iamnlia:

Evolution is the change in heritable characteristics which is facilitated by the necessity to survive, right?
It's the biological system of an organism learning and unlearning.

There is evidence that sharks have been around for about 420 million years!. If by the standards of supposed human evolution, these sharks should walk and be amphibians,right? At least 420 million years ain't beans but they have evolved only a few body parts like the jaw because of the necessity to hunt and survive.

The humanoids form seemingly received a brand new brain and a complete overhaul when you compare us to the earlier humanoids, they teach in schools that our ancestors were cavemen and worked with stones and sticks but can't explain structures built over 10,000 years ago like pyramids of Giza and the rest, Goebekli Tepe is 13,000 years! Which cavemen built those?


Summary is that evolution is very minute and happens over a span of time according to challenges to survival.
The next step in human evolution may be on a molecular level because we are the perfect biological specie.

Preach!!!!

Graycoder:


You have not provided any evidence, you have only provided controversies. Science is not a closed ideology that will reject the possibilities of the existence of Aliens.

And if you have clear pieces of evidence, then saying you believe is totally wrong, you should have claimed you know.

I don't know why you would assume that the Hominoidea(Apes) who lived millions of years couldn't have erected the structures that seem like mysteries to you.

You have simply assumed that there were some structures that couldn't have been possible if Aliens did not exist. How did you arrive at this conclusion? What gave you the intuition that the Hominoids who lived before us couldn't have erected them?

This is just another controversial claim along with the ones who have come before you. It is not scientific.

Claiming there are unseen Aliens is the same as claiming there is God somewhere. Aliens should appear to me in my room or to us in Nigeria or Ghana and not just the US. Or do we have to summon them before they come?


I am still waiting for the evidence you have provided for your postulations of the efficacy of time when it comes to evolution.



Also, I am waiting for the evidence you have for this genetic manipulation you claim or believe that extraterrestrial bodies carried out to create humans.


Besides, I did not read about evolution. I studied it and I am still studying Genetics, under the umbrella of Biochemistry. So I doubt that you know evolution as I do or more.

Wait, you think the hominoid apes who lived millions of years ago erected structures like the Sphinx, the obelisks and Geobekli tepe? This is so funny.

I am certain the hominoids apes didn't erect those structures because they didn't have the tools or the brain to do that. Simple. How can you even argue this?

But lots of people have had encounters with aliens while using drugs like DMT? Lots of people have described life encounters with alien forms through altered states of consciousness and have expressed corroborative claims? A man named Phil Schneider had real encounters with grey aliens and even claimed to have shot one. His actual whistle blowing speeches are on YouTube for you to watch. Lots of people have stories of alien abductions. In fact the most striking story is that of Barney and Betty hill which you should read about. There have been literally thousands of sightings of UFOs post world war 2. There is drawings of UFOs in ancient art. Don't draw an analogy between my claim and the one theists make of God. In my case I have lots of evidence.

The sumerians in their texts described the process by which the genetic manipulation was done. According to them, the second and third strands of our DNA were fused in order to allow for mixing of the genes of the primates and that of the alien species, because primate species had 48, while the genes by which were used to create us had 46 chromosomes. This was mentioned thousands of years before the field of genetics was found. Now our knowledge of genetics tells us the same thing. Humans have 2 chromosomes less than other primates.

Graycoder:


You are just believing this and believing that. Unfortunately, science and evolutionary processes do not rely on beliefs.

Can you point to any scientific theory that postulates the existence of Aliens?

Stop believing and start knowing science by reading it clearly.

Darwinian evolution may be silent on human evolution because at that time the concept was new. But now, it has been extended and many progress has been made. I suggest you read more about evolution before you start giving us hints on your baseless and factless beliefs.

Thank you.

My beliefs are grounded in evidence and I have done my best to present these evidences, except if you haven't read my responses on this thread.

SIGH. Fermi's paradox is one. I have to admit this particular question is very amusing, for obvious reasons.

I've read more about evolution that you possibly have. Why don't you challenge all the points I have been making on this thread and support your arguments with proof.

I don't know how anyone in their right minds would take anything that's conventionally peddled as the true history of humanity serious, especially when it's coming from the mouth of powers in the west who have a malicious history of deliberately lying and fudging the truth to further their agenda.

Goebekli Tepe alone destroys all the historical nonsense that we are being fed. Anyone who has seen pictures of this ancient site dated to pre 11,000BC should question everything that he or she is being told about the history of the human race.

iamnlia:
I believe that aliens came to the earth because of the knowledge possessed by the ancients, archeological evidence and also other evidence.

1. Oblong shaped skulls from Peru.

2. The Sumerian tablets, the Sumerian depiction of the planetary systems, their advanced knowledge of geometry.

3. Megalithic sites like Maccu Picu, The Giza Pyramids, Stonehenge, Goebekli Tepe and many others I can't remember. The scale of precise geometry is just mind boggling.

4. Evolution is a very slow process and 2.5 million years is relatively small for the drastic changes from earlier humanoids, the biggest evidence being the giant leap in intelligence. We literally graduated from earlier humanoids to the most compete and perfect life forms in this realm.

Another case is that if it was all evolution, there would still be humanoid life forms resembling the erectus and hominis at this time but there isn't a single one, it's as if there was a total sharp curve in human biology instead of slow and steady rising evolution.

Preach!!!

Kaderayayomikun:
Fekwa, may I know why you think humans MUST have been genetically engineered by aliens? What makes you think we COULDN'T have evolved the qualities we possess on our own?

And did these aliens evolve, or were they also engineered by some other kind of aliens?

Where are these aliens NOW? Why haven't they shown themselves in centuries?

The answer to your first question is in my replies to donffd.

That I can't say for now. I don't have enough information to address this question.

There are lots of different kind of alien species and I believe the government of the United states, China and Russia have interacted with some and are currently interacting with them.

Aliens have always shown themselves. History is awash with pictures and artwork depicting alien forms and Space ships. Lots of medieval painting have pictures of spacecrafts in them. Even in our present day there are a litany of evidences of stories of space craft(ufo) sightings and alien abductions. Read about the Roswell crash and the grey alien coverup. Read about operation bluebook. Read about the whistle blowers like the Canadian senator who came out to blow the whistle on the interaction with the US government and alien species. Read about the world war two sightings of sophisticated, light speed fast UFOs seen by both the allied and the axis forces. Read about the Arecibo message. Read about the Tehran incident. Read about area 51. Read about people like Phil Schneider who had lots of assassination attempts on his life and who was finally killed because he revealed information about aliens he had personal contact with while working for the CIA in Area 51. Read about Edward snowdens leaked CIA document on alien files. There is an avalanche of evidence suggesting alien existence and interaction with humans.

donnffd:


I dont know what you call big-foot, but if its what i am thinking, then you should know that there isnt any evidence that bigfoot actually existed but that aside...

1. Even if all you say was true, it still doesnt mean that homosapiens were genetically engineered, all you did was point out flaws in the anatomy of modern and archaic humans and claim Evolution could not have explained it.

2. Evolution can actually explain it, i really dont get your problem, is it with the time or that a species cannot evolve to a lesser dense bone structure?, which is it? because both are perfectly possible.

Homo erectus lived about 2.5million years ago while modern homo sapiens just appeared about 250,000years ago, that means Evolution had about 2.25million years between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, do you know how many transitional species that would have been?

Now if your problem is the evidence, there are lots of evidence of transitional species, shockingly so because these species were primitive, they were not purposely fossilizing their bones so that a future species would use it as evidence, so any fossil we find, we were extremely lucky to have found because it was fossilized by Natural methods.

Evolution is a topic most people think they know but have absolutely no clue whats its about, just like the @whitebeard dude who was asking why monkeys were not evolving, that shows you a stench ignorance on the topic.

There is actually literally evidence of thousands of sightings of bigfoot around the world and all these sightings say the same thing. Also, try reading about the Olma. This was also a hominoid with primate morphology that unlike bigfoot actually lived, bred and interacted with humans.

1. I didn't point out any flaws. I just explained the morphological transformations that occurred in the supposed evolution of humans from homoerectus within a short period of time that going by the current Darwinian paradigm of evolution, is practically impossible.

2. Come on, it's not just the lesser bone structure, it's that and a slew of other transformations. Look, I have read about evolution and I understand that evolutionary changes can occur within species, but this evolutionary changes aren't usually holistic and they always leave intermediate evidences. If the homo erectus evolved just a protruded forehead, I could have just brushed it aside and said wow, amazing stuff. But they didn't just evolve protruded foreheads, the entire morphology of their face underwent a complete transformation, not a transition. And this happened simultaneously as the bone mass and bone density was transforming, the design of their throats were transforming, the skin on their bodies was undergoing a change, their brains also were undergoing a transformation, their arm length, their relative sizes etc all were simultaneously undergoing transformations. This isn't how evolution works. The changes are usually gradual and extremely slow, and occur over a long long period of time and there is proof of intermediate species.

No, you sort of have the facts wrong. We are told that about 2.8 million years ago, the homo habilis evolved from the Australopithecus species and separated from them. About 1.9 million years ago the Homo Erectus then evolved from the Homo Habilis. We are also told that this homo erectus species lived till around 160,000 years ago with their distinctive characteristics and within this time frame, homo sapiens(present day humans) evolved from them. So prior to 160,000 years ago, homo-sapiens never existed. This is evidence by the fact that the earliest fossils of homo sapiens that have been found are dated to about 154,000 -160,000 years old. So we can estimate that the branching away of homo sapiens from homo erectus occurred around 150,000 - 160,000 years ago. The homo erectus still maintained their form even around 160,000 years ago. So your evolution from homo-erectus to homosapiens began to occur around this time. Doesn't this seem off to you? And you have to bear in mind that for millions of years since the Australopithecus species, the morphology of primates have stayed similarly alike relative to the changes that occurred during our "evolution."

Please don't categorize me amongst those who are unschooled on Darwinian evolution. Like I told someone earlier, I have read lots of Richard Dawkins and I have read books on evolutionary biology. I am not an illiterate on the subject, but when I collide with facts I have to submit to facts.

zeestunner:


you will enjoy david icke too he make alot of sense . if interested i can send u his books via watsap

Lol I have read David Icke too. I read a lot. I just stated that I had read lot of Richard Dawkins, which I have, so those with opposing views don't think I am arguing from an uninformed position.

zeestunner:
u have read lots of david icke books i guess lol i kinda agree with him on alot of issues

I have actually read a lot of Richard Dawkins.

donnffd:


@bolded, I dont see any evidence for your claims

Aside that, Humans have always had this need to be the center of things, we have always wanted to be special, the chosen ones, the ones endowed with God's likeness, or in this case genetically engineered by super advanced Aliens.

Cant you see these are all wishful thinking?, there is no difference between your op and all other creation myths...

The truth of the matter is we were evolved from a branch of primates family who have all gone extinct now and we are here just by sheer chance and there is nothing special about us, that is the TRUTH.

I actually do have evidence. One of the evidence is that we don't share the same bones with the homo-erectus. Ours are less dense and less thick. And this change in bone nature happened overnight. We also don't have same skulls as they did. Our foreheads are more pushed foreword than theirs and their brow ridges are more pronounced than ours. If we did evolve from them through the normal process of Darwinian evolution there had to have been a line of intermediate species that showed gradual changes that led to ours. But there isn't. Also, the design of our throats seem to have magically transformed, which made space for the enablement of speaking. The homoerectus grew bigger and had a massively fast growth rate compared to ours. In adolescent they were already bigger and stronger than any modern human, but how then did we evolve to be less stronger and smaller within a short period of time. There are lots of other transformational changes that don't fit the Darwinian paradigm. You can't have all this unprecedentled evolutionary transformations occuring simultaneously within such short period of time. But hey, bigfoot and other hominoids share a lot of similarities with these species we supposedly evolved from. Like if you could get a skeleton of the homonerectus and compare it with that of bigfoot, you'd see a lot of similarity. They share their skulls, their bones, their height, their throats, their arm length relative to their bodies etc.

whitebeard:
Really aliens..let's talk more on this..!! Can u prove the existence of aliens to me pls..!

Well there are many ways I can prove it. Ancient History is riddled with lots of evidences that suggest their existence, classical history also depicts them in their art and in modern times there is a raft of corroborative evidence substantiating this.

I'll begin with the ancient sumerians who as history tells us were the first human civilization that emerged after the ice age. The sumerians had well detailed in their texts the story of how an alien race came down on earth and made man in their image. This is actually where the bible borrows it's story from. What's striking about this is that the sumerians also left drawings that suggested a sophisticated understanding of our solar system and galaxy and they claimed that it was the aliens who gave this knowledge to them. I mean the sumerians had diagrams of our solar system with spherical planets orbiting a sun in their correct sizes. They had knowledge that science is only recently beginning to uncover.

Another ancient historical evidence that supports my claim is the Sphinx and the pyramids in Egypt. Anybody with common sense would realize that the Sphinx or the pyramids couldn't have been created by ancient Egyptians with primitive tools. The Sphinx is now believed to be at least 7000 years old, although some scientists date the creation back to 10,000 years, some even way way back. But even if we accept the conventional claim of 7000 years, it's still shrouded in mystery. There weren't any human civilizations pre 3000BC, so who the heck created such an extremely sophisticated edifice? And you have the Pyramid in Gaza that was constructed to mathematical accuracy with mathematical knowledge was wasn't present at the time. Take as an example the elevation of the great pyramid that encodes accurately the three of the most important constants in mathematics: π, Φ, and e to their precise decimal forms. Where did they get this knowledge from? And this is just one of the extraordinary cases of mathematical & geometrical accuracy.
It's also been established that the great pyramid is a scale model of the northern hemisphere of the Earth, incorporating the geographical degrees of both latitude and longitude and that the distance between the location of the Great Pyramid and the North Pole is the same distance between the surface of the Earth and its core-Center.

Then there is also the fact that the pyramids in Gaza were aligned with the Orion star system. Like how the hell did people who didn't have telescopes design large structures that had their tips perfectly aligned with star systems? All this is just a tip of the iceberg. Read more about the pyramids and you'd realize that they couldn't have been designed by humans.

Another evidence I like to point out are the NAZA lines in ancient Peru. These were huge diagrams made across a huge swath of land that could only have been seen in their full from from a high elevation. This means that to see the shapes the lines were drawn to create, one had to be in a aircraft or something that flies. The people of ancient Peru didn't have flying crafts so how could they have drawn this? Also the way the lines were digged into the earth surface, it would have been practically impossible for the people of ancient Peru to have made them.

Another evidence is the ancient Puma panku structures. Please google the images yourself. You'd realise that the accurate incisions on those huge rocks could only have been made with laser technology.

There are lots of other evidences of this kind that I haven't even mentioned. And I haven't even touched on the evidence in medieval and classic art or the plethora of evidence that has been accrued in modern times. I could go on if you want.

I am not saying the thesis of Darwinian evolution is wrong. I accept the claim that species evolve, albeit through a long period of time with gradual changes during this time period. I think that Darwinian evolution is incomplete on the subject of "human evolution." I think that on the issue of human emergence on earth, creationists and Darwinian evolutionist have it wrong. I believe that at a certain point in history, aliens manipulated the genes of Homo-Erectus and Homo-Neanderthals, did some mixing and hence humans were created. This makes a lot of sense when you compare the skeletons and fossils of Homo-erectus which mainstream science tells us we evolved from and recognize the massive transformational changes that couldn't possibly have occurred through evolution and definitely not during such space of time. It also makes sense when you compare our level of cognitive intelligence and spiritual awareness with that of every other animal. The difference is patently obvious.

I also believe that the hominoids - the likes of Big foot, the abominable snowman and the Olma are the evolved forms of the homo erectus and Neanderthals and this belief is grounded in a lot of evidence.

wolesmile:
The OP is just being sarcastic. Read between the lines. The OP wants you to understand that despite their approval of same sex marriage and obvious immoralities and vices, these countries and economically buoyant, politically stable, technologically advanced and socially relevant. Nigeria on the other hand, despite our religiousity, still lags far behind. Just read between the lines.

What's surprising is that people are actually supporting him. Like how deep a hole into the IQ of a human can religion dig?

ZandhaZaraZ:
Muhammed himself was a terrorist, a Jihadist, and Muslims are supposed to establish an Islamic Caliphate wherever they might be, and live by Sharia Law, because they shouldn't be living in societies governed and ruled by infidels and their impious VALUES. Are you saying it is wrong for Muslims to emulate their prophet, the highest examplar of "virtue"?

And if Holy Books are not to be read literally as meaning exactly what is written, who then decides the non-literal meanings of the verses? Anyone can just project their own beliefs on it and interpret it through that prism. It becomes a free for all---it can mean anything to anyone; whatever they want it to mean.

If some verses are only of HISTORICAL RELEVANCE, why were they included in a "timeless" book like the Quran, Allah's eternal and final message to the entire human race, that coexists with him in heaven? It only stands to reason that if the exact circumstances that necessitated those verses were to arise again in the modern age, then they're to apply the commandments given in those verses once again! THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE IN THE PERFECT, INFALLIBLE HOLY QUR'AN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

But you seem to be focusing on just the bad aspects of the Quran. The same Quran has in it other verses which are benign and are in direct contradiction to the relatively bad verses that influence and animate extremist ideologies. So, if going by what you say that every muslim should adhere to the literal meaning of the verses, then it would be practically impossible for anyone to be a sane devotee of Islam because they'd essentially be forced to abide by verses that contradict each other. At the end of the day it all boils down to interpretation. There has to be some form of picking and choosing and concerted effort into deeper understanding, and I believe that's what the institution of Islamic theology and scholarship addresses.

I think you seem to be conflating your definition of true religious adherence with religious literalism. The fact that someone reads a certain verse of the scripture and interprets it literally doesn't mean his interpretation is more accurate and more representative of what the religion stands for than someone who interprets that particular verse in a more benign form.
Most of the time religious literalism doesn't come from an informed reading of the religious text, it's often accompanied with a decontextualized reading of the text and an inability to understand the historical relevances that surround the text.

I think this whole case of Islamic extremism all boils down to interpretation and the Islamic ideology that animates this interpretation, because there are lots of Islamic ideologies and movements are built around these ideologies and these ideologies have lots of historical, philosophical and geopolitical influences.

The issue of Islamic terrorism isn't black and white. It's extremely complex and nuanced and I hate when uninformed people like the OP talk so boldly about an intricate issue they aren't well informed about.

Jupxter:



No such things as aliens. The fall of ancient Greeks created a vacuum in story telling and mastery in delivering fables,with this void came in new ideologies and stories, like the existence of aliens, just a pity, the entire world took it too seriously.

No, stories of aliens and their pictorial representation in ancient art predates the rise of the ancient Greek civilization. The Sumerian texts which predates the rise of the Greek civilization by roughly 3000 years and is also the foundation upon which the creation story in the Bible and Quran is derived, is the earliest document that points to the existence of aliens and their interaction with mankind.

There are a slew of evidences that suggest aliens exist and have interacted with mankind both pre-greek civilization and post-greek civilization.

ZandhaZaraZ:
Lol. Seriously? Are you kidding me? There are too much instances to prove this that I don't even know where to start.

Okei.

Is it the manner in which these sadists in the uniform of Christ terrorised and brutalized a continent and then exported that terror to the four corners of the globe that I should talk about? Is it the torture heretics were made to suffer, the torment and terror? The garrotting? The choking? The burnings? The strangulations? The mutilation? Laceration? Incarceration? Slow and agonizing deaths?

The burning, mutilation, and extermination of Jewish populations?

Thousands of heretics were horribly burned at the stake.

Millions died in nine catastrophic crusades of Christians against the Turks.

The massacres of the Lutherans and Papists.

The massacres in Ireland, England, and Scotland.

The massacre of millions of the inhabitants of the new world.

The massacres in France, lasting many years.

The numerous cataclysmic upheaveals sparked by the innumerable schisms between Christians---popes against popes, bishops against bishops, sects against sects.

The slave trade by White Anglo Saxon Protestants.

The list might as well be endless.

I repeat: Islam hasn't surpassed the crimes committed, or committed half as much atrocities committed, by Christian Europe.

Thank you for elaborating. This just reinforces my primary argument.

Hati13:

Not intended to me, but I'm sure that some God/gods are fantasies while others are Aliens.

I also believe same. I agree that a few might have been fantasies like you rightly stated, but I also believe that some might have been inter dimensional entities, the kind you'd call spirits, and they were able to interact with them through spiritual journeys or heightened states of consciousness, while others were actual aliens in space ships. No offense to Christians and Jews, but I think their god was an alien in a space ship. The old testament is replete with evidence that suggests this.

hopefulLandlord:


This would lead to a long discussion and I'm kinda too busy for that right now

anyways, a deep and unbiased study of all religious gods show that none of those gods could have been the creator of the universe (if there is really a creator)

How about religions which don't claim that their God was the creator of the universe? Do you dispute the existence of their God since he doesn't fit this paradigm of a creator God?

anibirelawal:
I beleived that they exist, only if the the word ALIEN have any relationship with the JINN.

So your decision to accept or not accept their existence doesn't actually depend on empirical evidence supporting their existence, but on whether they fit a description of creatures in the Quran?

hopefulLandlord:
No it won't affect my knowledge that all religious gods are manmade

Man made in what sense? Man made in the sense what some group of people concocted a conception of God out of a vacuum, or man made in the sense that a group of people conceptualized a God based on their experiences and interactions with a being or beings that they didn't have a full understanding of?

Because when you say religious gods were man made, it sort of implies that people were just manufacturing fictitious stories out of their heads that didn't have any actual basis in real life experiences, and this is something I don't agree with.

ZandhaZaraZ:
An excellent write-up you've put up there, Fekwa. I completely agree with your points.

But for the sake of preserving facts, given how SACRED they are, I can't help but point out the bit of incorrect statement in your write-up. Maybe Christianity is more peaceful than the rest of the Abrahamic religions in THE PRESENT DAY (although, that's due to no effort of Christianity, but due to circumstances and situations beyond its control, as I'll demonstrate shortly). it remains, not only historically the most violent, wicked, evil, and heartless of the three, but also the most violent and despicable religion in history!

Islam has never, at any point in its history, come close to Christian evil, devilry and madness. The church in medieval times was a lunatic asylum and the home of human demons. There's nothing Islam has done throughout its history, or in the current day, that is close or has surpassed half of the havoc wrecked by Christianity and the atrocities this religion of the "devil" has made men commit.

The reason why you have a peaceful Christianity today is because of the Black Death, the Italian Renaisance, the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the subsequent Rise of Napoleon, all of which weakened Christian authority and destroyed its power in the continent of Europe. THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY CHRISTIANITY BECAME SANE.

Islam, on the other hand, has never, at any point of its history, experienced any such enlightenment, hence why it remains more savage and backward (although, it was once close to breaking free from retardation during the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" - when Caliphs came into contact with the Byzantine Empire, and learned how to think straight from the writings of the ancient Greeks. But that progress was shortlived).

However, Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, so we should give it some credit. In five centuries time (it might not even take that long), Islam would be nominally dead in the Muslim world (like Christianity now is in modern Europe---it's just a Zombie).

Do you mind throwing more light on the bolded, and cite historical facts as well, because I think you might be exaggerating a bit.

I am of the opinion that aliens from other solar systems and dimensions exist and I also believe that they've interacted with humans throughout history, especially in ancient times. I also believe that a lot of our blurry understanding of our origin and our evolution as humans can be made clearer in light of unraveling the truth about the interference of alien life on our planet.

The above is just my opinion which is grounded on a lot of evidence, and it has shaped my world view and altered a lot of my beliefs about the true nature of reality and I'm prepared to engage in a civil debate with anyone who has opposing views, but besides this, I really want to know: If you had proof that alien life actually exists and has had contact with humans on this planet, how would it affect or influence your beliefs? As an atheist would it change your views about the non existence of a God, and as a theist would it shake your religious beliefs?

Why isn't anyone else responding?

Richdotcom:
I totally understand what you are trying to say.... but in my opinion if you are trying to disapprove a religion base on the fact that the “God” or supreme being they worship could go and have gone to any length in order to protect and prevent his or her people from harm or destruction.... then I think that is a biased way or reasoning.

No, the war history of the Jews or the Muslims wasn't a case of fighting to protect, they were a case of deliberate conquest to dominate and control. You had people living their lands to wage war against isolated nations in order to conquer on the basis of an instruction from their deity. And history is replete with various instances of this kind of atrocity, both from the camp of Islam and that of Judaism.

My reasoning isn't biased in anyway. I'm just baffled by the fact that the worst religions in terms of their history of barbarity and mayhem seem to have the most followers and no one even bats an eye.

Let me put a question straight to you, if you are a father and will you rather look away when your children are under attack of any kind or you will do anything possible to protect and preserve your children..... will you rather watch your children Perish?

I can go to any length to protect my son....

Again, like I said before, this wasn't a case of defence, it was a case of deliberate conquest. I don't see how this isn't obvious. And to answer your question, these deities claimed to be creators of the entire human race, but yet they picked sides in their revelation and their supposed protection. Allah or Yahweh based on their claims were the fathers or every human, not just a particular group, so what kind of father picks sides during wars and protects some of his children at the expense of others? What kind of father systematically divides his children into waring factions and instructs one to annihilate the other?

2ndly all of these religion you mention aren’t totally bad and violent, it also has good and human loving teachings and I will be glad if you also do your research and mention the good side of it...... look at the good sides and also the “bad” side.

Of course every religion has its good teaching, but my point is that most people tend to ignore the slew of bad and violent histories specific to these religions. And since you like thought experiments, let me present one: If you were looking for a school to enroll your kid in and you had to choose between two schools; both schools were good schools. They had good teachers and they thought moral lessons. But one of the school had a very bad history. A history that included atrocities too bad to mention. Which school would you choose? Would you be wise to choose the school with the bad history?
Would you ignore it's history upon which it was founded.

3rd I believe you eat meat which isn’t a bad thing, so what’s wrong if these guys kill animals and offer a burnt offering to their “God” I don’t think there was a time humans were used just animals.... I will like to know how is that a bad thing sir?

I eat meat because I require the nutrients which the meat provides. The Israelites weren't offering dead meat to their deity because he also needed to eat them for nutritional benefits. No. Their deity required those sacrifices for the same reasons Dibias and Babalawos require sacrifices for their own deities. I am someone who loves knowledge and I have conversed with wiccans, highly spiritual folks and people who are close to shamans about the relevance of blood sacrifices and they all say the same thing - these sacrifices are used to appease beings in other lower dimensions because these beings feast on the essence of the animal that has been sacrificed. They also say that this quality is typical of dark/evil entities.

It really baffles me how any informed, smart thinking person can choose to remain an adherent of the abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam, because when you read their history, especially that of the later two, it becomes patently obvious that these religions weren't dictated by a benovelent force or diety and not only that, there were also strongly influenced by the political structures that existed at the time of their infancy.

On the issue of a deity, I am very open minded about the existence of the supernatural and the possibility of humans being able to interact with entities in other realms or dimensions or whatever term other worlds separate from ours are referred to as. I am inclined to believe that humans have for thousands of years interacted with beings from other realms and they referred to these beings as Gods and for the most part, lots of the beings have been benign going by the numerous relatively peaceful religions that have existed all through time. You can't say the same for Judaism, Islam and of course Christianity which happens to be a direct product of Judiasm.

Judaism is based on the claim that certain individuals of Jewish ancestry fellowshipped and interacted with a deity known as Yahweh and this deity mandated that they abided by his precepts and acknowledged him as the one true God. This deity was also known to instruct them to wage wars against other clans and nations. Now one thing you should be mindful of is the personality of this deity. Its personality is narcissistic, self absorbed and in all essence malevolent. Another quality of this deity is its interest in blood and burnt sacrifices. This in my opinion is the biggest red flag. There are and have been religions whose deities never demanded burnt offerings or blood sacrifices and were never interested in wars and killings of innocents in order to conquer and dominate. What you'd realize is that this quality of interest in blood sacrifices is typical of the deities of most malevolent traditional religions. Eg: the deities in your villages.

Islam is predicated on the claim that a certain man of Arab origin went into a cave to meditate and was met by a certain angel by name Gabriel who was sent by the supposed creator of the universe, by name Allah. And there in the cave he was given the word of God; the Quran. This man took the supposed word of God to his people and hence the religion of Islam was born.
What you'd realize is the incredible degree of similarity between the deity of the Israelites and the deity of the Muslims. Both of them claimed to be the one true God and both of them seemed to have a keen interest in conquering and dominating through bloody wars. But there are some slight differences which I think are noteworthy. The God of the Muslims wasn't interested in blood sacrifices, but seemed to be more interested and more dedicated than the Jewish God in establishing itself as the one true God through submission and expanding this submission throughout the world through conquest. What this suggest is that both deities aren't the same, but share a malevolent and selfconceited personality. Note that these qualities are negative qualities as far as matters of the spiritual is concerned.

Christianity is based on the claim that the God of Judaism sent his son to fulfill a prophesy written in certain portions of the Jewish books. Now, certainly Christianity happens to be the most peaceful of all the three Abrahamic religions but it's also the most controversial. In fact it's the most controversial religion in the history of religion.
The primary claim of Christianity - the claim that a man named Jesus who walked the earth some 2000 years ago was in fact the Messiah that was promised in the Jewish texts is shrouded in a lot of mystery and uncertainty. The claim had been refuted by Jews themselves who disagree on the basis that the man Jesus didn't fulfill most of the prophecies about the messiah that was promised. This claim is reinforced when you notice the reinterpretations done by Christians to reconcile their claims with the prophesies. Also, what really influenced the rise of Christianity wasn't really in it's efficacy or veracity, but as a result of the political support it had, first from Constantine who legalized it 311AD, and then Theodosius 1 who in 380AD instituted it as the official religion of the roman empire and outlawed other religions. There is also the issue of canonization and de-canonization of texts and the arbitrary picking and choosing of doctrines to incorporate into the Bible and the ones to remove by men in political and leadership circles. Then you have the Reformation in the 15th century which was another case of men creating their own doctrines and choosing what to believe and what to discard. Given all this, and given the fact that Christianity is a product of Judaism which like I have explained has a questionable deity, how then can anyone in their right minds be an adherent of Christianity?

If you are someone who is a fan of spirituality and you believe in order to be spiritual you require religion, then there are various religions to pick from. Why does it have to be any of these three? Why does it have to be religions that have been systematic in the deaths of millions of people? Why does it have to be religions that have so irreparably fragmented our societies? I really don't understand.