Educational disciplines for the most part allow us to pursue evidentiary data before we make conclusions: law, banking and accounting demand that practitioners sign statements to the affect that they have followed generally accepted practices established by their institutions. Arguably, human evolutionary science should be the strictest educational discipline. Is it?
We use fossils, shards, forensics, and some of the best technology available in our quest to unravel the past. For years I have been trying to follow the evidentiary trail of evolutionary science without getting into the sentimentalities of "either or" or "neither nor" groupings. Since lines are already drawn in the sand, if you present factual data showing that the Universe is a giant clock-the most accurate of our known time mechanisms with perfect repetitious motion, negating any possibility of accidental or unintelligent conception, automatically you fit into one category and antagonists go for their swords smashing logic, reason and anything else that crosses their side of the battle line.
The religious community is marginalized for believing that humans were part of an intelligent design, uniquely made--Psalm 139:14. At the same time, sensible discourse on semantics to see if the word "days" in the English language might have had multiple meanings in pre-historic, pre-lunar, and pre-stellar time periods are pounced upon by religious purists--thus widening the chasm between Creationists and Human Evolutionists. I committed the unpardonable sin. I dared to venture on both sides to show that both sides might have wiggle room for better dialogue. What did they do? Both ran and hid like ostriches.
So here I am, on my quest to engage those not afraid of being ostracised, not afraid to face truth. Here are a few simple questions:
1. We see thousands of pictures of ape-like men. We have no doubt that they existed: evidence confirms such. Ape men with tools? Who said that those are the beings that used the ancient tools we find? Why did those beings put down their tools and keep their fur in wintertime?
2. If we evolved from them, why did some go back? Why did we improve our tools and not our ability to survive the cold?
3. What if there was a catastrophe and survivors had to begin the rebuilding process all over again? Have we yet deciphered all the languages of the survivors--the Caribs and Arawaks? Why do we call their preserved writings "Primitive Art?" Didn't we assume the Rosetta Stone was primitive art also?
4. Could Stonehenge have been carved with primitive tools: could the Olmec heads of Central America? Was the ancient observatory on Greencastle Hill Antigua built before Antigua became a fragmented island mass?
5. Why do drawings of ancient civilizations in India, allow recreated models of Vimana to fly?
6. How many people know that maps of South America exist in China, showing rivers once existed on areas that are now frozen tundra?
7. Were miles of perfectly straight Nazca Lines carved by primates, primitive people or pre-humans?
8. Let's not forget that many records supposedly vanished when the Library of Alexandria burned.
On Thursday November 9th 2006, an article by Jeanna Bryner appeared on Livescience. It began by stating that pre-humans had a varied diet. The next paragraph bothered me: our ancestors ate fruit, grasses and grazing animals. Pre-humans and ancestors are not synonymous. True: our ancestors, our parents and even we, eat fruit, grasses and grazing animals. Does that mean that because pre-humans ate the same things as we do that they were our ancestors? The label "ancestor" means that DNA affirm they are part of our chain genetically, and they are not.
Here is the sort of evidence that throws the discussions into a tailspin. An article in Friday November 10th 2006, Washington Post Online, quoted from Dr. George Weinstock, co-director of a sea urching sequencing project. According to his findings 70% of sea urchin genes have a human counterpart. Fruit flies apparently have 40%. Again I am floored. A statement followed: "Meet our new evolutionary cousin." Question: if a sea urchin with 70% compatible genes is our "new cousin," how is it that someone who has two hands like all of us, two feet like all the rest of us, two eyes, one nose, one head, one tongue---who was born pink like all of us, and whose body adapted to climatic conditions-how is that person a member of another race?
All humans have the same 100% human genes and sequential DNA links to an African-based matriarch. I refer readers to a January 11 1988 Newsweek cover story that navigated the DNA river of human beings. That article provided evidence that evolutionists are searching for, yet we are afraid to utter: all human beings are a unique, interconnected rainbow family. We have the same saliva, the same blood types, the same dung and the same disgusting habits: WE ARE NOT MANY, BUT ONE RACE-ONE DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY!
That fact that certain pre-human species changed, does not mean that all pre-humans did the same things? The caterpillar continues to change. If some Apes did change, I have yet to see evidence that all apes changed into higher nouns. We find evidence of sporadic, variable, continuous and calculable changes in living species. I thank heaven I am not chained into an either/or school of thought. I have the liberty of taking evidence from intelligently formed (not random) sites to do my analyses. Science has to rely on faith to fill in missing evidence. However they are not allowed to use that "Faith" word. If they do they will cross the divide and surrender points in favour of an intelligent Creator. However religious people can use that "F" word, and not be damned.
To deduce that humans jumped across the bridge of human evolution from the side of the fiord marked "Ape" and landed on the "Human" side requires FAITH. Since the theory/myth/science--choose one-- of human evolution already reached its conclusion before the evidence is fully evaluated, arguing or debating the issue is futile.
Suggested readings: "The Golden Fleece Found by Basil Hill--
http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Fleece-Found-Basil-Hill/dp/1412043190
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น