The Children of Agni

In this Chapter I will dive into the mysteries of "Evolution", and see why the Scientific community is covering up the truth about the hidden "interventions" of the Creation and the Earth. But first let's see what the Etymology states of Evolution: "1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve). Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution."

Then based on "Evolve" states this: "1640s, "to unfold, open out, expand," from Latin evolvere "to unroll, roll out, roll forth, unfold," especially of books; figuratively "to make clear, disclose; to produce, develop," from assimilated form of ex "out" (see ex-) + volvere "to roll," from PIE root *wel- (3) "to turn, revolve." Meaning "to develop by natural processes to a higher state" is from 1832. Related: Evolved; evolving."

In the Wiki states this: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population."

"It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules. The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection was conceived independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the mid-19th century and was set out in detail in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. Evolution by natural selection was first demonstrated by the observation that more offspring are often produced than can possibly survive. This is followed by three observable facts about living organisms: (1) traits vary among individuals with respect to their morphology, physiology and behaviour (phenotypic variation), (2) different traits confer different rates of survival and reproduction (differential fitness) and (3) traits can be passed from generation to generation (heritability of fitness). Thus, in successive generations members of a population are more likely to be replaced by the progenies of parents with favourable characteristics that have enabled them to survive and reproduce in their respective environments."

"In the early 20th century, other competing ideas of evolution such as mutationism and orthogenesis were refuted as the modern synthesis reconciled Darwinian evolution with classical genetics, which established adaptive evolution as being caused by natural selection acting on Mendelian genetic variation. All life on Earth shares a last universal common ancestor (LUCA) that lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago. The fossil record includes a progression from early biogenic graphite, to microbial mat fossils, to fossilised multicellular organisms. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped by repeated formations of new species (speciation), changes within species (anagenesis) and loss of species (extinction) throughout the evolutionary history of life on Earth."

"Morphological and biochemical traits are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct phylogenetic trees. Evolutionary biologists have continued to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses as well as constructing theories based on evidence from the field or laboratory and on data generated by the methods of mathematical and theoretical biology. Their discoveries have influenced not just the development of biology but numerous other scientific and industrial fields, including agriculture, medicine and computer science."

Now, of course there would be conflicts on the topics of "Creationism" and "Evolution", between people of the Scientific community and the Religious cummunity. People will choose Creationism based from the Biblical perspective as a particular spiritual force called "God", comes out of nowhere (self created) thus creating the world as it is. Then based from the Scientific Community (and as most Atheist tend to align themselves with) don't believe in the superstitous beliefs of the religious dogmas, and try to find alternative means on how the Earth is made, along with the Galaxies, planets, and other life forms. 

However, is there as such thing as an "Evolutionary" path being taken place among everyone? What about Creationism? In the Chapter "Truth about God", I had given some detail based on the term "GOD", as it's based on "Generator", "Operator", and "Destroyer", and how the person who creates, operates, and destroys is just an aspect of GOD. Athough, this is not to get confused with the deity as God is based on Dios, Dyeus, Devas, and Zeus. Before I get into Charles Darwin, I want to address that Evolution does exist, but also along with creationism as well. And though, one can believe that there is no higher power controlling the Universe etc., I will give dive further in that aspect of the "Spiritual world" or "Hidden world".

Now, Evolution is based on evolving, right? So, as a person who adapts to everyday life's situations, you either learn to overcome the situation, or are put into a repetitive cycle. I can see how this distinguishes the people that stay in the bottom of the Pyramid, and those on top are the ones who are the "thinkers" of our lives. This is why "Government" exist, as the Head or "mentality" is the Governing power to the body. In every society, whether they be a city, or country etc., there is a form of Governance, or a "higher" power that thinks 10 steps further than the related populations that are under them. This is why everyone "depends" on something that is giving the laws, the paycheck, the jobs, the livelyhood etc. (as we all depend on someone and something)

Now, people tend to state that "technology" nowadays, shows the heights that mankind can and is achieving to this day. Though that is true in this case, but like "Evolution", there are ramifications to adapting to something that is supposed to be used for the benefit of Mankind, and that is their destruction. For example, prior to calculators replacing people's minds to memorizing times tables, subtracting, adding and division, there are people that would have extraodinary minds that can just work as well (and still are).

Then based on today's cell phones evolving into the more smart or "smarter phones", I can see how it's useful as far as using the internet, apps, and other means. The internet can be used for good as far as increasing easier ways to get products, building the Economy, along with other means. However, the privacy of people becomes limited in the process, and the "face to face" communication that people used to have becomes limited as well (as Cells replaces people instead). Though adapted with long distance communication is a benefit in that case, but it is a double edge sword depending how one uses this. It's understandable to have a cell for Job purposes, however, there are people that can't live without having a cell phone. There are egos that are increasing more and more, due to social medias, the glamour of Hollywood, the movies, the music, and though it's a not bad thing, but again a double edge sword depending how people use it. 

In the term of "Evolution" states that you will be able to adapt, but in the process, will lose a part of something that you used to do, or have in the past. In the terms of the Darwinian theories, there would be discussions based on man's origins based from the Primates, however, in the process of evolving shows that man became upright, thus losing the extended limbs and body figure, and strength of their Primate ancestors. 

Now, personally I don't believe that people (in general) came from the primate species, but I have seen some people that do look "simian" looking. Like I have stated in the previous chapters, there are people that are "hairy" compared to other people that are smooth skinned, people that have a flat nose like that of the serpent, noses that look like the bird, and different body types as there are Giants and Dwarves to this day etc. Then there are the blood types such as Rh (Rhesus Monkey, as they state) positive, Rh-negative, and Rh Null (which is a rare blood type). Then there are people's skulls that strangely fit into the "Neanderthal" category, such as the bone above the eyes sticks out compared to people's features. Even the cranium of the Neanderthal's skull are shown to be larger, compared to the modern skull of today. Then there are supposed to be other "hominids", such as the Denisovan and Cromagnon man to been mixed in with the modern gene pool as well. So, I can't state that everyone is based from the same gene pool, as it obviously shows that there are different people with different body types, skull features, and blood types. 

So, does that mean man came from the Primate? Or was there other Hominids already existing amongst everyone else? (If everyone came from the single cell organism, then along came the monkey)

Before I go further, I remember a video based from the Youtube creator called "ODD TV", on the Darwin theory replacing Creationism (Biblical stand point). It was rather interesting, because it turns out that this idea of Evolution really came from Charles Darwin's Grandfather "Erasmus Darwin", who was said to be a part of the "Royal Society", which is supposed to be a branch of the Freemasonic order. The book that Erasmus wrote was called "Zoonomia", which is based on the Evolution theories, then later adapted by Charles Darwin (Apparently, Erasmus was a"womanizer"). The Royal Society is supposed to be a "Psuedoscientific" society founded in the 1600s. And as the video states, is supposed to discredit the Creationism based from the Bible, and to further a certain agenda (There were scientist that equated Biology and science to the Creator in the early 1700 and 1800s). However, it becomes rather clear of these ideaologies, as being based on the Freemasonic relations of these individuals, is nothing new. Now, I do agree with somethings in the video, but I know there is much more to discuss. There is another video based from the late "Lloyd Pye", on Everything you know is wrong", in which I would recommend to the reader. 

Now, to get straight to the point, the theory states that every life came from single cells swimming in a body of water, to which suddenly evolved into the fish, the Amphibians, Dinosaurs, Mammals etc., then to man. Now, the obvious questions would be, "Where did these cells come from?" Or "How did these Cells come to be in this pool?" How can a fish all of a sudden not die when on land, then start to develope lungs in that span of time? Why are these primates still in the same position compared to the people of today? Then of course, there would be new theories based on how people came from "Aquatic monkeys" (Sea Monkeys), to which kind of contradicts the single cell organism coming from water to land. I have also seen the bones of these said Hominids, being "manipulated" to fit into the category of modern man, along with bones "almagamated" with other species just to bring Darwinian theory to life (There would be videos based on the dinosaur "Archaeopteryx" being faked, as it was exposed to be chicken and lizard bones put together)

When I was a child (as everyone else) I would memorize the names of every dinosaur, all from the Apatosaur to the Carnosaur, from the Deinonychus to the Kentosaurus (Dinosaurs was my joy when learning about them). But as I grew older, I started to see how there were certain Dinosaurs that I thought to have existed from that time period, to never have existed at all, like the Triceratops as an example. There is an article that states the Triceratops was supposed to be from the bones of the "Torosaurus", and yet looks quite similar in appearance. But what got me was the names of the name "Dinosaur", as these creatures are named in the 1800s by Sir Richard Owen (In the Bible states these biengs as Dragons). I started to see how a dinosaur is made from a few teeth bone, or any kind of bone, to then be constructed based on these said bones. 

The website "nationalpost.com/news/triceratops-never-actually-existed-scientists-say" states this: "Brace yourselves. The famous triceratops dinosaur never actually existed as a separate dinosaur species, paleontologists say. Known for its three horns and the bony, frilled ridge around its head, the triceratops was most likely just a younger version of the rarer torosaurus, say researchers John Scannella and Jack Horner at the Museum of the Rockies in Montana. The species were very similar. Both had three horns and each had the distinctive head frill that makes the triceratops famous. But in the torosaurus the horns and ridge were shaped differently, with the ridge appearing smoother and thinner. It also had two holes."

"After studying 29 triceratops skulls, the scientists discovered the bone was thinning in the same area where the torosaurus’s holes were. Evidence began mounting as they counted the growth rings in the bones and discovered all the triceratops skulls were from young dinosaurs. What’s more, juvenile specimens of the torosaurus have never been found. They concluded the dinosaurs were actually the same, with the horns and ridge changing shape as the lizard matured."

"Reports the Daily Mail : The research, which appeared in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, says that the neck-frill and horns changed shape as the animal aged because they were spongy and would not harden until the dinosaur was an adult. Scannella says.,”Even in the most mature specimens that we’ve examined, there is evidence that the skull was still undergoing dramatic changes at the time of death.” Scientists had previously theorized the ridge was used as a form of defensive armour, but now think it was most likely a sign of maturity. “If I was a triceratops I wouldn’t want anything too damaging to happen to my frill, as it had numerous large blood vessels running over the surface,” Mr. Scannella told New Scientist . “I don’t imagine holding up a thin bony shield that can gush blood would be a very effective means of defence.” Triceratops fans shouldn’t despair at the finding, though. Scientists will now reclassify all torosaurus as triceratops."

Then of course, there was the "Piltdown" man as it was a fraud...Here is what the Wiki states on this topic:

"The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning, the remains were still broadly accepted for many years, and the falsity of the hoax was only definitively demonstrated in 1953. An extensive scientific review in 2016 established that amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson was its likely perpetrator. In 1912, Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. In February 1912, Dawson contacted Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum, stating he had found a section of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown, East Sussex."

"That summer, Dawson and Smith Woodward purportedly discovered more bones and artifacts at the site, which they connected to the same individual. These finds included a jawbone, more skull fragments, a set of teeth, and primitive tools. Smith Woodward reconstructed the skull fragments and hypothesised that they belonged to a human ancestor from 500,000 years ago. The discovery was announced at a Geological Society meeting and was given the Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man")."

"The questionable significance of the assemblage remained the subject of considerable controversy until it was conclusively exposed in 1953 as a forgery. It was found to have consisted of the altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human. The Piltdown hoax is prominent for two reasons: the attention it generated around the subject of human evolution, and the length of time, 41 years, that elapsed from its alleged initial discovery to its definitive exposure as a composite forgery."

Now, based from the "single cell" theory from Charles Darwin, it seems that the movie Prometheus (2012), indicated a similar adaption, but with the intervention of the Engineers. In the Beginning of the movie details an Engineer being left behind by a group of extraterrestrials, and shows that the reason was to start life on a planet. It shows that he drinks a substance, thus labeled "The black goo", and later deteriorates while falling into a pool of water, thus creating life from this incident.

Now, why would Ridley Scott put this scene in the movie? Because based from the Darwin's theory (who is a "freemason"), shows the cells developing into the different creatures on Earth in the same manner. This is compared to the story of Kingu's blood used to make the creations on the Earth. Let's see what the Wiki states: "Kingu, also spelled Qingu, meaning "unskilled laborer", was a god in Babylonian mythology, and—after the murder of his father Abzu—the consort of the goddess Tiamat, his mother, who wanted to establish him as ruler and leader of all gods before she was killed by Marduk. Tiamat gave Kingu the Tablet of Destinies, which he wore as a breastplate and which gave him great power. She placed him as the general of her army. However, like Tiamat, Kingu was eventually killed by Marduk. Marduk mixed Kingu's blood with earth and used the clay to mold the first human beings, while Tiamat's body created the earth and the skies. Kingu then went to live in the underworld kingdom of Ereshkigal, along with the other deities who had sided with Tiamat."

Then there is another story based from the "Atrahasis" that is similar as well. "Ilawela (formerly variously transcribed as Geshtu-(E), Geshtu, Gestu, or We-ila) is, in Sumerian and Akkadian mythology, a minor god of intelligence. In the Atra-Hasis Epic he was sacrificed by the great gods and his blood was used in the creation of mankind: Ilawela who had intelligence, They slaughtered in their assembly. Nintu mixed clay With his flesh and blood. They heard the drumbeat forever after. A ghost came into existence from the god’s flesh, And she (Nintu) proclaimed it as his living sign. The ghost existed so as not to forget (the slain god). […] You have slaughtered a god together with his intelligence. I have relieved you of your hard work. I have imposed your load on man."

Apparently, after the battle of the gods, there was a deity that is slain to be used to create mankind. Let's compare this to the Biblical perspective of Genesis 1:2 " 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." In the different Mythologies, there would be a scene detailing some kind of destruction or "Chaos" that had occured, prior to the creation. 

"9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

"20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Now, let's see what the article "bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began" states: "How did life begin? There can hardly be a bigger question. For much of human history, almost everyone believed some version of "the gods did it". Any other explanation was inconceivable. That is no longer true. Over the last century, a few scientists have tried to figure out how the first life might have sprung up. They have even tried to recreate this Genesis moment in their labs: to create brand-new life from scratch."

"So far nobody has managed it, but we have come a long way. Today, many of the scientists studying the origin of life are confident that they are on the right track – and they have the experiments to back up their confidence. This is the story of our quest to discover our ultimate origin. It is a story of obsession, struggle and brilliant creativity, which encompasses some of the greatest discoveries of modern science. The endeavour to understand life's beginnings has sent men and women to the furthest corners of our planet. Some of the scientists involved have been bedevilled as monsters, while others had to do their work under the heel of brutal totalitarian governments. This is the story of the birth of life on Earth."

"Life is old. The dinosaurs are perhaps the most famous extinct creatures, and they had their beginnings 250 million years ago. But life dates back much further. The oldest known fossils are around 3.5 billion years old, 14 times the age of the oldest dinosaurs. But the fossil record may stretch back still further. For instance, in August 2016 researchers found what appear to be fossilised microbes dating back 3.7 billion years."

"The Earth itself is not much older, having formed 4.5 billion years ago. If we assume that life formed on Earth – which seems reasonable, given that we have not yet found it anywhere else – then it must have done so in the billion years between Earth coming into being and the preservation of the oldest known fossils. As well as narrowing down when life began, we can make an educated guess at what it was."

"Since the 19th Century, biologists have known that all living things are made of "cells": tiny bags of living matter that come in different shapes and sizes. Cells were first discovered in the 17th Century, when the first modern microscopes were invented, but it took well over a century for anyone to realise that they were the basis of all life. You might not think you look much like a catfish or a Tyrannosaurus rex, but a microscope will reveal that you are all made of pretty similar kinds of cells. So are plants and fungi. But by far the most numerous forms of life are microorganisms, each of which is made up of just one cell."

"Bacteria are the most famous group, and they are found everywhere on Earth. In April 2016, scientists presented an updated version of the "tree of life": a kind of family tree for every living species. Almost all of the branches are bacteria. What's more, the shape of the tree suggests that a bacterium was the common ancestor of all life. In other words, every living thing – including you – is ultimately descended from a bacterium. This means we can define the problem of the origin of life more precisely. Using only the materials and conditions found on the Earth over 3.5 billion years ago, we have to make a cell. Well, how hard can it be?"

"....Instead, the big biological breakthrough of the 19th Century was the theory of evolution, as developed by Charles Darwin and others. Darwin's theory, set out in On the Origin of Species in 1859, explained how the vast diversity of life could all have arisen from a single common ancestor. Instead of each of the different species being created individually by God, they were all descended from a primordial organism that lived millions of years ago: the last universal common ancestor. This idea proved immensely controversial, again because it contradicted the Bible. Darwin and his ideas came under ferocious attack, particularly from outraged Christians. The theory of evolution said nothing about how that first organism came into being."

"Darwin knew that it was a profound question, but – perhaps wary of starting yet another fight with the Church – he only seems to have discussed the issue in a letter written in 1871. His excitable language reveals that he knew the deep significance of the question: "But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes..." In other words, what if there was once a small body of water, filled with simple organic compounds and bathed in sunlight."

"Some of those compounds might combine to form a life-like substance such as a protein, which could then start evolving and becoming more complex. It was a sketchy idea. But it would become the basis of the first hypothesis for how life began. This idea emerged from an unexpected place. You might think that this daring piece of free thinking would have been developed in a democratic country with a tradition of free speech: perhaps the United States. But in fact the first hypothesis for the origin of life was invented in a savagely totalitarian country, where free thinking was stamped out: the USSR."

"In Stalin's Russia, everything was under the control of the state. That included people's ideas, even on subjects – like biology – that seem unrelated to Communist politics. Most famously, Stalin effectively banned scientists from studying conventional genetics. Instead he imposed the ideas of a farm worker named Trofim Lysenko, which he thought were more in line with Communist ideology."

"Scientists working on genetics were forced to publicly support Lysenko's ideas, or risk ending up in a labour camp. It was in this repressive environment that Alexander Oparin carried out his research into biochemistry. He was able to keep working because he was a loyal Communist: he supported Lysenko's ideas and even received the Order of Lenin, the highest decoration that could be bestowed on someone living in the USSR. In 1924, Oparin published his book The Origin of Life. In it he set out a vision for the birth of life that was startlingly similar to Darwin's warm little pond."

"Oparin imagined what Earth was like when it was newly formed. The surface was searingly hot, as rocks from space plunged down onto it and impacted. It was a mess of semi-molten rocks, containing a huge range of chemicals – including many based on carbon. Eventually the Earth cooled enough for water vapour to condense into liquid water, and the first rain fell. Before long Earth had oceans, which were hot and rich in carbon-based chemicals. Now two things could happen. First, the various chemicals could react with each other to form lots of new compounds, some of which would be more complex."

"Oparin supposed that the molecules central to life, like sugars and amino acids, could all have formed in Earth's waters. Second, some of the chemicals began to form microscopic structures. Many organic chemicals do not dissolve in water: for example, oil forms a layer on top of water. But when some of these chemicals contact water they form spherical globules called "coacervates", which can be up to 0.01cm (0.004 inches) across. If you watch coacervates under a microscope, they behave unnervingly like living cells. They grow and change shape, and sometimes divide into two. They can also take in chemicals from the surrounding water, so life-like chemicals can become concentrated inside them. Oparin proposed that coacervates were the ancestors of modern cells....."

Do you see the comparisons? When Oparin theorized the searing hot surface prior to the Earth cooling down, this was the "Chaos" that is mentioned in every Mythology and the Bible. If you read in Genesis, it details that life came from the water....first the plants, then the creatures from the waters emerged, then to the creatures of the Earth. Is the Bible detailing the same thing that Charles Darwin and others was trying to put together, as the Earth was "cooling off" from a heated disaster, is based on the "chaos" as the Earth was being formed, but is instead written down as "GOD"? 

Based from the website: "https://www.popsci.com/where-and-when-did-life-begin" states this excerpt: "Almost since the 1870s, when Darwin first speculated that early life might have sheltered in a “warm little pond,” the field has given rise to nearly as many theories as there are scientists who specialize in this work. In general, though, the theories follow one of two themes: land or sea."

"Biologists tend to prefer the sea theory, which posits that life began at deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where super-heated, mineral-charged water seeps up from inside the earth to nourish and sustain organisms. It seems reasonable. The sea could shelter early life from the relentless meteor strikes and deadly solar UV radiation that once scorched the young planet's surface. And the vents would provide food, or energy, in the form of hydrogen gas and minerals such as sulfur and iron. Michael Russell, who heads the planetary chemistry and astrobiology group at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, a group charged with preparing to search for life in space, favors the sea theory. He says that as alkaline water seeped from certain types of vents, it would have mixed with ancient Earth’s acidic seawater, creating a tiny electrochemical charge that could have given rise to the first organisms. “­Hydrothermal vents are great places to live,” Russell says...."

The question is why do the Myths all start with "Chaos and darkness", as the beginning of all life? Here states that "as Alkaline water certain types of vents, it would have mixed with ancient Earth's acidic seawater, creating a tiny electrochemicalcharge that could have given rise to start life". Now, it is true as true alkaline water has "electrolytes", as the Vegetations, the plants, the fruits etc. This is what the human body needs in order to get rid of toxins (which is the acidic property) from our bodies. However, alkaline mixing with the acidic seawater "all of a sudden" is merely questionable still..... 

How did the "sexes" of these cells come about? If it was electrocharged by Alkaline and Seawater... It is correct, as the "Bacterium" is considered everyone's common ancestor, as everything is based on bacteria and cells. The cells in your body are living creatures (you carry a city full of creatures), and thus "react" to the things the person does to their body. Again, this is where it connects to the electrolytes that the cells emit and recieve. Electromagnetic energy, or as it would be called "Spirit" exist, whether you emit the good energy or the bad energy. They "feel" what you are doing to the body, thus details that these beings are not just "physical" entities, but have energy which is spirit. This is like saying, how does witchcraft exist all of a sudden? because there is such thing....There is such thing as "brain wave vibration", to which the person emits the energy called "spirit", "Chi", "Prana" and "Vril" (See "Witchcraft"). Every life has this "energy" whether scientist don't want to believe it or not. 

Now, let's look at the excerpt in Genesis detailing "let us make man in our image". Genesis1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

"28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Now, why would they state "let us make man in our image after our likeness?" This is telling me that the creature called "man" was already here to begin with when these "Gods" came and changed the image of the being called man. Now, there are different images of man on Earth, so which one is this being addressed, to is the real question. I have heard theories based on the Extraterrestrial interference to the creation's status, based from the Anunnaki story, as it's quite similar to Adam being a slave to the Gods.

There are interpretations of Adam of not being one person, but a group of beings called "Adam". In Ignatius Donnelly's book "Atlantis the Antediluvian world", details that Adam was "red skinned", who was created by the Gods, but after man finding knowledge, the Gods put a mist between them (or kicked them out of the Garden) out fear (See "Aryans of America 2"). Jordan Maxwell (who studies the world of the Occult), had stated that the Gods came down and changed "man's image" to their image, but a little weaker version of themselves. 

However, this is where the different Hominids possibly comes into play, as there are a race of Giant "red haired" people, along with other nations and races. If Cain had stated in Genesis 4:14 “Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.” Then who is "everyone" that will come to slay him?

When looking up the "Out of Africa theory", I tend to see some baised remarks based on how the African man is the closest to the Primate than the other nations on Earth. I can see the hidden implications when people state man coming from a certain point in Africa (as this was supposed to be where the bones of Lucy is based on), is where everyone stemmed out of. Then states how one group came to Europe they became the Europeans, one group went to Asia, then became the Arabs, the Chinese, the Indians, then to America as the Native Americans. Then based from this, there would be statistics based on the African IQ to be 70 and below, where the European is 80-100, and the Asians are 90 and above. Then from this is also based on the development of the different races compared to each other, and how the African man is lower compare the other races.

There would be "race baiters" detailing how the black man never developed anything for themselves etc. These claims became conflicting as I started to learn about how these Gods were "black", and yet the people are stated to be "primitive", to which I found isn't true. This is what shocked the British Antiquarian and Historian Sir Godfrey Higgins, as he found that the deities that the Europeans and the Asians, worship to this day is the Black god and goddess. From the Black Jesus Christ, to the Black Buddha, the Black Madonna and Child, to Baal, Michael the Archangel, Murugan, Vishnu, Krishna etc. all stemmed from the Gods of the Black people. 

This is how I know that the modern Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Tibetans etc. were never there to begin with, and didn't go from "black to white and yellow" based on the "climate" theory. They were taken there by the God of fire into those lands, battling the original inhabitants of India and China. This destroys the "Our of Africa theory", because it doesn't fit their narrative as they want to hide the actual history of everyone. This is why the Smithsonian Institute had also destroyed the "Red haired" giant bones, because they know it goes on par with the Biblical perspective as they did exist at one time. 

This is why I state that some of these Scientific theories would have plot holes, but is merely an agenda to hide the true history of the different nations. This is why religion exist, these symbols exist, the gods (whether the people believe it or not) do exist, but not in the form of "little green men", or "bug eyed greys". Scientist will state that they are trying to find life in the stars, when there is more to it below the Earth (if life came from below the Earth). But I already know they are pulling people's leg just stating the obvious....

The ancient black people in China didn't change into the modern Chinese, but merely intermingled with the Israelites (which is why many Chinese have black blood in them). However, this will not be addressed because they want to say that the Chinese came from Africa, then to China at the start. There are plenty of artifacts detailing the Black gods and the people in those regions as it shows to this day. (See "The Real Aryans 1&2")

If the Bible isn't true, then the whole world wouldn't be worshiping these deities to this day. These freemasons know who these gods are, but are hiding the truth because of what the Bible states to be true. It just takes one to understand this through the "guidance" of the Spirit. The world is not an accident, there are forces out there doing works in the realm of the unseen, to which brings the point of what's occured with these symbols and such.

So, comes the verdict...If these Gods were originally black in complexioned, then the question is "who ruled over who"? The black people are one of the ancient nations that existed for thousands (if not million) of years, and coming to find out that these religions are based of their Gods, tells me that the Black people are not "underdeveloped" as the Western Historians are trying to state. Racism comes in different ways to mock or ridicule another, but always bites people in the back, no matter what skin color. Though, it's inherent in many people and nations, but even the Bible details some racism as well. So, I would state that it's based on the individual to understand for themselves, and then understand others in the process.

The symbols and images of the deities go back to the lands of Atlantis (and further), so I can't state that the black people are underdeveloped by no means. The God of fire in the Bible is apparently real, along with these gods etc. So, as far as the Royal Society, the Smithsonian Institute, History Channel etc. are basically making a new History for everyone while they keep the original History.

As far as people coming from monkeys, there are loopholes as people are trying to connect the dots on the different Hominids. Even being based from Africa wouldn't be true as far as research goes, the lands of America is a country far ancient than what History is trying to portray as the "New World", when it's really the other way around. If these religions are based from Atlantis (and that's not in the books of the "Out of Africa Theory"), then of course the wide spread of knowledge and the people have their History from those regions.

There is such thing as "Evolution" based on the Spiritual aspect, as you will learn about yourself in the process. In life you'll evolve to learn new things and make mistakes, but you learn from those mistakes to not make them again. But it's not to devolve to get dumber in the process, to which is happening nowadays (unfortunately). I remember my late teacher would state not to look at Television or go on Computer, because it tends to suck out your energy. And it's true, when abstaining from technology, I would feel more active (energetic wise) other than feeling drained. People are basically walking energy beacons instead of just flesh and blood, to which depends on the level of the person (as there are people that are materialistic and those that are spiritual).

So, where does Evolution fit in with the growth of energy? or Spirituality? Meditation and Yoga? Witchcraft and Sorcery? If the article details that energy comes from electrocharged Alkaline water, and we are 70-80% water, then that goes further into the aspects of "water" and energy. (Then what about the Salt water not mixing with the fresh water?) As the molecules in the water are living things that get affected by the surrounding energy, then science should go deeper than just the materialistic side of Evolution. 

Now, as far as people coming from the Primates, there is such thing (within the scientific field) of people having tails. Now, of course Science will state that man has a connection to the Primates, but what is usually shown in the "Evolutionary graph" is this:

The Chimpanzee does not have a tail compared to the monkeys that do have tails. So, why does this graph show a man coming from the "Chimpanzee" (which is a tailless creature), and yet, shows that there are people that can still have a tail. Did the Chimpanzee become tailless overtime through some climate experience? And if so, what are the ancestors of the Chimpanzees? Most Primates tend to be vegetarians compared to the Human counterpart, and are stronger than a human being (as most Herbivors appear to be more bulkier than the carnivorous species). Then there are questions like the "reptilian brain", as this connects to the "fight, sex, and flight" response (territorial or aggression), and the embryos of the mammalian creatures seem to appear more "reptile-like", prior to the mammalian look.

In the Chapter "The Encounters", I did detail some information on some said accounts, of people with tails living underneath Cairo Egypt. Then within the Greek Mythos details people that are hybrids of either half man and half goat, deer, horse, bull etc. (As if Bestiality was either the result, or some Atlantean experiment gone wrong). In one of Ruth Montgomery's book (I will get the title and information later), I remember a segment detailing how the Egyptians were performing surgeries on people with "appendages of animals", just to make them appear more like the others.   

Well, whatever the case maybe, there is no doubt that within the "Human" (as some considered "Animal man") society, there is some kind fo connection to the animal Kingdom, as there are very hairy people, people with the aquiline nose (like that of a bird), the dragon faced (like the Chinese Dragon), etc. (There are those that strangely do have the features of pigs, though that case could possibly be the overconsumption of pork. Whatever you eat will go into your blood stream). This concludes the chapter "Evolution"....