Modern Science : From Pantheon to Apocryphus

Modern Science: From Pantheon to Apocryphus

How the cycle of knowledge to ignorance repeats.

I want to start with a question. Who are we, and where or what did we come from?

It's not an easy question to ask most of us. Most on this planet are quick to reply that we were placed and/or created on this earth by an entity we can not, for different reasons, fully comprehend. It doesn't matter who you talk to, there is always a force. Even proponents of evolution credit mother nature, the force of nature, or natural selection. All of these things imply a guiding force, albeit over very different time lines.

The next question we must ask is why?

I would like to offer a counter question to elucidate. How would you create or alter a species if you had all the tools and abilities you could imagine?

There are probably three ways that, though with overlapping factors, are both distinct, plausible, and most efficient to implement. Some of the factors that are redundant pose a serious question of their own. Is it really happening?

First, we will explore the three.

The theory most acceptable by the mainstream is that mother nature and chance are the reason for abnormalities that drastically changed the course of our evolution and still subtly affect us today. The abnormalities discussed will be presented shortly. ( To summarize, the fact that 2% of our genetic code was altered abruptly and without evidence of patient zero, paired with the knowledge that a mouse is less than 1% different.)

The theory least acceptable is that extraterrestrials drastically and abruptly altered the course of human evolution out of necessity. Basically, necessity is the mother of invention, and there was a real need for Neanderthal man to use tools, develop consciousness, and language so his DNA was manipulated to fill a void. Some of the best specimens can be found in the marrow residing in the rib bone. Is that why we are told about it in the story of Eden?

In between the two mentioned above, the last theory shatters our perceptions of what life is and where it comes from. That the stars are either the source of life, or the driving force of it's creation. That comets, space dust, and other exotic interstellar compounds either deposited organisms, building blocks, or altered existing life. Ultimately, this could be the result of an efficient alien bioengineering program or experiment, but until we could start to prove the theory (though I felt it needed to be addressed sooner rather than later) was likely, it would be absurd to pursue such speculation.

In any of these scenarios, we encounter similar issues that can be resolved in similar fashion, no matter the belief structure. Bear in mind, I am not implying that this is the only acceptable solution for each issue, but that these are the simplest and most logical solutions which make sense no matter the context I could theorize.

Sang Real : Holy bloodlines.

Why would every major society respect and revere certain bloodlines whom are known to interbreed when it has been a long accepted fact that very interbreeding causes deformity? The blood of the royals is considered holy, untainted, and pure. It seems strange to worship an idea that has long been known to be detrimental, derived from fallacy. Is it the actual blood that is being worshiped, or the idea of pure blood? I understand we are bordering on assumption based conclusions, but I implore you to research the role blood plays in our history.

"There is power, power, wonder-working power in the precious blood of the Lamb."

Genesis 1:26
“Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness.”

Planned Obsolescence: Product of Evolution?

Why is it acceptable to assume that because there is life, there will be death? To be clear, destroying the vessel that holds like physically will obviously result in death. If you sustain enough damage, your body can no longer support life. Why have we refused to ask the glaring question of why everything dies eventually, “naturally”? A few species of animal live to be much older than humans while some insects live a small fraction as long as a human, this we are certain of and can prove. Why have we not discovered a single immortal organism on this planet? There are few animals that ever really die of old age in the wild. Most die from predators, for varying reasons, to include the effects of old age. While we understand this, we never ask why no matter how slow systems become they stop at all? Is immortality that strange of a concept to nature, evolution and man?

Moving on.

What abnormalities are discussed?

Human Ancestors Interbred with Related Species

”Our ancestors bred with other species in the Homo genus, according to a study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1. The authors say that up to 2% of the genomes of some modern African populations may originally come from a closely related species...

Hammer and his colleagues argue that roughly 2% of the genetic material found in these modern African populations was inserted into the human genome some 35,000 years ago.”

This thread poses the question as to where 2% of genetic material becomes randomly inserted into our DNA, which is incredible, because our total variance from mice is under 1%. What is further startling is that the majority of the changes are Alu sequences (Which are derivatives of an element of a signal recognition particle found in mammals of which can only be found in primates.) that deal with the brain.

What is even more startling is that our recent discoveries have concluded that man was first artistic much earlier than once thought. In fact, around 35,000 years ago.

[url=http://www.nature.com/news/1998/030901/full/news030901-6.html] Lion Man Takes Pride of Place of Oldest Statue

30,000-year-old carving might be work of Neanderthals or modern humans.
…

"I don't think that is as far-fetched as some people might think," says Jeffrey Brantingham, an archaeologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. "These objects are pushing the markers and traits" of modern man "further back into time", he says.
Archaeologists have pointed out that beads, bone points and pendants have already been discovered in association with Neanderthal fossils. Attributing artefacts to one of the two hominid groups remains difficult, says Brantingham. Gamble says that the discovery will spur fresh exploration of France, Spain and South Africa, where even older cave drawings - but not figurative art of this age - have been identified.

Some may regurgitate the line: “It means that I, like God, do not play with dice and I don't believe in coincidences.”
I caution that if we remain skeptical, we ask some tough questions. For instance, “Can God exist if we believe that some extraterrestrial being manipulated our DNA and made us who we are?”

The answer is a resounding, yes. God can exist, and the Papacy appears to agree. If God created the universe and it's contents, no matter how technologically advanced we or any race becomes, we are still infants in the eye of the Creator. There's an old joke I will share, because a little joviality breaks up a serious discussion well. I present God and the Scientist.

Scientist: "God, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

God: "Oh, is that so? Tell Me..." replies God.

Scientist: "Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

God: "Well, that's very interesting...show Me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.

God: "No, no, no..." interrupts God, "get your own dirt.”

So, we can refrain from entertaining that avenue of discussion, and what is left? Is this an attempt to pigeonhole the Ancient Astronaut Theory? Hardly, though it does become more plausible than the contemporary accepted paradigms. Although, if we are to make an honest effort, we must think outside all preconceived notions and parameters.

Who were we?

A species, though community oriented and smart enough to use basic tools, but lacking a heightened consciousness and self awareness.

Who are we now?

We create, we destroy, we dream of everything in between. We describe our past as primitive, and our future as technologically advanced, and a relatively straight path between the two. New evidence breaks this up, and we must ask hard questions that challenge beliefs.

What has changed? Why?

Though modern man suddenly had drastic changes to his genetic code, altering his brain activity in ways that have allowed shed some ignorance, the chains still hold fast. Is this the final step, or the first?

These are the existential questions of modern man. Once fledgeling beings concerned mainly with survival from the elements and that which would consume them, Modern man wants to know who he is, why he is here, and what he is to become. Is he alone in the universe? Is someone responsible for him, or is he responsible?

Finally, how did it happen?

This is where I take issue. There has always been some form of what we call today, Science. Older forms have been called religion, quackery, and a sign of ignorance. Newton theorized gravity, but failed to understand relativity. Einstein brought us relativity, but failed to explain the quantum. We are attempting to explain the quantum, but our experiments have failed to prove our theories. It's almost as strange as our propensity to explain everything in numbers, yet numbers still can't explain a theory for everything.

What is the language of God? It's certainly not English, Arabic, Latin, Hebrew, or even Math.

I digress.

If we take our own (flawed) understanding of the universe, a single trip to our planet from another star would take longer than we have walked the Earth. We assume that there are ways around this, but we fail to find them, and so we can only speculate. Lest we forget, many things behave differently in space, of which I point out two:

Life : As discussed earlier, the very idea that something is alive at all is a very human and presumptuous concept. As we explored earlier, everything that lives must die, and if it never has lived or died, how would we recognize it as sentient? We can barely decide whether a virus is alive or dead, much less an interstellar being or diety.

Light : It has been recently proven, as well as in the past, that the speed of light is not constant. This being the case, how could we ever measure anything or assume there is a certain agreed upon distance between two objects? The light that reaches the earth is bio luminescent, artificial or from a star. There are no other light sources known to man. In fact, our reality is based in large part by light. For us to assume that light has any more meaning to ET or God is absurd, yet we quote Himself as saying, “Let there be light.”

Our scientists believe today that the universe is made up in large part of invisible, undetectable stuff. What is this stuff? We aren't really sure.

Dark matter accounts for 23% of the mass-energy density of the observable. In comparison, ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe, with the remainder being attributable to dark energy From these figures, dark matter constitutes 83%, (23/(23+4.6)), of the matter in the universe, whereas ordinary matter makes up only 17%.

en.wikipedia.org...

How can we begin to comprehend what we can not verify, test, or study?

The original point I intended to convey is that all science today is loosely based around what we consider truths and constants, and though the numbers are dazzling and the formulas seem infallible, even today our preconceived notions of what doesn't change in this universe are being challenged. Even the speed of light is in question, calling into question distance itself, which calls into question almost everything else.

Always remember:
The theories popular today were at one time, heresy. The theories of yesterday are now considered hokey. The theories of tomorrow are prophetically declared revolutionary and the final solution.

This time, I'm not convinced.

Why do we hold our talking heads to such a high regard, when we know in the past they have failed us? Why is it that both religion and science disagree but both fail to offer the infallible and unquestionable truth if our greatest minds are constantly wrong?




-- This just in : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Missing Link Found

"Until now it was believed that our earliest identifiable ancestors were Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis, fossils found in East Africa. But the newly discovered creature, described in five papers in the journal Science today, is several hundred thousand years older."

"EVIDENCE is mounting that fossils nearly 2 million years old revealed last year are those of the oldest member of the human family.

The creature, named Australopithecus sediba, may even have been the world's first toolmaker,
judging from a detailed study of its hand, the most complete ever found of an ancient hominin, or human-like creature.

Because the remains show a "mosiac" of primitive Australopithecine and more modern hominin traits, he argues, it should be reclassified as Homo sediba,
dumping the current contender for first Homo, Homo habillis. In April last year,
Professor Berger and James Cook University geologist Paul Dirks stunned the scientific world when their group reported the discovery of skeletal remains
of a juvenile male and an adult female at Malapa cave, 50km northwest of Johannesburg."

www.theaustralian.com.au...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6fdf2a34a6f1.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by sbctinfantry


Science is about expanding our understanding of the universe. Of course science gets it wrong, that's how science progresses. Religion, however, is not evidence-based nor is concerned with getting it "right". All religion cares about is infallible "truths", except the more we learn, the more these "truths" turn out to be falsehoods. Except that unlike science, religion does not correct itself. The rest of your post was a strange mishmash of pseudo-science and a misunderstanding of scientific method.

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
The original point I intended to convey is that all science today is loosely based around what we consider truths and constants, and though the numbers are dazzling and the formulas seem infallible, even today our preconceived notions of what doesn't change in this universe are being challenged. Even the speed of light is in question, calling into question distance itself, which calls into question almost everything else.

Always remember:
The theories popular today were at one time, heresy. The theories of yesterday are now considered hokey. The theories of tomorrow are prophetically declared revolutionary and the final solution.

that's how science works. gather data, come up with hypothesis for data, test hypothesis, if confirmed we have theory! continue to gather new data, if new data disagrees with previous theory, start process over or see if adjustment to theory will include new data.

i'm not sure i understand where you're going with this , i mean other than the whole "ohhhhh science is bad! it's 'only a theory' they keep changing stuff!" which ...quite frankly are the sentiments of people who honestly don't understand square one of science in the first place.