water, man, animals, and other natural earthly things.
Although specific beliefs of animism vary widely, similarities between
the characteristics of gods and goddesses and rituals practiced by
animistic societies exist. The presence of holy men or women, visions,
trancing, dancing, sacred items, and sacred spaces for worship, and
the connection felt to the spirits of ancestors are characteristic of
animistic societies.
The term animism is derived from the Latin word anima meaning breath or
soul. The belief of animism is probably one of man's oldest beliefs, with its
origin most likely dating to the Paleolithic age. From its earliest beginnings
it was a belief that a soul or spirit existed in every object, even if it was
inanimate. In a future state this soul or spirit would exist as part of an
immaterial soul. The spirit, therefore, was thought to be universal.
There has been sharp divisions of thought as to the original concept of
animism held by primitive peoples. An British anthropologist Sir Edward
Burnett Tylor in his "Primitive Culture" (1871) defined animism "as a
general belief in spiritual beings and considered it 'a minimum definition
of religion.'" He stated all religions from the simplest to the most
complexed shared some sort of animistic belief. According to him
primitive peoples, defined as those without a written tradition, believed
the spirits or souls caused life in human beings. They pictured these souls
as vapors or shadows going from one body to another. The souls not only
passed between human beings but into, plants, animals and inanimate objects
as well.
Tylor reasoned primitive man arrived at his animistic belief to help him explain
the causes of sleep, dreams, and death. There naturally aroused a need
to distinguish between an individual who was awake and one who was asleep,
or an individual who lived and one who did not. Also there was a need to give
a reason for the pictures some saw when they slept. The spirits were the
early man's explanations.
Tylor was criticized by another British anthropologist Robert Ranulph Marett
(1866-1943) who was convinced that primitive man had not developed
the intellectual to form even such simplistic explanations as Tylor proposed.
Marett suggested early religion was more emotional and intuitional in
origin.
Sirens (SYE-rinz). Sweetly singing enchantresses, part woman, part bird,
who lured sailors to their doom. mythology also gave them wings, to help the
god of the underworld
He theorized that early man recognized some inanimate objects because they
had some particular characteristic or behaved in some unusual way
which mysteriously made them seem alive. He believed early man treated
all animate objects as having a life and will of their own, but they
never distinguished the soul as separate from the body, and could enter or
leave the body. Marett conceded early man possessed the belief of animism,
but it developed from the idea that some objects seemed to be alive like man.
It is insignificant how men and women gained the belief that a spirit or
soul resides in all objects it is historically evident that they did. Trees and
plants were worshiped as totems or because of their usefulness and beauty.
In many cultures certain trees and plants have been feared.
In some ancient cultures "trees were generally regarded as maternal deities
or forest spirits, to be respected even when their lives were sacrificed for
human use (pagan woodcutters never felled a tree without first begging
its forgiveness). Female tree spirits live on in myth and folklore as dryads,
the Greek version of the tree-worshiping druid priestesses."
Plants and trees have been considered sacred by themselves because, as
some have thought, they are home to certain spirits. Both the soma plant of
India and the coca shrub of Peru are worshiped for the intoxicating properties
of the products made from them. Field crops, thought to harbor spirits
of infertility, has been honored by ancient tribesmen and peasants
throughout Europe. Traces of these cults can still be found.
In Slavic mythology, a Rusalka (Polish Rusałka, Russian Rusalka) was a
female ghost, water nymph, succubus or mermaid-like demon that dwelled i
n a lake. She was considered a being of evil, or нечистая сила
(nechistaya sila, "unclean force"). The ghostly version is the soul of a
young woman who had died in or near a lake (many of these rusalki had
been murdered by lovers) and came to haunt that lake; this undead Rusałka
is not invariably malevolent, and will be allowed to die in peace if her death
is avenged.
The above describes nature worshipers among which many occultists
are numbered. They view life as being in everything, and everything, even
man, supporting life. Life is sacred -- all life. "One of the foremost
characteristics of Neo-Paganism (or occultism) is the return to the ancient
idea that there is no distinction between the spiritual and material, sacred
and secular." Everything is still one as it was to primitive man.
Mazu, mortal name Lîm Be̍k-niû (S. Min) or Lín Mòniáng (Mandarin) (林默娘),
is the Taoist goddess of the Sea who protects fishermen and sailors, and is revered as the patron saint who protects East Asians who are associated with
the ocean.
She is extremely popular among the Taiwanese, Fujianese, Cantonese,
Teochew, and Vietnamese people, who have cultures strongly linked to the
sea. The Matsu Islands are named after her
Historians theorize that Centaurs first evolved to better understand the
spirit relationship between man and horse, over tme, evolved into a
belief system.BATTLE OF THE CENTAURS in greek mythology
The battle of the Centaurs and the Lapiths was a subject that was used
repeatedly in ancient art. A fresco in Pompeii depicts the Pirithous receiving
the Centaurs; a famous François vase depicts the Lapiths, armed with
lances, fighting against the Centaurs, who defend themselves with rocks
and branches; of the sculptures that depict the battle, the most famous are
those on the west wing of the Temple of Zeus in Olympia, and the metopes of
the Parthenon.
The goddesses of music, poetry, the arts, and science. The daughters of Zeus.
The Muses sat near the throne of Zeus, king of the gods, and sang of
his greatness and of the origin of the world and its inhabitants and the
glorious deeds of the great heroes. From their name words such as
music, museum, mosaic are derived.
The Muses of mythology were venerated throughout the world, but more so
in those areas with many wells, woodland waters and springs, especially the
sea. Always in the personage of female,they were said to dwell in places that
were sacred to them(musagetes).
Hades was the lord of the dead and ruler of the nether world, which is referred
to as the domain of Hades or, by transference, as Hades alone. He is the son
of Cronus and Rhea. When the three sons of Cronus divided the world
among each other, Hades was given the underworld, while his brothers Zeus
and Poseidon took the upperworld and the sea respectively.
In anthropology, animism can be considered to be the original human
religion, being defined simply as belief in the existence of spiritual beings.
It dates back to the earliest humans and continues to exist today, making it
the oldest form of religious belief on Earth.
It is characteristic of aboriginal and native cultures, yet it can be practiced
by anyone who believes in spirituality but does not proscribe to any
specific organized religion. The basis for animism is acknowledgment that
there is a spiritual realm which humans share the universe with. The
concepts that humans possess souls and that souls have life apart from
human bodies before and after death are central to animism, along with the
ideas that animals, plants, and celestial bodies have spirits.
Animistic gods often are immortalized by mythology explaining the creation
of fire, wind, water, man, animals, and other natural earthly things.
Although specific beliefs of animism vary widely, similarities between
the characteristics of gods and goddesses and rituals practiced by
animistic societies exist. The presence of holy men or women, visions,
trancing, dancing, sacred items, and sacred spaces for worship, and
the connection felt to the spirits of ancestors are characteristic of
animistic societies.
The term animism is derived from the Latin word anima meaning breath or
soul. The belief of animism is probably one of man's oldest beliefs, with its
origin most likely dating to the Paleolithic age. From its earliest beginnings
it was a belief that a soul or spirit existed in every object, even if it was
inanimate. In a future state this soul or spirit would exist as part of an
immaterial soul. The spirit, therefore, was thought to be universal.
There has been sharp divisions of thought as to the original concept of
animism held by primitive peoples. An British anthropologist Sir Edward
Burnett Tylor in his "Primitive Culture" (1871) defined animism "as a
general belief in spiritual beings and considered it 'a minimum definition
of religion.'" He stated all religions from the simplest to the most
complexed shared some sort of animistic belief. According to him
primitive peoples, defined as those without a written tradition, believed
the spirits or souls caused life in human beings. They pictured these souls
as vapors or shadows going from one body to another. The souls not only
passed between human beings but into, plants, animals and inanimate objects
as well.
Tylor reasoned primitive man arrived at his animistic belief to help him explain
the causes of sleep, dreams, and death. There naturally aroused a need
to distinguish between an individual who was awake and one who was asleep,
or an individual who lived and one who did not. Also there was a need to give
a reason for the pictures some saw when they slept. The spirits were the
early man's explanations.
Tylor was criticized by another British anthropologist Robert Ranulph Marett
(1866-1943) who was convinced that primitive man had not developed
the intellectual to form even such simplistic explanations as Tylor proposed.
Marett suggested early religion was more emotional and intuitional in
origin.
Sirens (SYE-rinz). Sweetly singing enchantresses, part woman, part bird,
who lured sailors to their doom. mythology also gave them wings, to help the
god of the underworld
He theorized that early man recognized some inanimate objects because they
had some particular characteristic or behaved in some unusual way
which mysteriously made them seem alive. He believed early man treated
all animate objects as having a life and will of their own, but they
never distinguished the soul as separate from the body, and could enter or
leave the body. Marett conceded early man possessed the belief of animism,
but it developed from the idea that some objects seemed to be alive like man.
It is insignificant how men and women gained the belief that a spirit or
soul resides in all objects it is historically evident that they did. Trees and
plants were worshiped as totems or because of their usefulness and beauty.
In many cultures certain trees and plants have been feared.
In some ancient cultures "trees were generally regarded as maternal deities
or forest spirits, to be respected even when their lives were sacrificed for
human use (pagan woodcutters never felled a tree without first begging
its forgiveness). Female tree spirits live on in myth and folklore as dryads,
the Greek version of the tree-worshiping druid priestesses."
Plants and trees have been considered sacred by themselves because, as
some have thought, they are home to certain spirits. Both the soma plant of
India and the coca shrub of Peru are worshiped for the intoxicating properties
of the products made from them. Field crops, thought to harbor spirits
of infertility, has been honored by ancient tribesmen and peasants
throughout Europe. Traces of these cults can still be found.
In Slavic mythology, a Rusalka (Polish Rusałka, Russian Rusalka) was a
female ghost, water nymph, succubus or mermaid-like demon that dwelled i
n a lake. She was considered a being of evil, or нечистая сила
(nechistaya sila, "unclean force"). The ghostly version is the soul of a
young woman who had died in or near a lake (many of these rusalki had
been murdered by lovers) and came to haunt that lake; this undead Rusałka
is not invariably malevolent, and will be allowed to die in peace if her death
is avenged.
The above describes nature worshipers among which many occultists
are numbered. They view life as being in everything, and everything, even
man, supporting life. Life is sacred -- all life. "One of the foremost
characteristics of Neo-Paganism (or occultism) is the return to the ancient
idea that there is no distinction between the spiritual and material, sacred
and secular." Everything is still one as it was to primitive man.
Mazu, mortal name Lîm Be̍k-niû (S. Min) or Lín Mòniáng (Mandarin) (林默娘),
is the Taoist goddess of the Sea who protects fishermen and sailors, and is revered as the patron saint who protects East Asians who are associated with
the ocean.
She is extremely popular among the Taiwanese, Fujianese, Cantonese,
Teochew, and Vietnamese people, who have cultures strongly linked to the
sea. The Matsu Islands are named after her
Historians theorize that Centaurs first evolved to better understand the
spirit relationship between man and horse, over tme, evolved into a
belief system.BATTLE OF THE CENTAURS in greek mythology
The battle of the Centaurs and the Lapiths was a subject that was used
repeatedly in ancient art. A fresco in Pompeii depicts the Pirithous receiving
the Centaurs; a famous François vase depicts the Lapiths, armed with
lances, fighting against the Centaurs, who defend themselves with rocks
and branches; of the sculptures that depict the battle, the most famous are
those on the west wing of the Temple of Zeus in Olympia, and the metopes of
the Parthenon.
The goddesses of music, poetry, the arts, and science. The daughters of Zeus.
The Muses sat near the throne of Zeus, king of the gods, and sang of
his greatness and of the origin of the world and its inhabitants and the
glorious deeds of the great heroes. From their name words such as
music, museum, mosaic are derived.
The Muses of mythology were venerated throughout the world, but more so
in those areas with many wells, woodland waters and springs, especially the
sea. Always in the personage of female,they were said to dwell in places that
were sacred to them(musagetes).
Hades was the lord of the dead and ruler of the nether world, which is referred
to as the domain of Hades or, by transference, as Hades alone. He is the son
of Cronus and Rhea. When the three sons of Cronus divided the world
among each other, Hades was given the underworld, while his brothers Zeus
and Poseidon took the upperworld and the sea respectively.
GunStar1 - June 14, 2007 09:18 AM (GMT)
"All the gods are dead except the god of war".
- Eldridge Cleaver
http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/topics/gods_t001.htm
- Eldridge Cleaver
http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/topics/gods_t001.htm
alive and still talking - June 14, 2007 03:14 PM (GMT)
that energy seems to be the strongest. war is fed by religious intollerance. almost any force can start a war, but something has to feed it. when researching WAR, ancient civilizations ALL SHARED ONE COMMON DENIMINATOR, god of war, ruler of the underworld. more fear and respect was given that god above all others within a belief system
In older Greek myths, Hades is the misty and gloomy[2] abode of the dead, where all mortals go. There is no reward or special punishment in this Hades, akin to the Hebrew sheol. In later Greek philosophy appeared the idea that all mortals are judged after death and rewarded or cursed
greek version of hades on a chariot claiming a soul
Charon and Psyche" by Neide. The dead were ferried across the river Styx into Hades by Charon, the mythological boatkeeper In its earlier depictions, the underworld kingdom of Hades was such a dank and dark and moldering place that were it laid open to the heavens, even the gods themselves would turn away in disgust.
each culture was so obscessed with war,WAS SO DOMINATED BY WAR, that they each found it necessary to worship a "GOD OF WAR"
Culture Gods and Goddess of War :
Agasaya Semitic goddess
Ah Chuy Kak Maya god
Ah Cun Can Maya god
Ah Hulneb Maya god
Ahulane Maya god
Anahita Persian goddess
Anath Semitic goddess
Andraste Celtic goddess
Ankt Egypt goddess
Anouke Egypt goddess
Aray Armenia god
Ares Greece god
Ashtart Babylonia goddess
Ashur Assyria god
Athena Greece goddess
Badb Celtic goddess
Beg-tse Tibet god
Belatu-Cadros Celtic god
Bellona Rome goddess
Bishamon Japan god
Bugid Y Aiba Haiti god
Buluc Chabtan Maya god
Burijas Kassites god
Camaxtli Aztec god
Camulus Gaul god
Cariocienus Hispanic god
Caswallawn Celtic god
Chemosh Moabite god
Dev Persia god
Donar Teutonic god
Ekchuah Maya god
Enyalius Sparta god
Enyo Greece goddess
Erra Babylonia god
Eshara Chaldean goddess
Futsu-Nushi-no-Kami Japan god
Gu Dahomey god
Guan-di Taoist god
Gun Africa god
Hachiman Shinto god
Hadur Hungary god
Huitzilopochtli Aztec god
Ictinike Native American god
Inanna Sumer goddess
Indra Hindu god
Irmin Teutonic god
Jarovit Slavic god
Karttikeya Hindu god
Korrawi Tamil goddess
Kukailimoku Hawaiian god
Laran Etruscan god
Mars Rome god
Maru Polynesian/Maori god
Menhit Egypt goddess
Menthu Egypt god
Mentu Egypt god
Mextli Mexico god
Minerva Rome goddess
Mixcoatl Aztec god
Morrigan Celtic goddess
Murukan Tamil god
Nacon Maya god
Nanaja Sumer goddess
Neith Egypt goddess
Ninurta Babylonia god
Ogoun Haiti god
Oro Tahiti god
Resef Phoenician god
Reshep Syria god
Rugiviet Slavic god
Sakhmet Egypt goddess
Samulayo Fiji god
Segomo Gaul god
Septu Egypt god
Seth Egypt god
Svantetit Slavic god
Svetovit Slavic god
Teutates Celtic god
Triglav Slavic god
Tu Polynesian god
Tu Matauenga Polynesian god
Turris Finland god
Tyr Germanic god
Wepwawet Egypt god
Wurukatte Hittite god
Zababa Akkad god
Zroya Slavonic goddess
LATE in the history of civilization, DIVINE GODS OF PEACE were recognized, but
ultimately the message was twisted to justify yet ANOTHER REASON FOR WAR
now its "how dare you blastpheme my god, how dare you blastpheme my prophet"
as an excuse for WAR, man's natural tendency seems unvanquished after all.
even more frequently, man has altered written text from the origin of peaceful religion to accomodate this compulsion for war, leading hapless followers into peril.
In older Greek myths, Hades is the misty and gloomy[2] abode of the dead, where all mortals go. There is no reward or special punishment in this Hades, akin to the Hebrew sheol. In later Greek philosophy appeared the idea that all mortals are judged after death and rewarded or cursed
greek version of hades on a chariot claiming a soul
Charon and Psyche" by Neide. The dead were ferried across the river Styx into Hades by Charon, the mythological boatkeeper In its earlier depictions, the underworld kingdom of Hades was such a dank and dark and moldering place that were it laid open to the heavens, even the gods themselves would turn away in disgust.
each culture was so obscessed with war,WAS SO DOMINATED BY WAR, that they each found it necessary to worship a "GOD OF WAR"
Culture Gods and Goddess of War :
Agasaya Semitic goddess
Ah Chuy Kak Maya god
Ah Cun Can Maya god
Ah Hulneb Maya god
Ahulane Maya god
Anahita Persian goddess
Anath Semitic goddess
Andraste Celtic goddess
Ankt Egypt goddess
Anouke Egypt goddess
Aray Armenia god
Ares Greece god
Ashtart Babylonia goddess
Ashur Assyria god
Athena Greece goddess
Badb Celtic goddess
Beg-tse Tibet god
Belatu-Cadros Celtic god
Bellona Rome goddess
Bishamon Japan god
Bugid Y Aiba Haiti god
Buluc Chabtan Maya god
Burijas Kassites god
Camaxtli Aztec god
Camulus Gaul god
Cariocienus Hispanic god
Caswallawn Celtic god
Chemosh Moabite god
Dev Persia god
Donar Teutonic god
Ekchuah Maya god
Enyalius Sparta god
Enyo Greece goddess
Erra Babylonia god
Eshara Chaldean goddess
Futsu-Nushi-no-Kami Japan god
Gu Dahomey god
Guan-di Taoist god
Gun Africa god
Hachiman Shinto god
Hadur Hungary god
Huitzilopochtli Aztec god
Ictinike Native American god
Inanna Sumer goddess
Indra Hindu god
Irmin Teutonic god
Jarovit Slavic god
Karttikeya Hindu god
Korrawi Tamil goddess
Kukailimoku Hawaiian god
Laran Etruscan god
Mars Rome god
Maru Polynesian/Maori god
Menhit Egypt goddess
Menthu Egypt god
Mentu Egypt god
Mextli Mexico god
Minerva Rome goddess
Mixcoatl Aztec god
Morrigan Celtic goddess
Murukan Tamil god
Nacon Maya god
Nanaja Sumer goddess
Neith Egypt goddess
Ninurta Babylonia god
Ogoun Haiti god
Oro Tahiti god
Resef Phoenician god
Reshep Syria god
Rugiviet Slavic god
Sakhmet Egypt goddess
Samulayo Fiji god
Segomo Gaul god
Septu Egypt god
Seth Egypt god
Svantetit Slavic god
Svetovit Slavic god
Teutates Celtic god
Triglav Slavic god
Tu Polynesian god
Tu Matauenga Polynesian god
Turris Finland god
Tyr Germanic god
Wepwawet Egypt god
Wurukatte Hittite god
Zababa Akkad god
Zroya Slavonic goddess
LATE in the history of civilization, DIVINE GODS OF PEACE were recognized, but
ultimately the message was twisted to justify yet ANOTHER REASON FOR WAR
now its "how dare you blastpheme my god, how dare you blastpheme my prophet"
as an excuse for WAR, man's natural tendency seems unvanquished after all.
even more frequently, man has altered written text from the origin of peaceful religion to accomodate this compulsion for war, leading hapless followers into peril.
Hamadeh - June 15, 2007 06:03 AM (GMT)
muslimism lol muslims are the religeon of islam :P and turkey is filled with christians but im saying judaism
alexvegas - June 15, 2007 02:15 PM (GMT)
Surely there's a historical answer to the topic question? There is one correct answer, it's not an opinion based subject.
GunStar1 - June 15, 2007 03:18 PM (GMT)
‘religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world . . . It is the opium of the people’
Karl Marx
Karl Marx
GunStar1 - June 15, 2007 03:23 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (alexvegas @ Jun 16 2007, 12:15 AM) |
| Surely there's a historical answer to the topic question? There is one correct answer, it's not an opinion based subject. |
Nice avatar. . .
more like it here....
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo.htm
plus see...
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=9855
I think I put some on there a while back too
JerryFletcher - June 15, 2007 04:51 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (GunStar1 @ Jun 15 2007, 03:18 PM) |
| ‘religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world . . . It is the opium of the people’ Karl Marx |
That's funny coming from a demon Karl Marx.
alive and still talking - June 15, 2007 05:36 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| ‘religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world . . . It is the opium of the people’ Karl Marx |
that would explain why republicans are walking around in a daze, opium, I thought it was alien abduction of our women, they've been coming around here for years
GunStar1 - June 16, 2007 07:08 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (alive and still talking @ Jun 16 2007, 03:36 AM) |
| I thought it was alien abduction of our women, they've been coming around here for years |
maybe we just can't satisfy them!
hehe
GunStar1 - June 16, 2007 03:08 PM (GMT)
“What then does unite us? Certainly the common desire to be free and independent, but there is something more vital above and beyond that, and that is the common link that unites us - that distinguishes us from our enemies - a belief in God - in the life of the spirit as against the materialism and atheism that joins together the primitives who seek to destroy us and the things for which we stand.
This is the common belief and force that binds us - east and west - free and oppressed. This is the power that must animate our thoughts and actions.”
- JFK
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...HES_53FEB01.htm
This is the common belief and force that binds us - east and west - free and oppressed. This is the power that must animate our thoughts and actions.”
- JFK
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...HES_53FEB01.htm
RevolutionJim - June 16, 2007 05:37 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (alive and still talking @ Jun 14 2007, 04:43 AM) |
| From the earliest known evidence of human religion by Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis around 100,000 years ago to the present day, religion continues to be a very influential aspect of human lives. |
Your poll infers there are no true religions and no creator, both in error.
NEANDERTHAL MAN
A famous anatomist, Dr. Rudolph Virchow, declared, in 1958, that the primitive features of the Neanderthal people were not due to the fact that these people were subhuman, but were due to diseases, or pathological conditions. He pointed out that the skeleton discovered in France was of an old man who couldn’t walk upright because he had a bad case of arthritis! Dr. Virchow declared, further, that all of these people suffered severely from rickets (a condition caused by the lack of Vitamin D) which causes bones to become soft and deformed. For many years, however, evolutionists paid no attention to what Dr. Virchow was saying, because they wanted Neanderthal Man to be a true subhuman ancestor of man.
Eventually, however, other skeletons of Neanderthal people were found that were fully erect, and it was established, by medical research, that the skeleton found in France was, indeed, that of an arthritic old man. X-rays of the fossil bones and teeth showed, just as Dr. Virchow had declared, that all of the Neanderthal people had rickets. Scientists finally concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of the Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases. Museums have removed the old exhibits of Neanderthal people and have replaced them with new exhibits showing the Neanderthal people looking very human, and about 30 years ago, two scientists published an article about Neanderthal people in which they declared that if Neanderthal Man were given a shave, a haircut, and a bath, put into a business suit, and placed on the New York subway, no one would take a second look!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/4061641...97928ecf8_o.jpg
Gunstar 1 - June 16, 2007 06:17 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (RevolutionJim @ Jun 17 2007, 03:37 AM) |
| all of these people suffered severely from rickets (a condition caused by the lack of Vitamin D) which causes bones to become soft and deformed. |
I'm curious, why would they have suffered from lack of Vitamin D?
As we all know, Vitamin D is gained primarily through exposure to sunlight (and from supplements such as Cod Liver Oil).
I'm not claiming to know anything, but perhaps someone could tell me the finer location details of Neanderthal Man. If it was in Africa that these Vitamin D-lacking specimens were found, isn't it strange that they were not exposed to sunlight enough? I mean Africa has a fair bit of blazing sun. And also, perhaps if they were discovered on the coast somewhere, don't you think fish would form the primary diet?
Either way, sunlight, fish, or whatever, I think N-Man should have gotten enough V D. I'm sure they were not sitting inside most of the time on their computers like us. They'd be out hunting and eating = regular Vitamin D. ((( Furthermore, Vitamin D aides in the absorption of Calcium into the body. I always assumed that ancient peoples like this would have relied heavily on animals' milk in their lives. Therefore, calcium should have been absorbed properly, given regular exposure to sunlight/and/or fish etc diet )))
The only other thing I can think of - have no idea if I'm on the money or not - is that perhaps these people were not developed as far, biologically, as modern humans are. Maybe their bodies were unable to absorb Vitamin D at the kinds of rates modern humans' bodies can. Does anyone know the answers definitely?
All I'm saying is that it's a little strange that they'd be lacking in V D, thus allowing the onset of Rickets.
Any thoughts???
Gunstar 1 - June 16, 2007 06:20 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (RevolutionJim @ Jun 17 2007, 03:37 AM) | ||
Your poll infers there are no true religions and no creator, both in error. NEANDERTHAL MAN A famous anatomist, Dr. Rudolph Virchow, declared, in 1958, that the primitive features of the Neanderthal people were not due to the fact that these people were subhuman, but were due to diseases, or pathological conditions. He pointed out that the skeleton discovered in France was of an old man who couldn’t walk upright because he had a bad case of arthritis! Dr. Virchow declared, further, that all of these people suffered severely from rickets (a condition caused by the lack of Vitamin D) which causes bones to become soft and deformed. For many years, however, evolutionists paid no attention to what Dr. Virchow was saying, because they wanted Neanderthal Man to be a true subhuman ancestor of man. Eventually, however, other skeletons of Neanderthal people were found that were fully erect, and it was established, by medical research, that the skeleton found in France was, indeed, that of an arthritic old man. X-rays of the fossil bones and teeth showed, just as Dr. Virchow had declared, that all of the Neanderthal people had rickets. Scientists finally concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of the Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases. Museums have removed the old exhibits of Neanderthal people and have replaced them with new exhibits showing the Neanderthal people looking very human, and about 30 years ago, two scientists published an article about Neanderthal people in which they declared that if Neanderthal Man were given a shave, a haircut, and a bath, put into a business suit, and placed on the New York subway, no one would take a second look! http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/4061641...97928ecf8_o.jpg |
Nevertheless,
I found your post fascinating! I honestly had never thought of this possibility, i.e. that deformities, not fundamental difference, caused the apparent 'missing link'.
The business suit analogy was perfect.
Gunstar B)
Gunstar 1 - June 16, 2007 06:26 PM (GMT)
Readers Digest June 2003 Cover Story
Reprinted from Reader's Digest, June 2003 edition.
The Healing Vitamin
Are you getting enough?
Wilson Riley didn't know what ailed his baby son, but by the time the boy was one, Riley was sure something wasn't right. "His head was growing, but his body was really small," Riley recalls. At Boston Medical Center, the doctor told him his son Kuool had rickets - a bone-bending disease caused by vitamin D deficiency.
Looking back a century and more, the slums of Boston, New York, and London teemed with children whose weak, spindly limbs and bowed legs testified to their vitamin D deficiency. (Tiny Tim, the character in Dickens's novel A Christmas Carol, was a likely case.) The disease all but disappeared after the 1920's, when doctors realized it could be cured by sun exposure, and farmers began fortifying milk with vitamin D.
But lately the malady has been making a comeback. That's bad, and not just for kids, according to Boston University medical school professor Michael Holick, who's spend the last 30 years researching the subject. He believes we're living amid an unrecognized epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. And nowadays, scientists are linking low levels of D to cancer, hypertension, diabetes and osteoporosis. "More and more evidence is mounting that vitamin D plays an absolutely pivotal role in all aspects of human health," says Holick.
That's a major shift. Researchers used to think D's main value was in building strong bones. But new research shows that this humble nutrient is far more versatile. Unlike other vitamins, D isn't found in much we eat - aside from fortified milk and cold-water fish like mackerel and salmon. Instead, most is supplied by the sun. A D-related hormone in the skin soaks up the ultraviolet rays in sunlight and travels to the liver and the kidneys, where it picks up extra molecules of oxygen and hydrogen. This process transforms the "pre-vitamin" D into a potent hormone called calcitriol. Part of the evolving understanding of this nutrient is that scientists now think many tissues in the body - not just the liver and kidneys - can convert the pre-vitamin D to make their own disease-fighting calcitriol.
Let the sun bake your unprotected arms and face for few minutes, and you'll make all the D you need - it sounds simple, though a touch sinful. But combine our indoor lifestyle, sun-blocking pollution, and the fact that even sunscreen with an SPF of 8 reduces D absorption to virtually nil, and many of us end up falling short, says Holick. Deficiency seems to be rampant among Americans living above the 40th parallel - line that cuts from Philadelphia to Columbus, Ohio, past Denver and through Northern California. Sunshine is so scarce during Boston winters, Holick says, that "you could stand outside naked from the time the sun rises till it sets and you won't make any D."
Without sunlight, the body will run through its reserves of the vitamin within a few weeks. In studies of people living in the Northeast, anywhere from 20 to 60 percent of those over age 50 are low on D. The elderly tend to be at higher risk because their D-making machinery is less efficient.
Also, at elevated risk are African Americans, since having darker skin makes absorbing UV rays harder. Doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found the 42 percent of African American women of childbearing age were deficient.
One startling result of the growing D deficiency is more and more rickets cases each year. Doting parents are doing exactly what they should: breast-feeding their infants and keeping them out of the sun. For much of his first year, Kuool Riley was nursed - not much D there. (Experts recommend that breast-feeding mothers should consult their pediatrician about D supplements.) And the skies over Boston were generally overcast. "When we took him outside, that little bit of sun clearly wasn't enough to do anything," recalls his father, Wilson Riley. After doses of vitamin D and various other therapies, the boy is now a healthy kindergartner.
But what really worries Holick and others is what Kuool's deficiency may represent: huge chunks of the world's population living with a chronic lack of D that boosts the risk of serious illnesses. At the top of the list?
Cancer
The cancer theory got its legs in 1980 after Frank and Cedric Garland, epidemiologists who are also brothers, were struck by maps showing that the rate of colon cancer was about twice as high in the cloudy Northeast as in the Sunbelt. The pattern not have been clearer, recalls Cedric Garland, now a professor at the University of California, San Diego. Blue zones indicated low rates of cancer, and red, yellow and white represented average to above average rates, explains Garland. "South of the Mason-Dixon line was all blue, and everything above it was red, yellow and white." The Garlands were the first to suggest that differing D levels might account for the phenomenon. Later studies supported their hunch: People who consumed the most vitamin D or had the highest levels of D in their blood had a lower risk of colon cancer.
Researchers are also probing links between prostate, breast and ovarian cancers and a lack of sunshine and D. Indeed, scientists at the National Cancer Institute recently surveyed death certificates in 24 states and found the chances of dying from any of those cancers was reduced by 10 to 27 percent for people in the sunniest areas.
The idea makes sense biologically, explains Gary Schwartz, and epidemiologist at Wake Forest University School of Medicine who has studied the role of D in prostate cancer. Prostate cells, he has shown, produce the hormone calcitriol, which can act as a brake on cell growth. When the cells can't get enough of vitamin D's precursor to make calcitriol, it's as if the brake lines are cut. The cells can multiply uncontrollably, and cancer results.
Other experts are not yet convinced. "It's a reasonable hypothesis, but not all studies show an association between sunshine, D and cancer," says Donald L. Trump, chairman of the department of medicine at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo. "The epidemiology is very suggestive," says Marji Mccullough of the American Cancer Society. But, she adds, lack of sunshine and D aren't the only explanations for the geography of cancer. "People may have other risk factors."
Still, Gary Schwartz is convinced enough by the data that he is not only administering but also participating in a study in which healthy men are taking high doses of vitamin D to see if it prevents prostate cancer.
Diabetes
In Finland, where the sun shows its face for only a few hours a day during the winter, the natives have the world's highest incidence of Type 1 diabetes. But Scandinavian researchers there have found that giving infants, or even pregnant women, vitamin D reduces risk for the disease. In one study tracking 10,000 children, researchers found that those who got regular doses of vitamin D as infants were about 80 percent less likely to later develop Type 1 diabetes than those who did not get enough. Animal studies offer support: Mice bred to develop diabetes are far less likely to get it if they are given vitamin D from birth. It's not clear how D does the job. But Holick and others point out that Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease. In research, D can suppress certain immune cells, so the vitamin may help by preventing destruction of the cells that produce insulin.
Hypertension
It's long been known that a population's average blood pressure rises the farther the country is from the equator. That's not just a matter of the laid-back tropics versus the urban grind, according Holick. He recruited 18 volunteers with mild hypertension and put them under UVB lights for at least six minutes three times a week. After six weeks, the amount of D in their systems had more than doubled and their blood pressure had dropped significantly - to normal for some. The lights may work, says Holick, because they boost calcitriol production by the kidneys, and calcitriol tamps down enzymes that cause blood vessels to constrict, a major cause of high blood pressure.
Osteoporosis
At conferences, Holick likes to make his point about the importance of D to the bones by showing pictures of his daughter's pet iguana. Without regular doses of UVB rays, the lizard's bones start to break down. We're not any different, says Holick. In the intricate ballad of calcium regulation, when D goes missing, another hormone, parathyroid hormone, builds up and starts pulling calcium out of the skeleton.
One result is the bone-brittling disease osteoporosis. Holick believes the high rates of osteoporosis among the elderly can be partly traced to the fact that many spend little time outside and they're diligent sunscreen wearers. Indeed, studies suggest that 30 to 40 percent of American and British elders with hip fractures were low on D. The problem could be remedied with the same ultraviolet lights that iguana owners use for their pets. "We don't do this for nursing home residents," Holick says, "but we'll spend 40 bucks for lights for an iguana."
How Much D?
The dangers of not getting enough vitamin D are so great that experts say people should take a blood test for D levels once a year - just as they check their cholesterol regularly.
Current daily recommendations for vitamin D suggest people under the age of 50 get 200 IUs a day; 51- to 60- year-olds aim for 400 IUs; for those 70 and over, 600 IUs. That's enough to keep bones healthy, but Holick and others believe we need even more to avoid other diseases. In the absence of sunlight, the daily dose may be more on the order of 800 IUs to 1000 IUs a day. (More than 2000 IUs can be harmful, producing a toxic buildup of calcium in the bloodstream.)
But getting 800 IUs isn't too hard to achieve. An 8-ounce cup of milk contains almost 100 IUs. For the lactose intolerant or those who don't like dairy, Minute Maid offers D-fortified orange juice. D supplements are easy to find, usually packaged with calcium.
Better still, get outside. All it takes is 10-20 minutes a day - without sunscreen.
http://www.beachbumstanningresort.com/Got%20Vitamin%20D.htm
Reprinted from Reader's Digest, June 2003 edition.
The Healing Vitamin
Are you getting enough?
Wilson Riley didn't know what ailed his baby son, but by the time the boy was one, Riley was sure something wasn't right. "His head was growing, but his body was really small," Riley recalls. At Boston Medical Center, the doctor told him his son Kuool had rickets - a bone-bending disease caused by vitamin D deficiency.
Looking back a century and more, the slums of Boston, New York, and London teemed with children whose weak, spindly limbs and bowed legs testified to their vitamin D deficiency. (Tiny Tim, the character in Dickens's novel A Christmas Carol, was a likely case.) The disease all but disappeared after the 1920's, when doctors realized it could be cured by sun exposure, and farmers began fortifying milk with vitamin D.
But lately the malady has been making a comeback. That's bad, and not just for kids, according to Boston University medical school professor Michael Holick, who's spend the last 30 years researching the subject. He believes we're living amid an unrecognized epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. And nowadays, scientists are linking low levels of D to cancer, hypertension, diabetes and osteoporosis. "More and more evidence is mounting that vitamin D plays an absolutely pivotal role in all aspects of human health," says Holick.
That's a major shift. Researchers used to think D's main value was in building strong bones. But new research shows that this humble nutrient is far more versatile. Unlike other vitamins, D isn't found in much we eat - aside from fortified milk and cold-water fish like mackerel and salmon. Instead, most is supplied by the sun. A D-related hormone in the skin soaks up the ultraviolet rays in sunlight and travels to the liver and the kidneys, where it picks up extra molecules of oxygen and hydrogen. This process transforms the "pre-vitamin" D into a potent hormone called calcitriol. Part of the evolving understanding of this nutrient is that scientists now think many tissues in the body - not just the liver and kidneys - can convert the pre-vitamin D to make their own disease-fighting calcitriol.
Let the sun bake your unprotected arms and face for few minutes, and you'll make all the D you need - it sounds simple, though a touch sinful. But combine our indoor lifestyle, sun-blocking pollution, and the fact that even sunscreen with an SPF of 8 reduces D absorption to virtually nil, and many of us end up falling short, says Holick. Deficiency seems to be rampant among Americans living above the 40th parallel - line that cuts from Philadelphia to Columbus, Ohio, past Denver and through Northern California. Sunshine is so scarce during Boston winters, Holick says, that "you could stand outside naked from the time the sun rises till it sets and you won't make any D."
Without sunlight, the body will run through its reserves of the vitamin within a few weeks. In studies of people living in the Northeast, anywhere from 20 to 60 percent of those over age 50 are low on D. The elderly tend to be at higher risk because their D-making machinery is less efficient.
Also, at elevated risk are African Americans, since having darker skin makes absorbing UV rays harder. Doctors at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found the 42 percent of African American women of childbearing age were deficient.
One startling result of the growing D deficiency is more and more rickets cases each year. Doting parents are doing exactly what they should: breast-feeding their infants and keeping them out of the sun. For much of his first year, Kuool Riley was nursed - not much D there. (Experts recommend that breast-feeding mothers should consult their pediatrician about D supplements.) And the skies over Boston were generally overcast. "When we took him outside, that little bit of sun clearly wasn't enough to do anything," recalls his father, Wilson Riley. After doses of vitamin D and various other therapies, the boy is now a healthy kindergartner.
But what really worries Holick and others is what Kuool's deficiency may represent: huge chunks of the world's population living with a chronic lack of D that boosts the risk of serious illnesses. At the top of the list?
Cancer
The cancer theory got its legs in 1980 after Frank and Cedric Garland, epidemiologists who are also brothers, were struck by maps showing that the rate of colon cancer was about twice as high in the cloudy Northeast as in the Sunbelt. The pattern not have been clearer, recalls Cedric Garland, now a professor at the University of California, San Diego. Blue zones indicated low rates of cancer, and red, yellow and white represented average to above average rates, explains Garland. "South of the Mason-Dixon line was all blue, and everything above it was red, yellow and white." The Garlands were the first to suggest that differing D levels might account for the phenomenon. Later studies supported their hunch: People who consumed the most vitamin D or had the highest levels of D in their blood had a lower risk of colon cancer.
Researchers are also probing links between prostate, breast and ovarian cancers and a lack of sunshine and D. Indeed, scientists at the National Cancer Institute recently surveyed death certificates in 24 states and found the chances of dying from any of those cancers was reduced by 10 to 27 percent for people in the sunniest areas.
The idea makes sense biologically, explains Gary Schwartz, and epidemiologist at Wake Forest University School of Medicine who has studied the role of D in prostate cancer. Prostate cells, he has shown, produce the hormone calcitriol, which can act as a brake on cell growth. When the cells can't get enough of vitamin D's precursor to make calcitriol, it's as if the brake lines are cut. The cells can multiply uncontrollably, and cancer results.
Other experts are not yet convinced. "It's a reasonable hypothesis, but not all studies show an association between sunshine, D and cancer," says Donald L. Trump, chairman of the department of medicine at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo. "The epidemiology is very suggestive," says Marji Mccullough of the American Cancer Society. But, she adds, lack of sunshine and D aren't the only explanations for the geography of cancer. "People may have other risk factors."
Still, Gary Schwartz is convinced enough by the data that he is not only administering but also participating in a study in which healthy men are taking high doses of vitamin D to see if it prevents prostate cancer.
Diabetes
In Finland, where the sun shows its face for only a few hours a day during the winter, the natives have the world's highest incidence of Type 1 diabetes. But Scandinavian researchers there have found that giving infants, or even pregnant women, vitamin D reduces risk for the disease. In one study tracking 10,000 children, researchers found that those who got regular doses of vitamin D as infants were about 80 percent less likely to later develop Type 1 diabetes than those who did not get enough. Animal studies offer support: Mice bred to develop diabetes are far less likely to get it if they are given vitamin D from birth. It's not clear how D does the job. But Holick and others point out that Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease. In research, D can suppress certain immune cells, so the vitamin may help by preventing destruction of the cells that produce insulin.
Hypertension
It's long been known that a population's average blood pressure rises the farther the country is from the equator. That's not just a matter of the laid-back tropics versus the urban grind, according Holick. He recruited 18 volunteers with mild hypertension and put them under UVB lights for at least six minutes three times a week. After six weeks, the amount of D in their systems had more than doubled and their blood pressure had dropped significantly - to normal for some. The lights may work, says Holick, because they boost calcitriol production by the kidneys, and calcitriol tamps down enzymes that cause blood vessels to constrict, a major cause of high blood pressure.
Osteoporosis
At conferences, Holick likes to make his point about the importance of D to the bones by showing pictures of his daughter's pet iguana. Without regular doses of UVB rays, the lizard's bones start to break down. We're not any different, says Holick. In the intricate ballad of calcium regulation, when D goes missing, another hormone, parathyroid hormone, builds up and starts pulling calcium out of the skeleton.
One result is the bone-brittling disease osteoporosis. Holick believes the high rates of osteoporosis among the elderly can be partly traced to the fact that many spend little time outside and they're diligent sunscreen wearers. Indeed, studies suggest that 30 to 40 percent of American and British elders with hip fractures were low on D. The problem could be remedied with the same ultraviolet lights that iguana owners use for their pets. "We don't do this for nursing home residents," Holick says, "but we'll spend 40 bucks for lights for an iguana."
How Much D?
The dangers of not getting enough vitamin D are so great that experts say people should take a blood test for D levels once a year - just as they check their cholesterol regularly.
Current daily recommendations for vitamin D suggest people under the age of 50 get 200 IUs a day; 51- to 60- year-olds aim for 400 IUs; for those 70 and over, 600 IUs. That's enough to keep bones healthy, but Holick and others believe we need even more to avoid other diseases. In the absence of sunlight, the daily dose may be more on the order of 800 IUs to 1000 IUs a day. (More than 2000 IUs can be harmful, producing a toxic buildup of calcium in the bloodstream.)
But getting 800 IUs isn't too hard to achieve. An 8-ounce cup of milk contains almost 100 IUs. For the lactose intolerant or those who don't like dairy, Minute Maid offers D-fortified orange juice. D supplements are easy to find, usually packaged with calcium.
Better still, get outside. All it takes is 10-20 minutes a day - without sunscreen.
http://www.beachbumstanningresort.com/Got%20Vitamin%20D.htm
Gunstar 1 - June 16, 2007 06:37 PM (GMT)
Vitamin D cuts cancer risk
*
* June 11, 2007
LARGE doses of vitamin D may reduce the risk of cancer, according to a four-year US study involving almost 1,200 women over the age of 55.
Women who took calcium and a dose of vitamin D almost three times the US government's recommended daily intake for middle-aged adults saw a 60 per cent lower incidence of all cancers than women not taking the vitamin, the study found.
The study, conducted by researchers at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Nebraska, was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Joan Lappe, a Creighton professor of medicine who led the study, said vitamin D may be an effective way to guard against cancer but many people worldwide do not get enough of it.
"I'm really very excited because I think the vitamin D deficiency issue is a major health concern that we need to address, and perhaps this will bring it to the forefront," he said.
Professor Lappe said additional research is needed to figure out whether the protective effect seen in the older white women also applied to men, younger women and other ethnic groups.
The American Cancer Society reacted cautiously, calling it a small study. Only 50 of the 1,179 women developed cancer, making broad conclusions difficult, said Michael Thun, who heads epidemiological research for the society.
Dr Thun said another weakness was that the researchers initially did not set out to examine the effect of vitamin D on cancer, but on bone health in post-menopausal women.
"The results are provocative" but not sufficient for the society to recommend people take vitamin D supplements to ward off cancer, Dr Thun said in a telephone interview.
A number of studies have found protective properties from higher intake of vitamin D for cancers and other ailments. For example, other researchers in December found people with higher levels of vitamin D had a lower risk of multiple sclerosis.
The body makes vitamin D after being exposed to sunlight. Not many foods are naturally rich in the vitamin, which is found in fatty fish such as salmon. Milk commonly is fortified with it.
Vitamin D promotes absorption of calcium necessary for healthy teeth and bones. It is also important to nerve cells, including the brain, and seems to act as a regulator of the immune system.
The women in the study were from a nine-county area of rural eastern Nebraska and had no known cancers for at least a decade before it began in 2000.
They were broken into three groups, either getting 1,400 to 1,500 mg of a calcium supplement daily, getting that calcium plus 1,100 IU (international units) of vitamin D3, or getting placebos.
After four years, 20 women in the placebo group got cancer, 17 in the calcium-only group got cancer and 13 in the vitamin D3 and calcium group got cancer.
Figuring some women may have entered the study with undiagnosed cancer, the researchers excluded the results in the first year and assessed only the final three. The findings became even more powerful, with the women getting calcium and vitamin D3 experiencing a 77 per cent lower cancer risk.
The researchers found no statistically significant difference in cancer risk for the groups getting calcium alone or placebos.
Reuters
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...0-23289,00.html
*
* June 11, 2007
LARGE doses of vitamin D may reduce the risk of cancer, according to a four-year US study involving almost 1,200 women over the age of 55.
Women who took calcium and a dose of vitamin D almost three times the US government's recommended daily intake for middle-aged adults saw a 60 per cent lower incidence of all cancers than women not taking the vitamin, the study found.
The study, conducted by researchers at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Nebraska, was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Joan Lappe, a Creighton professor of medicine who led the study, said vitamin D may be an effective way to guard against cancer but many people worldwide do not get enough of it.
"I'm really very excited because I think the vitamin D deficiency issue is a major health concern that we need to address, and perhaps this will bring it to the forefront," he said.
Professor Lappe said additional research is needed to figure out whether the protective effect seen in the older white women also applied to men, younger women and other ethnic groups.
The American Cancer Society reacted cautiously, calling it a small study. Only 50 of the 1,179 women developed cancer, making broad conclusions difficult, said Michael Thun, who heads epidemiological research for the society.
Dr Thun said another weakness was that the researchers initially did not set out to examine the effect of vitamin D on cancer, but on bone health in post-menopausal women.
"The results are provocative" but not sufficient for the society to recommend people take vitamin D supplements to ward off cancer, Dr Thun said in a telephone interview.
A number of studies have found protective properties from higher intake of vitamin D for cancers and other ailments. For example, other researchers in December found people with higher levels of vitamin D had a lower risk of multiple sclerosis.
The body makes vitamin D after being exposed to sunlight. Not many foods are naturally rich in the vitamin, which is found in fatty fish such as salmon. Milk commonly is fortified with it.
Vitamin D promotes absorption of calcium necessary for healthy teeth and bones. It is also important to nerve cells, including the brain, and seems to act as a regulator of the immune system.
The women in the study were from a nine-county area of rural eastern Nebraska and had no known cancers for at least a decade before it began in 2000.
They were broken into three groups, either getting 1,400 to 1,500 mg of a calcium supplement daily, getting that calcium plus 1,100 IU (international units) of vitamin D3, or getting placebos.
After four years, 20 women in the placebo group got cancer, 17 in the calcium-only group got cancer and 13 in the vitamin D3 and calcium group got cancer.
Figuring some women may have entered the study with undiagnosed cancer, the researchers excluded the results in the first year and assessed only the final three. The findings became even more powerful, with the women getting calcium and vitamin D3 experiencing a 77 per cent lower cancer risk.
The researchers found no statistically significant difference in cancer risk for the groups getting calcium alone or placebos.
Reuters
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...0-23289,00.html
Gunstar 1 - June 16, 2007 06:40 PM (GMT)
This is brilliant, I've got the print version, and I had a really good online print-out of it, and now I've lost it and lost the link too...
Reader's Digest Australia: Australian Reader's Digest: November 2006
Australian Reader's Digest, November 2006 To whet your appetite, ... D: The Miracle Vitamin We generate it when we’re exposed to sunlight – and the benefits ...
www.readersdigest.com.au/content/30686/ - 51k - Cached - Similar pages
Reader's Digest Australia: Australian Reader's Digest: November 2006
Australian Reader's Digest, November 2006 To whet your appetite, ... D: The Miracle Vitamin We generate it when we’re exposed to sunlight – and the benefits ...
www.readersdigest.com.au/content/30686/ - 51k - Cached - Similar pages
RevolutionJim - June 16, 2007 06:40 PM (GMT)
Neanderthal is in Germany.
They could have been prisoners kept in the caves out of light.
I've bought the full spread spectrum lighting for this room. That's why they put D in milk, we are inside more than ever, but what if we dont drink milk. Well, take care and get some sunshine.
They could have been prisoners kept in the caves out of light.
I've bought the full spread spectrum lighting for this room. That's why they put D in milk, we are inside more than ever, but what if we dont drink milk. Well, take care and get some sunshine.
Gunstar 1 - June 16, 2007 06:45 PM (GMT)
Out of Africa theory 'correct'
Tuesday, 08 May 2007 10:54
The theory that all modern humans descended out of Africa is almost certainly correct, new research claims.
According to the 'Out of Africa' theory, all modern humans come from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Europe and Asia over thousands of years.
They then replaced other early human settlers, such as Neanderthals, rather than interbreeding with them.
Some scientists have said that there is evidence which dispels this theory, but a new study claims that its DNA evidence proves Out of Africa to be true.
A team led by scientists at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities found that Australia's Aboriginal population comes from the same small group of colonists as their neighbours in New Guinea.
They came to this conclusion after analysing the mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea.
The results showed that they share the same genetic features that have been associated with the exodus from Africa 50,000 years ago.
Early humans were able to travel to Australia via a land bridge that was submerged by water 8,000 years ago. This, the study's authors claim, explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though genetic evidence shows no interbreeding with Homo erectus.
Dr Toomas Kivisild, the report's co-author from Cambridge University, explained: "The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources.
"There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding."
The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/science/sc...036;1083087.htm
Tuesday, 08 May 2007 10:54
The theory that all modern humans descended out of Africa is almost certainly correct, new research claims.
According to the 'Out of Africa' theory, all modern humans come from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Europe and Asia over thousands of years.
They then replaced other early human settlers, such as Neanderthals, rather than interbreeding with them.
Some scientists have said that there is evidence which dispels this theory, but a new study claims that its DNA evidence proves Out of Africa to be true.
A team led by scientists at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities found that Australia's Aboriginal population comes from the same small group of colonists as their neighbours in New Guinea.
They came to this conclusion after analysing the mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea.
The results showed that they share the same genetic features that have been associated with the exodus from Africa 50,000 years ago.
Early humans were able to travel to Australia via a land bridge that was submerged by water 8,000 years ago. This, the study's authors claim, explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though genetic evidence shows no interbreeding with Homo erectus.
Dr Toomas Kivisild, the report's co-author from Cambridge University, explained: "The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources.
"There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding."
The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/science/sc...036;1083087.htm
Gunstar 1 - June 16, 2007 06:47 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (RevolutionJim @ Jun 17 2007, 04:40 AM) |
| Neanderthal is in Germany. They could have been prisoners kept in the caves out of light. I've bought the full spread spectrum lighting for this room. That's why they put D in milk, we are inside more than ever, but what if we dont drink milk. Well, take care and get some sunshine. |
Yeah...
Not much sunlight over there, I guess. Were they all around there, I mean the Vitamin-Deff ones? Or from somewhere else too?
Gunstar 1 - June 16, 2007 06:50 PM (GMT)
Gunstar 1 - June 16, 2007 06:52 PM (GMT)
And. . .
The following article by Stan Gooch was commissioned by Boris Johnson for The Spectator
The Way We Are
In April 1999 Professor Trinkaus of Washington University announced that fossil finds in Portugal some 25,000 years old proved conclusively that Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon man had interbred. That of course had long been obvious to anyone with eyes in his head—‘you can observe Neanderthal at any public gathering’ as Oswald Spengler remarked.
But now it is official. What the scientific establishment had for so long implacably denied is true—we are a hybrid species. We are not simply the descendant of Cro-Magnon man.
But now too we have to accept and face the massive consequences of this situation. Or to put matters more positively, we now have the answers to the central and hitherto inexplicable puzzles of the human condition. We can now for instance understand the nature and source of the unending conflicts which tear human communities apart from Northern Ireland to Bosnia to Indonesia to Nigeria. We can now also understand why we have a universal political structure of diametrically opposed left wing versus right wing views.
But not even that is all.
In 1994 Jean-Marie Chauvet, a pot-holer, stumbled upon the magnificent cave paintings of what is now known as the Chauvet grotto. These 33,000 year old paintings are in every way the equal of the work of the great artists of our present day—Da Vinci, Picasso, Michael Angelo. Robin McKie in his book Ape Man emphasises that Neanderthals had shown no ability to produce art of this quality—but adds, crucially: ‘The problem is that neither had Cro-Magnon.’ Art critic John Berger writes: ‘Art did not begin clumsily or gradually—there was grace from the start.’ So the astonishing Chauvet achievement bursts on us out of the blue from nowhere.
And this remarkable and hitherto inexplicable artistic situation is equally duplicated on all fronts—not merely the artistic. (The situation is in fact almost enough to make one believe in von Däniken.) As Robin McKie emphasises, thus far both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon had used the same kind of tools in the same kinds of ways for almost two hundred thousand years.
But then from around 35,000 BP there is a sudden explosion in the complexity and style and use of tools throughout the whole world human community—as also of all aspects of culture. Where, asks McKie, did the modern world suddenly spring from and why? He then states, frankly, that he and the scientific community have no explanations to offer.
Yet the answer is in fact not far to seek.
When animal and plant breeders cross widely divergent species of plants and animals a simple miracle occurs. Offspring are produced which have qualities and characteristics possessed by neither parent. This outcome is known as ‘hybrid vigour’. It is precisely what animal and plant breeding is all about.
So is it not then abundantly clear that the crossing of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon—who had of course evolved as two totally separate species over many millions of years—suddenly, overnight, produced ourselves and our remarkable abilities?
A sobering thought in passing is this. It is virtually certain that the miraculous (or rather standard!) biological event that produced ourselves occurred simply and solely as the by-product of the systematic slaughter and extinction of Neanderthal by Cro-Magnon—and in the process the rape and enslavement of Neanderthal woman.
Yet there is much more still.
When widely divergent species of animal are crossed and subsequently observed in the laboratory the offspring are frequently found to have inherited conflicting sets of instincts, evolved in their parents’ separate evolutionary pasts.
As an actual instance we have the offspring of the cross between a Peach-Faced Lovebird and a Fischer’s Lovebird. The Peach-Faced Lovebird when building its nest carries leaves and strips of bark tucked into its rump feathers. The Fischer’s Lovebird however transports these items in its beak. The hybrid cross is found to possess both sets of instinctive instructions. So the unfortunate offspring tears itself a strip of bark. The Peach-Faced instinct now tells the bird to insert this into its rump feathers, which the youngster does.
But at this point the Fischer’s instinct intervenes and instructs the bird not to let go of the material because it has not yet arrived at the nest site. So the youngster resumes the ready-to-fly position with the bark still in its mouth. But then the Peach-Faced instinct, noting the bark in the mouth, once again intervenes and reminds the bird to place the bark in its rump feathers. This the youngster again attempts to do. But now once more the Fischer’s instinct reminds the bird that it is not yet at the nest site—so the ready-to-fly position is again resumed with the bark still in the youngster’s beak . . .
The see-saw process continues on and on and on—with the young bird exhibiting ever greater confusion and distress.
That is the kind of psychological impasse which is often created when widely divergent animal species are crossed. It is also what occurred when Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon interbred. Now we can understand why our culture has so many established and enduring metaphors, and so many enduring and central storylines, attesting to our ‘double life’: the divided self, the two souls within one breast, the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, Cain and Abel, Jekyll and Hyde, Faust. This too is why, for example, we long for true, everlasting love on the one hand—yet hanker for promiscuity and one-night stands on the other,
How could two such diametrically opposed instinctive drives exist side-by-side in terms of any normal evolutionary scenario, within any one single species? Oh, but surely we are not governed by instinct to that extent? Oh, but surely we are. The greater part of our social life and culture is centrally governed by ‘fossil behaviours' evolved by our ancestors in the distant past. Desmond Morris in particular has written several books on this subject.
Very briefly here, my own proposals in respect of Neanderthal life (based on a study of these matters over some forty years) are that Neanderthal society was matriarchal and completely promiscuous, led by women and driven by sex—exactly as is the case with the recently discovered bonobos pygmy chimpanzees of Africa. Life was communal (we can interject the word 'commune-ism' here).
Neanderthal evolved originally in bush or jungle conditions, hence his shortness (classic Neanderthal males in particular were a mere average 5' 4'' in height) and was also near-sighted as appropriate to this environment. And importantly, predominantly left-handed (for reasons too complex to summarise here).
Cro-Magnon certainly evolved on the open plains, hence his tallness. (Average height of Cro-Magnon males was originally calculated to be 6' 0''—though the more accepted figure today is 5' 10''.) He developed pair-bonding and lived with one partner for life, on a defined small piece of territory adjacent with other similar pairs. (Thus the gibbon communities of today are actually the perfect model for suburbia.) He was appropriately long-sighted, and right-handed.
The above statements are to an extent a matter for debate. What follows is not—and is readily testable in respect of the items listed. Some of these items have in fact already been formally investigated and confirmed. My own research supports the remainder. It is quite clear that the left wing and the Labour Party represent our Neanderthal side, while the right wing and the Conservative Party represent our Cro-Magnon ancestry. And so if Labour MPs and members (I stress members) of the Labour Party were compared with Conservative MPs and members of the Conservative Party then the former would show:
A greater incidence of the big toe being shorter than the second toe. (All Neanderthal fossil feet and fossil footprints have the big toe shorter than the second toe. All Cro-Magnon fossil feet and fossil footprints show the big toe longer than the second toe.)
Greater incidence of the so-called simian line in the palm of the hand. (The simian line is a single division across the centre of the palm, which all apes have but most humans do not. The norm for humans is two lines—the so-called head and heart lines.)
A larger cerebellum.
Greater incidence of the pyknic body type and a lower incidence of the athletic body type.
A higher incidence of left-handedness.
A lower incidence of male pattern baldness.
Greater incidence of prominent eyebrows (including eyebrows which meet in the middle) and brow ridges.
A greater number of offspring (i.e. higher fertility).
Higher incidence of clinical neurosis and a lower incidence of clinical psychosis.
Higher incidence of short-sightedness and a lower incidence of long-sightedness.
Better night vision.
Greater susceptibility to hypnosis.
Greater proportion of sleeping time spent in dreaming time.
Higher incidence of 'drop-out' behaviours (sleeping rough, alcoholism, unemployment, drug addiction, etc.).
Shorter average height.
Lower average IQ.
These same differences would also be shown when members of religious organisations were compared with members of scientific institutions; when southern Europeans were compared with northern Europeans; when eastern Europeans were compared with western Europeans; when Welsh were compared with English; when Northern Ireland Catholics were compared with Northern Ireland Protestants; when members of the Untouchable caste were compared with members of the Brahmin caste; when short individuals were compared with tall individuals.
As said, a number of these intercorrelations have already been confirmed by large-scale formal surveys. Thus left-handed men show far less baldness than right-handed men. Drop-outs sleeping rough on American streets also show far less baldness. Jews in every European country show more short-sightedness than non-Jews. Northern Europeans are taller than southern Europeans—and so on. How does (or could) orthodoxy account for these findings? Orthodoxy has no answers.
As already stated, conflict within human societies (as opposed to conflict between nations purely over disputed territory) can be very well understood in terms of our dual human ancestry—and cannot in fact be genuinely understood in any other. From Northern Ireland to Nigeria, though the labels given to the conflicts concerned differ, what we see on closer inspection is one group defending and seeking to impose a more Neanderthal life-style versus another defending and seeking to impose a more Cro-Magnon life-style.
The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the Taleban movement were/are Neanderthal driven. The Nazi movement, the Ku Klux Klan and Serbian ethnic cleansing were/are Cro-Magnon driven.
Look at John Hume standing next to David Trimble in Northern Ireland and you will see ‘Neanderthal’ standing next to ‘Cro-Magnon’. The quotation marks are of course crucial. If David Trimble were purely Cro-Magnon he would not be short-sighted. If John Hume were purely Neanderthal he would not be as tall as David Trimble.
We are all simultaneously and permanently both.
That situation, as we have briefly seen, is at once our greatest blessing—and our greatest curse.
© Stan Gooch 2000
http://www.aulis.com/twothirds2.htm
((( I admit, I just started reading this one, but the beginning seems to match what you were saying, i.e....
"But now it is official. What the scientific establishment had for so long implacably denied is true—we are a hybrid species. We are not simply the descendant of Cro-Magnon man."
Yes?
The following article by Stan Gooch was commissioned by Boris Johnson for The Spectator
The Way We Are
In April 1999 Professor Trinkaus of Washington University announced that fossil finds in Portugal some 25,000 years old proved conclusively that Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon man had interbred. That of course had long been obvious to anyone with eyes in his head—‘you can observe Neanderthal at any public gathering’ as Oswald Spengler remarked.
But now it is official. What the scientific establishment had for so long implacably denied is true—we are a hybrid species. We are not simply the descendant of Cro-Magnon man.
But now too we have to accept and face the massive consequences of this situation. Or to put matters more positively, we now have the answers to the central and hitherto inexplicable puzzles of the human condition. We can now for instance understand the nature and source of the unending conflicts which tear human communities apart from Northern Ireland to Bosnia to Indonesia to Nigeria. We can now also understand why we have a universal political structure of diametrically opposed left wing versus right wing views.
But not even that is all.
In 1994 Jean-Marie Chauvet, a pot-holer, stumbled upon the magnificent cave paintings of what is now known as the Chauvet grotto. These 33,000 year old paintings are in every way the equal of the work of the great artists of our present day—Da Vinci, Picasso, Michael Angelo. Robin McKie in his book Ape Man emphasises that Neanderthals had shown no ability to produce art of this quality—but adds, crucially: ‘The problem is that neither had Cro-Magnon.’ Art critic John Berger writes: ‘Art did not begin clumsily or gradually—there was grace from the start.’ So the astonishing Chauvet achievement bursts on us out of the blue from nowhere.
And this remarkable and hitherto inexplicable artistic situation is equally duplicated on all fronts—not merely the artistic. (The situation is in fact almost enough to make one believe in von Däniken.) As Robin McKie emphasises, thus far both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon had used the same kind of tools in the same kinds of ways for almost two hundred thousand years.
But then from around 35,000 BP there is a sudden explosion in the complexity and style and use of tools throughout the whole world human community—as also of all aspects of culture. Where, asks McKie, did the modern world suddenly spring from and why? He then states, frankly, that he and the scientific community have no explanations to offer.
Yet the answer is in fact not far to seek.
When animal and plant breeders cross widely divergent species of plants and animals a simple miracle occurs. Offspring are produced which have qualities and characteristics possessed by neither parent. This outcome is known as ‘hybrid vigour’. It is precisely what animal and plant breeding is all about.
So is it not then abundantly clear that the crossing of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon—who had of course evolved as two totally separate species over many millions of years—suddenly, overnight, produced ourselves and our remarkable abilities?
A sobering thought in passing is this. It is virtually certain that the miraculous (or rather standard!) biological event that produced ourselves occurred simply and solely as the by-product of the systematic slaughter and extinction of Neanderthal by Cro-Magnon—and in the process the rape and enslavement of Neanderthal woman.
Yet there is much more still.
When widely divergent species of animal are crossed and subsequently observed in the laboratory the offspring are frequently found to have inherited conflicting sets of instincts, evolved in their parents’ separate evolutionary pasts.
As an actual instance we have the offspring of the cross between a Peach-Faced Lovebird and a Fischer’s Lovebird. The Peach-Faced Lovebird when building its nest carries leaves and strips of bark tucked into its rump feathers. The Fischer’s Lovebird however transports these items in its beak. The hybrid cross is found to possess both sets of instinctive instructions. So the unfortunate offspring tears itself a strip of bark. The Peach-Faced instinct now tells the bird to insert this into its rump feathers, which the youngster does.
But at this point the Fischer’s instinct intervenes and instructs the bird not to let go of the material because it has not yet arrived at the nest site. So the youngster resumes the ready-to-fly position with the bark still in its mouth. But then the Peach-Faced instinct, noting the bark in the mouth, once again intervenes and reminds the bird to place the bark in its rump feathers. This the youngster again attempts to do. But now once more the Fischer’s instinct reminds the bird that it is not yet at the nest site—so the ready-to-fly position is again resumed with the bark still in the youngster’s beak . . .
The see-saw process continues on and on and on—with the young bird exhibiting ever greater confusion and distress.
That is the kind of psychological impasse which is often created when widely divergent animal species are crossed. It is also what occurred when Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon interbred. Now we can understand why our culture has so many established and enduring metaphors, and so many enduring and central storylines, attesting to our ‘double life’: the divided self, the two souls within one breast, the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, Cain and Abel, Jekyll and Hyde, Faust. This too is why, for example, we long for true, everlasting love on the one hand—yet hanker for promiscuity and one-night stands on the other,
How could two such diametrically opposed instinctive drives exist side-by-side in terms of any normal evolutionary scenario, within any one single species? Oh, but surely we are not governed by instinct to that extent? Oh, but surely we are. The greater part of our social life and culture is centrally governed by ‘fossil behaviours' evolved by our ancestors in the distant past. Desmond Morris in particular has written several books on this subject.
Very briefly here, my own proposals in respect of Neanderthal life (based on a study of these matters over some forty years) are that Neanderthal society was matriarchal and completely promiscuous, led by women and driven by sex—exactly as is the case with the recently discovered bonobos pygmy chimpanzees of Africa. Life was communal (we can interject the word 'commune-ism' here).
Neanderthal evolved originally in bush or jungle conditions, hence his shortness (classic Neanderthal males in particular were a mere average 5' 4'' in height) and was also near-sighted as appropriate to this environment. And importantly, predominantly left-handed (for reasons too complex to summarise here).
Cro-Magnon certainly evolved on the open plains, hence his tallness. (Average height of Cro-Magnon males was originally calculated to be 6' 0''—though the more accepted figure today is 5' 10''.) He developed pair-bonding and lived with one partner for life, on a defined small piece of territory adjacent with other similar pairs. (Thus the gibbon communities of today are actually the perfect model for suburbia.) He was appropriately long-sighted, and right-handed.
The above statements are to an extent a matter for debate. What follows is not—and is readily testable in respect of the items listed. Some of these items have in fact already been formally investigated and confirmed. My own research supports the remainder. It is quite clear that the left wing and the Labour Party represent our Neanderthal side, while the right wing and the Conservative Party represent our Cro-Magnon ancestry. And so if Labour MPs and members (I stress members) of the Labour Party were compared with Conservative MPs and members of the Conservative Party then the former would show:
A greater incidence of the big toe being shorter than the second toe. (All Neanderthal fossil feet and fossil footprints have the big toe shorter than the second toe. All Cro-Magnon fossil feet and fossil footprints show the big toe longer than the second toe.)
Greater incidence of the so-called simian line in the palm of the hand. (The simian line is a single division across the centre of the palm, which all apes have but most humans do not. The norm for humans is two lines—the so-called head and heart lines.)
A larger cerebellum.
Greater incidence of the pyknic body type and a lower incidence of the athletic body type.
A higher incidence of left-handedness.
A lower incidence of male pattern baldness.
Greater incidence of prominent eyebrows (including eyebrows which meet in the middle) and brow ridges.
A greater number of offspring (i.e. higher fertility).
Higher incidence of clinical neurosis and a lower incidence of clinical psychosis.
Higher incidence of short-sightedness and a lower incidence of long-sightedness.
Better night vision.
Greater susceptibility to hypnosis.
Greater proportion of sleeping time spent in dreaming time.
Higher incidence of 'drop-out' behaviours (sleeping rough, alcoholism, unemployment, drug addiction, etc.).
Shorter average height.
Lower average IQ.
These same differences would also be shown when members of religious organisations were compared with members of scientific institutions; when southern Europeans were compared with northern Europeans; when eastern Europeans were compared with western Europeans; when Welsh were compared with English; when Northern Ireland Catholics were compared with Northern Ireland Protestants; when members of the Untouchable caste were compared with members of the Brahmin caste; when short individuals were compared with tall individuals.
As said, a number of these intercorrelations have already been confirmed by large-scale formal surveys. Thus left-handed men show far less baldness than right-handed men. Drop-outs sleeping rough on American streets also show far less baldness. Jews in every European country show more short-sightedness than non-Jews. Northern Europeans are taller than southern Europeans—and so on. How does (or could) orthodoxy account for these findings? Orthodoxy has no answers.
As already stated, conflict within human societies (as opposed to conflict between nations purely over disputed territory) can be very well understood in terms of our dual human ancestry—and cannot in fact be genuinely understood in any other. From Northern Ireland to Nigeria, though the labels given to the conflicts concerned differ, what we see on closer inspection is one group defending and seeking to impose a more Neanderthal life-style versus another defending and seeking to impose a more Cro-Magnon life-style.
The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the Taleban movement were/are Neanderthal driven. The Nazi movement, the Ku Klux Klan and Serbian ethnic cleansing were/are Cro-Magnon driven.
Look at John Hume standing next to David Trimble in Northern Ireland and you will see ‘Neanderthal’ standing next to ‘Cro-Magnon’. The quotation marks are of course crucial. If David Trimble were purely Cro-Magnon he would not be short-sighted. If John Hume were purely Neanderthal he would not be as tall as David Trimble.
We are all simultaneously and permanently both.
That situation, as we have briefly seen, is at once our greatest blessing—and our greatest curse.
© Stan Gooch 2000
http://www.aulis.com/twothirds2.htm
((( I admit, I just started reading this one, but the beginning seems to match what you were saying, i.e....
"But now it is official. What the scientific establishment had for so long implacably denied is true—we are a hybrid species. We are not simply the descendant of Cro-Magnon man."
Yes?
Gunstar 1 - June 16, 2007 07:01 PM (GMT)
Hey Rev.Jim,
I'm really curious about what you think about that last one I posted, if you're still around.
I'm reading through it now...
I'm really curious about what you think about that last one I posted, if you're still around.
I'm reading through it now...
Mumin - June 17, 2007 02:07 AM (GMT)
I don't know if you were being facetious, but there is no religion called muslimism ... nor islamism, for that matter.
It is generally regarded that Noah was the first messenger of God. Given the historical time line, Noah was neither a Christian nor a Jew, yet he preached the Oneness of God. Therefore, in my opinion, that is the religion that came first.
It is generally regarded that Noah was the first messenger of God. Given the historical time line, Noah was neither a Christian nor a Jew, yet he preached the Oneness of God. Therefore, in my opinion, that is the religion that came first.
RevolutionJim - June 17, 2007 02:36 AM (GMT)
Hey OP
The artwork depicting 'Jesus' is not christian nor produced by christians if thats what is implied. There is a false christianity, and always have been, today known as the Vatican, they produced it, they are the ones into the SUN worshipping. We don't even know what Jesus looked like.
Two schools of thought on what Jesus and early man looked like. People look at middle easterners today and they say that must be what Jesus looked like. Mankind does adapt to our environment, so, either we were white men living in the cradle of mankind, spreading out from there after the flood and rebirth of civilization 4300 years ago, or, we were dark skined and features who migrated north adapting to the north becoming more whiter and features. Don't know I've not done the science to back it up, but it should be possible.
Mainstream science has no interest in this because they promote that we evolved from lower lifeforms.
The artwork depicting 'Jesus' is not christian nor produced by christians if thats what is implied. There is a false christianity, and always have been, today known as the Vatican, they produced it, they are the ones into the SUN worshipping. We don't even know what Jesus looked like.
Two schools of thought on what Jesus and early man looked like. People look at middle easterners today and they say that must be what Jesus looked like. Mankind does adapt to our environment, so, either we were white men living in the cradle of mankind, spreading out from there after the flood and rebirth of civilization 4300 years ago, or, we were dark skined and features who migrated north adapting to the north becoming more whiter and features. Don't know I've not done the science to back it up, but it should be possible.
Mainstream science has no interest in this because they promote that we evolved from lower lifeforms.
Gunstar 1 - June 17, 2007 05:22 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (RevolutionJim @ Jun 17 2007, 12:36 PM) |
| Hey OP The artwork depicting 'Jesus' is not christian nor produced by christians if thats what is implied. There is a false christianity, and always have been, today known as the Vatican, they produced it, they are the ones into the SUN worshipping. We don't even know what Jesus looked like. Two schools of thought on what Jesus and early man looked like. People look at middle easterners today and they say that must be what Jesus looked like. Mankind does adapt to our environment, so, either we were white men living in the cradle of mankind, spreading out from there after the flood and rebirth of civilization 4300 years ago, or, we were dark skined and features who migrated north adapting to the north becoming more whiter and features. Don't know I've not done the science to back it up, but it should be possible. Mainstream science has no interest in this because they promote that we evolved from lower lifeforms. |
http://www.search.com/reference/Images_of_Jesus
^^^^^^^^^^^
The latest, supposedly the closest, 'scientific jesus' that I know of at least.
Versus..... the old idealistic representation...... such as........
alive and still talking - June 17, 2007 05:35 AM (GMT)
topic is, which religion came first, modern man did exist only 2000 years ago. his likeness is left as evidence by huge marble and bronze statues.
we are not here to slam jesus christ, what this topic intends to do is solve the mystery. which religion came first. the mural is real, many great people sought him out, including kings. may be an accurate depiction the temple mural is authentic, most of the region was converted after the death of christ, his memory alone converted people.
the temple was originally built by the greek orthodox church, it was taken over back and forth during wars over christianity vs islamism. during these wars, any pictoral evidence of his likeness was destroyed. my point is this crap has gone on over the centuries, for thousands of years. time to stop.
if the judaeists and arabs want to fight among themselves, let it happen. if we get in the middle of it, we will only end up bringing the war to our own doorstep
the mural has three figures on either side of jesus, the one to the left hand is saint katherine, a royal of egypt who converted. dont know who the other two figures are. maybe somebody else does
we are not here to slam jesus christ, what this topic intends to do is solve the mystery. which religion came first. the mural is real, many great people sought him out, including kings. may be an accurate depiction the temple mural is authentic, most of the region was converted after the death of christ, his memory alone converted people.
the temple was originally built by the greek orthodox church, it was taken over back and forth during wars over christianity vs islamism. during these wars, any pictoral evidence of his likeness was destroyed. my point is this crap has gone on over the centuries, for thousands of years. time to stop.
if the judaeists and arabs want to fight among themselves, let it happen. if we get in the middle of it, we will only end up bringing the war to our own doorstep
the mural has three figures on either side of jesus, the one to the left hand is saint katherine, a royal of egypt who converted. dont know who the other two figures are. maybe somebody else does
Gunstar 1 - June 17, 2007 09:18 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (alive and still talking @ Jun 17 2007, 03:35 PM) |
| topic is, which religion came first, modern man did exist only 2000 years ago. his likeness is left as evidence by huge marble and bronze statues. we are not here to slam jesus christ, what this topic intends to do is solve the mystery. which religion came first. the mural is real, many great people sought him out, including kings. may be an accurate depiction the temple mural is authentic, most of the region was converted after the death of christ, his memory alone converted people. the temple was originally built by the greek orthodox church, it was taken over back and forth during wars over christianity vs islamism. during these wars, any pictoral evidence of his likeness was destroyed. my point is this crap has gone on over the centuries, for thousands of years. time to stop. if the judaeists and arabs want to fight among themselves, let it happen. if we get in the middle of it, we will only end up bringing the war to our own doorstep |
"War is Hell, so we might as well make love tonight; ooooh, put down your guns, let's have some fun in the mooooonlighhhht."
- Washington, 'The Boys in Company C'
alive and still talking - June 18, 2007 03:20 AM (GMT)
yeah, thats the buddha thing, thats the jesus thing, make love, not war
Gunstar 1 - June 18, 2007 03:50 PM (GMT)
I love the 'Jimi' theme, AAST. . . . . .
Purple haaaaaaaaaze maaaaaaaaaaan :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:
Purple haaaaaaaaaze maaaaaaaaaaan :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:
xferret - June 23, 2007 12:42 AM (GMT)
In Istanbul, the religion has been that of whoever conquered the land at the time. The mural you're displaying shows this perfectly: local religious leaders (left, bottom) bowing before Christ (God of Christians, conquering people of the time).
alive and still talking - June 23, 2007 04:37 AM (GMT)
[QUOTE]A famous anatomist, Dr. Rudolph Virchow, declared, in 1958, that the primitive features of the Neanderthal people were not due to the fact that these people were subhuman, but were due to diseases, or pathological conditions. [/QUOTE]
try inbreeding
[/QUOTE] The mural you're displaying shows this perfectly: local religious leaders (left, bottom) bowing before Christ (God of Christians, conquering people of the time). [QUOTE]
the great church in instanbul was built by the greek orthadox church, figures in the mural suggest st.john, st.catherine, mother mary, not sure , just guessing till i look it up. have to do research on what preceeded that
does anybody have a clue?
try inbreeding
[/QUOTE] The mural you're displaying shows this perfectly: local religious leaders (left, bottom) bowing before Christ (God of Christians, conquering people of the time). [QUOTE]
the great church in instanbul was built by the greek orthadox church, figures in the mural suggest st.john, st.catherine, mother mary, not sure , just guessing till i look it up. have to do research on what preceeded that
does anybody have a clue?
alive and still talking - June 25, 2007 04:14 AM (GMT)
BEFORE JUDAEISM AND CHRISTIANITY, MANY GODS WERE WORSHIPPED
HISTORIANS COMPARE PRESENT-DAY CIVILIZATION AND SEE LITTLE CHANGE
religion began with man's need to understand his universe, the only clues left behind are the temples, statues, writings, carvings, murals, trinkets, and dolls
their focus was on gods to dictate decisions, conduct in ALL matters, even WAR
one such civilization was EGYPT, known as the "land of the pharaohs"
religion began with man's need to understand his universe, the only clues left behind are the temples, carvings, murals
their focus was on gods to dictate decisions, conduct in ALL matters, even WAR
The ancient Egyptians believed that temples were the homes of the gods and goddesses. Every temple was dedicated to a god or goddess and he or she was worshipped there by the temple priests and the pharaoh
The most powerful person in ancient Egypt was the pharaoh. The pharaoh was the political and religious leader of the Egyptian people, holding the titles: 'Lord of the Two Lands' and 'High Priest of Every Temple'
. Many pharaohs went to war when their land was threatened or when they wanted to control foreign lands. If the pharaoh won the battle, the conquered people had to recognise the Egyptian pharaoh as their ruler and offer him the finest and most valuable goods from their land.
As 'Lord of the Two Lands' the pharaoh was the ruler of Upper and Lower Egypt. He owned all of the land, made laws, collected taxes, and defended Egypt against foreigners.
One lion faces west while the other faces east. In between them is the sign of the horizon. In the later period of Egyptian theology the two lions making up the Akeru were named Sef and Tuau - 'yesterday' and 'today' respectively.
Am-He was a threatening Underworld god whose name means "Devourer of Millions". (probably to explain earthquakes, quicksand and volcanoes) he dwells in a Like of Fire, and if that were not enough, his ferocity is augmented by his having the face of a hunting dog and an appetite for sacrifices.
only Atum could fend off Am-Heh
Aten-sun disk with rays which end in hands
Aten was a form of the sun god Ra.
During the reign of Akhenaten, the
Aten was made the 'king' of the gods
Tawaret was a goddess who protected women
during pregnancy and childbirth, dolls were
usually kept in the home or worn as a trinket
Amun was important throughout the history
of ancient Egypt. However, when Amun was
combined with the sun god Ra he was even
more powerful. He was then called Amun-Ra.
HISTORIANS COMPARE PRESENT-DAY CIVILIZATION AND SEE LITTLE CHANGE
religion began with man's need to understand his universe, the only clues left behind are the temples, statues, writings, carvings, murals, trinkets, and dolls
their focus was on gods to dictate decisions, conduct in ALL matters, even WAR
one such civilization was EGYPT, known as the "land of the pharaohs"
religion began with man's need to understand his universe, the only clues left behind are the temples, carvings, murals
their focus was on gods to dictate decisions, conduct in ALL matters, even WAR
The ancient Egyptians believed that temples were the homes of the gods and goddesses. Every temple was dedicated to a god or goddess and he or she was worshipped there by the temple priests and the pharaoh
The most powerful person in ancient Egypt was the pharaoh. The pharaoh was the political and religious leader of the Egyptian people, holding the titles: 'Lord of the Two Lands' and 'High Priest of Every Temple'
. Many pharaohs went to war when their land was threatened or when they wanted to control foreign lands. If the pharaoh won the battle, the conquered people had to recognise the Egyptian pharaoh as their ruler and offer him the finest and most valuable goods from their land.
As 'Lord of the Two Lands' the pharaoh was the ruler of Upper and Lower Egypt. He owned all of the land, made laws, collected taxes, and defended Egypt against foreigners.
One lion faces west while the other faces east. In between them is the sign of the horizon. In the later period of Egyptian theology the two lions making up the Akeru were named Sef and Tuau - 'yesterday' and 'today' respectively.
Am-He was a threatening Underworld god whose name means "Devourer of Millions". (probably to explain earthquakes, quicksand and volcanoes) he dwells in a Like of Fire, and if that were not enough, his ferocity is augmented by his having the face of a hunting dog and an appetite for sacrifices.
only Atum could fend off Am-Heh
Aten-sun disk with rays which end in hands
Aten was a form of the sun god Ra.
During the reign of Akhenaten, the
Aten was made the 'king' of the gods
Tawaret was a goddess who protected women
during pregnancy and childbirth, dolls were
usually kept in the home or worn as a trinket
Amun was important throughout the history
of ancient Egypt. However, when Amun was
combined with the sun god Ra he was even
more powerful. He was then called Amun-Ra.
Davidjayjordan - June 29, 2007 04:54 AM (GMT)
Christianity came FIRST because always was, Before Abraham, I was said the Lord.
In other words, Jesus was God, and therefore was the Creator and so had to be first. Judism came next, but they never accepted the Messiah. Islam was an attempt to correct the wayward Judism and Church Christianity.
The drawing on the Islamic Temple, is because the Muslims and Mihammed knew that Jesus was special, and of course before them.
Read the Koran, Jesus is prominent.
In other words, Jesus was God, and therefore was the Creator and so had to be first. Judism came next, but they never accepted the Messiah. Islam was an attempt to correct the wayward Judism and Church Christianity.
The drawing on the Islamic Temple, is because the Muslims and Mihammed knew that Jesus was special, and of course before them.
Read the Koran, Jesus is prominent.
darion - June 29, 2007 06:09 PM (GMT)
Sorry David but christianity was not first much less was it even in the top 10 oldest religions. Christianity first took roots some time around 100 AD. There are religions that are as old as 4000 BC and even older. The oldest know written religion was about snakes or snake like beings. They where known as the Anunnaki. The name means 'From heaven to earth come'. The little known about them where they where the makers of man and the enslavers of man as well. 'Man was born from clay jars to work for the Anunnaki'. All over the world there is talk of snakes in religion. China the emporers where born from Nagis. The body of a woman and tail of a snake. In Japan the people where born from dragons. Even as far as Central America the Myans have depictions of snakes over their temples. Native americans call them their snake brothers. The only areas that have no history with snakes are the areas that had he history wipped out from records. Even then they cannot full cleans it so they demonize snakes. The Snake in the garden of edin is a good example. Anyhow to say that your right and history is wrong is nuts.
The bible is a good book but thats all it is. A book made by man not by god. In the end thats what every religion is somthing some man made up in hopes he was right. Anyone can say 'God told me to write this' and yeh who knows, only the person that made the text. The creation of the bible went threw a lot of changes threw the time. When somthing in the bible didn't suit the needs of the leaders they added, removed or even changed the bible. There has never been a better book than the bible. It has changed more lives with its pages than anyother book in history. The bible has killed more people than any other. Has driven people insane. Has condemed people to be called heritics. Also it has changed people for the better as well. No book in history has done more. But as I said before its just a book. Take every word with a grain of salt.
The bible is a good book but thats all it is. A book made by man not by god. In the end thats what every religion is somthing some man made up in hopes he was right. Anyone can say 'God told me to write this' and yeh who knows, only the person that made the text. The creation of the bible went threw a lot of changes threw the time. When somthing in the bible didn't suit the needs of the leaders they added, removed or even changed the bible. There has never been a better book than the bible. It has changed more lives with its pages than anyother book in history. The bible has killed more people than any other. Has driven people insane. Has condemed people to be called heritics. Also it has changed people for the better as well. No book in history has done more. But as I said before its just a book. Take every word with a grain of salt.
e-dog - June 30, 2007 01:20 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (alive and still talking @ Jun 14 2007, 05:18 AM) |
| THIS MURAL WAS PHOTOGRAPHED IN THE MUSLIM COUNTRY ISTANBUL---->----> which came first in istanbul ? christianity, islam, or another religion ? Hagia Sophia, now known as the Ayasofya Museum, was the greatest Christian church of the Middle Ages,later converted into an imperial mosque in 1453 by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, and into a museum in 1935. It is located in Istanbul, Turkey, on the Turkish Thrace. It is regularly considered one of the greatest and most beautiful buildings in history. Its conquest by the Ottomans at the fall of Constantinople is considered one of the great tragedies of Christianity by the Greek Orthodox faithful. The name comes from the Greek name Ἁγία Σοφία, a contraction of Ναός τῆς Ἁγίας τοῦ Θεοῦ Σοφίας, meaning "Church of the Holy Wisdom of God". It is also known as Sancta Sophia in Latin and Ayasofya in Turkish. Although it is sometimes called "Saint Sophia" in English, or similar terms in other languages, it is not named after any saint named Sophia — the Greek word sophia means "wisdom." |
What EXACTLY is the difference between "Muslimism" and "Islamism" ? <_< Do a little more research please, Those 2 are the same thing.
IT--
alive and still talking - July 1, 2007 10:28 PM (GMT)
copied the list from wikipedia, could care less about islamic religion or anything that was recent, more interested in ancient religions, hoping those who have info can share what they know, origins of religion have predated christianity and all other recently adopted religions, yet few people touch on the subject, would help to better explain how the more recently adopted religions came into being and why