23 February 2016

A Big Scientific WHAT IF


The scientific 'truth' that is taught according to what men dig up from the earth and reason in hypotheticals, building upon earlier hypotheticals, has mankind believing they are descended from apes / monkeys of some kind, and much earlier than these, a single-celled amoeba.

The argument is logical while using reason in bridging the gaps that archeological discovery cannot speak to.

We must always remember that speaking from a certain narrative leads the follower to always think through that particular narrative in arriving at conclusions.

For those who believe the narrative of creation, sans fixed time periods, the believer adds new knowledge and understanding to this particular narrative.

As both the creation and scientific narratives agree in large part to how life came to be on earth ( ocean and land animals preceding humans ), why can't other places in these narratives find agreement?

“What if” some of these believed-to-be humanoids were another type of animal, conceding to the evidence of evolution, and the human of today being the final arrival of life who, as we all agree to, has thrived and triumphed over all creation?!

What if, those humanoids who are very close to modern man's genome ( according to DNA ), are simply humans who've gone astray?

Men claim to have dug up what they believe to be early humans, estimating hundreds of thousands to millions of years in timelines.

Yet, the timing of carbon dating doesn't seem to be a solid and predictable measurement, thus possibly unscientific according to the definition of science.

But who can blame men trying to understand the world around them by all means necessary?

Some of these humanoids were very small in stature, some hardly reaching four feet in height.

Other humanoids were quite large, with different skull features.

These features, being obviously distinguishable, have allowed men to label and categorize humanoids according to their observations and hypothesis.

Is it possible that what have been considered “Neanderthals” and others became depraved according to the rebellious descendants of those who decided to approach life on their own terms, leaving behind the natural order established by the earliest communities of humans?

Science grants many insights regarding the past, albeit with a hypothetical narrative filling-in what cannot be storied from archeology.

Dirt and fossils do not speak, but it is man's observation of dirt and fossils which leads men to reason meaning according to what they know and believe previously.

People have come to understand that environment has much to do with human development, as does culture and society.

Considering the product of a loving home, with emotional and psychological order, juxtaposed to a home vacant of love and constant irrational disorder.

Historically speaking, don't we see the outcome of these two extremes in producing very different types of societies, cultures and peoples?

The health sciences teach us that a poor diet produces altered human conditioning.

Perhaps embattled feuds between tribes, extreme climates, extreme landscapes and atypical diets may have produced an atypical human being over certain time periods.

Is it possible the further far and away any people would meander from earlier tribal gatherings, their deviations contributed to what are labeled as unrecognizable humans today?

These deviations now being labeled in a modern context as any variety of hominoid, or hypothesized to be a different specie with similarities to human beings?

No comments: