The complete history of the Caucasian race has yet to be written. If some people have their way, it never will be.
Recent scientific studies on genetics and language indicate that the Caucasian race can be traced back to the vicinity of Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) some 6,000 -10,000 years ago. So too, other studies show that blue-eyed people, as well as blond hair I might add, also arose in the same general area and timeframe. To name a few, ancient Caucasians include Yazidis, Aryans and certain Egyptian pharaohs.
Of course, no one has ever ventured back beyond the 6,000-year threshold; back to the true origins of the Caucasian race. There are only a few options for where they came from, as follows:
- Caucasians came from the stars (in other words, they are extraterrestrials).
- Caucasians were genetically created by extraterrestrials. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick could certainly agree with that, as is outlined in the Directed Panspermia Theory.
- Caucasians came from a much older civilization (say, Atlantis).
The bottom line is this. Caucasians didn’t just materialize out of thin air. It’s what I call a “poof” moment. Supposedly, we all came out of Africa with black hair, black skin, dark eyes and a distinctively African skull. Then, poof, overnight in evolutionary terms, we got very large numbers of people with light-colored skin, hair and eyes and a Nordic skull to boot.
Perhaps, the reason that there is very little discussion of the above alternatives is that it they are considered politically incorrect. Maybe, we are not supposed to know man’s true origins. Maybe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was right, then, when he said that, “The falsification of history has done more to mislead humans than any single thing known to mankind.” Maybe, the world would be a better place, though, if we actually knew the truth. Maybe the Yazidis already know.
“History is a pack of lies we play on the dead.”
The topic of so-called Fake News is prominent in the headlines these days. However, it’s just one person’s opinion as to whether news is fake or not. After all, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, right?
So, what if anything should one make of the furor over Fake News? Most of the debate seems to center around the mainstream media vs. certain alt-right internet sites. However, differing opinions are in reality not necessarily differing viewpoints. By that, I mean that some opinions are in reality based on ideology, ideologies that often do not require proof. These ideologies are the result of agendas of control which are not interested in the truth, but rather only in the promulgation of the ideology itself.
Aside: Perhaps, the American people have already decided this issue since the mainstream media’s approval rating has fallen to around 6%. More to the point, when you lose credibility your ideology suffers (i.e. you lose elections).
Beyond the obvious debate concerning the media, there is a less obvious example with regards to ideology shaping the world that we live in. I’m talking about one of my favorite whipping boys – science. As philosopher Paul Feyerabend put it, “Thus science is much closer to myth than scientific philosophy is prepared to admit… it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits.” Yes, even in science, any process inherently begins with a person’s ideology.
A couple of well-known scientists who admitted to what Feyerabend said about ideology are Edwin Hubble and Richard Lewontin, as follows:
“Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe…The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome… Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs…. Such a favoured position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by… spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.” – Edwin Hubble, astronomer
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” – Richard Lewontin, geneticist
So, is it theory or is it fact? Is it real or is it fake? How is a person to know? Maybe, we should just play another one of those videos from physicist Michio Kaku. He wouldn’t lie to us…now would he?
One needs to keep in mind that things are rarely what they seem. In reality, it’s the people crying Fake News who are the ones putting out the Fake News. It’s a strategy taken right out of the playbook of Saul Alinsky. Of course, that’s just one man’s opinion, isn’t it? No doubt some would even claim it’s Fake News.
“Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner
“There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.” – Bill Hicks
Imagine that you are a TV monitor looking at another TV monitor. That’s exactly how one’s eyesight works. Of course, you have other senses and they all send messages to the brain where they are interpreted and communicated (fed) to your consciousness. Collectively, then, your perception of reality is defined as the sum total of all these electrical signals which have been transmitted to your brain and, then, subsequently interpreted by it.
Scientists say that our decisions are made in the brain (mind) before we are actually consciously aware of them. So, it seems that we need to reassess who and what we really are. Consider this – are we more than just our physical bodies, more than just our conscious minds?
Science is continually breaking new ground in their quest to define creation. For example, MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark believes the universe is a mathematical structure. Of course, mathematics, by definition, is information. More to the point, a mathematical structure implies intelligence. Then, there is a new scientific field of inquiry called DNA Wave Genetics which postulates that the genome of the highest organisms is considered to be a bio-computer which forms the space-time grid framework of a bio-system. The logical extension of that theory is that we exist in a bio-system created by a bio-computer which is none other than our own DNA. But, then, who created our DNA?
If you are religious, you no doubt believe that you have a “soul.” However, what then is a soul if not another layer of information which defines who or what we are? Indeed, that information/soul might even come from a higher dimension than the three-dimensional universe that we “exist” in. After all, some cosmologists and physicists believe that there are more than three dimensions in the universe (four counting space/time).
Since science has theorized that there are such things as parallel universes, perhaps we exist in more than one universe at the same time. However, if we are multi-dimensional beings, what then is creation? Well, no less than Carl Jung offered up that all of creation is subjective, a dream…and we are the dreamers. Maybe, Bill Hicks was on to something.
Everybody I talk to is so certain of just about everything. It certainly gives the impression that no one is wrong about anything. So, here’s a little pop quiz for those who think that they know everything.
What is a table made out of? If you answered wood, that’s fine. If so, then what is the wood made out of? In other words, what is the essence of matter? For those of you who answered the atom, very good. So what, then, does the atom mostly consist of?
Answer: Its 99.9% empty space. Show of hands. How many got that right?
Back to the original question: What is a table made out of? Best answer: Mostly empty space.
Then, what is reality you might ask. Good question. Karl Pribram, a neurophysiologist and physicist, says that we exist in a virtual reality matrix where our brains construct reality by interpreting frequencies that are projections from beyond space and time. In other words, the physical world is a projection from the quantum world. With regards to how we actually view our reality, science says that 2-D optical impulses are sent to the brain where they are converted into 3-D holographic images. So, where is it that we actually “see” an object? Perhaps, you can now see where I am going with this (no pun intended).
Sleep studies show that we roll over in bed at night, sometimes a lot. After all, we wake up in a different position than when we fell asleep. Since we’re asleep, who tells our body to roll over and why don’t we ever fall out of bed? For that matter, how would we even know where the edge of the bed is, since our eyes are closed? Obviously, we don’t understand what consciousness is and therefore we lack an understanding of who and what we really are.
Then there’s the curious case of our belief systems. Given what was just said, do we even have an accurate view of life? How can one make enough sense out of our perception of reality (since that’s all that it is) in order to make proper decisions (e.g. in order to be able to differentiate between right and wrong). Consider this: science has discovered that decisions are made in our mind even before we are consciously aware of them! So, who really made the decision? Who are we?
One of the wisest men in history was the Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates understood that no matter how much he knew, his knowledge would be dwarfed by what he did not know. Today, science has confirmed what Socrates knew intuitively. That is, reality is not understandable. As Einstein said, man will never be able to grasp the magnitude of the Universe and we now can appreciate why that is. The source of matter, and therefore the origins of reality, can be traced to the quantum world. It’s a world that we cannot penetrate. We can only theorize what it is like and what kind of natural laws might operate therein.
So you can probably see why I am a little skeptical when people tell me with absolute confidence that they know an answer to a particular question. As a Greek philosopher once said, “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion” – and now we know that atoms are basically empty space as well.
Aside: Of course, there is no such thing as empty space as what we’re really talking about here is a quantum field.
Life is truly an enigma which scientists are still trying to figure out. As astrophysicist Martin Rees noted, “Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.” However, because we have a very limited understanding of reality, we can ponder our existence all we want but I believe that our opinions are just that – they are opinions, and not facts. After all, how can you prove something, indeed anything, that you do not understand in the first place? If you believe otherwise, please enlighten me.
“In the world of physics…the shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper…the frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadow…”
– Arthur Eddington, astronomer, physicist
People have asked me if I think that man has really been getting dumber as I mentioned in my recent post Real Life, Real Evolution. Well, the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, didn’t they? For that matter, we have pyramids dotting the landscape around the world. Somebody built them, right?
It’s really just a matter of DNA. Genetically speaking, man is the by-product of sophisticated instructions contained in our DNA. DNA has software that even Bill Gates admits is far more advanced than any supercomputer. So, tell me, who put those instructions there? If you say that the DNA just evolved then I have to ask you another question. How does DNA just magically evolve and choose, through natural selection presumably, the necessary changes for the survival of the species? Either process requires intelligence.
So, where did the intelligence come from, then? How could man have had a dramatic increase in his intelligence followed by a subsequent, steady decline? Actually, all that it would take is a one-time injection of DNA from another source, a source other than Homo sapiens. You may recall that I have previously mentioned the genetic study by the Harvard Medical School, in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Man is said to have mated with an unknown species. Such a mating could easily have produced a spike in man’s intelligence if that unknown species were more intelligent than Homo sapiens.
Thus, my prior reference to ancient, advanced civilizations, civilizations who seemed to have since vanished off the face of the Earth. Many ancient cultures have stories of intelligent beings who appeared bringing with them the seeds of civilization. For example, the Incas were visited by Viracocha, the Mayas by Kukulkan, the Aztecs by Quetzalcoatl and the Dogon by the Nommos. Most of the “gods” said that they would return, but of course they never did.
The getting dumber part is actually easier to explain, if you assume the scenario I just presented is correct. That is, there would have been far, far more pure Homo sapiens running around than the smarter version. Over time, man’s intelligence would have been diluted, genetically speaking…and it will continue to be diluted in the future until we return to our original intelligence level!
So, there you have it. You probably won’t agree with my explanation but I think that you will find it hard to completely ignore. As Arthur Schopenhauer said, the truth usually works that way.
“The spiral in a snail’s shell is the same mathematically as the spiral in the Milky Way galaxy, and it’s also the same mathematically as the spirals in our DNA. It’s the same ratio that you’ll find in very basic music that transcends cultures all over the world.” – Joseph Gordon-Levitt
My last couple of posts apparently raised as many questions as they provided answers. That’s exactly what was intended. However, due to the interest level, I’ve decided to do a follow-up post to hopefully answer a few of those inquiries.
A question that I posed in one of those posts was: Is man de-evolving? The reason that I asked that question is that man now has a much smaller brain than in Antediluvian times and scientific studies have shown that the intelligence level of man continues to decline, and perhaps has been declining for at least the last six thousand years. In that regard, you have to realize that the Sumerian civilization of the third and fourth millennia B.C. was far more advanced than the vaunted Greek civilization that came much later.
Earth’s recorded history goes back only as far as to the last ice age. At that time, there was a global flood which became firmly embedded in the consciousness of many cultures, resulting in similar stories in the mythologies of different people from around the world. You might think of it as the First Memory.
The flood occurred soon after a pole shift had taken place. The pole shift had affected the planet’s electro-magnetic energy field, causing it to collapse for a short period of time which resulted in a global memory wipe. That’s why there is no pre-flood history; man has no memories of that time. You could say that after the flood, we started over with a clean slate (i.e. no memories).
Our history before the flood is a matter of some conjecture and debate. It certainly appears that there was an advanced civilization on the planet prior to the flood since an array of archaeological discoveries and ancient writings attest to that. While it’s interesting to speculate on what kind of advanced civilization was on the planet at that time (including the age-old debate over Atlantis), it’s probably enough just to understand that such an advanced civilization existed.
If man really is de-evolving, we need a radically different understanding of evolution. Consider, then, that perhaps everything you think that you know about evolution is wrong. Well, not everything…but certainly the most important thing – that we are not physical beings having a spiritual experience, but rather spiritual beings having a physical existence. Another way of looking at it is that consciousness is all there is – it is the fundamental reality. This is the secret that some physicists have known about for the past 100 years. Max Planck, the father of quantum physics, let the cat out of the proverbial bag when he declared that, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.” It might seem counterintuitive to some but, according to Planck, consciousness creates matter and not the other way around.
Time is a key element in evolution. What is little understood, though, is that evolution takes place over extraordinarily long cycles of time. The Mayan Calendar and the Vedic writings are a testament to that. The thing about these cycles is that they have a beginning (a Big Bang) and an end (which some mistakenly refer to as the End Times)…and then another beginning. You could say that it’s an infinite chain of creation and destruction.
Somewhere along the current evolutionary cycle we find man. Is he headed towards nirvana or oblivion? Only time will tell… and only the god of Einstein and Spinoza knows for sure.
Of course, this new post no doubt will raise still more questions… and that’s exactly as it should be. Keep in mind, though, that real life and real evolution require that one participates more fully, more consciously. The answer to your question is you, or as physicist John Wheeler put it, “The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”
Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku says that he understands the mind of God! In an interview, he said that, “The mind of God that Einstein eloquently wrote about…would be cosmic music resonating through eleven dimensional hyperspace.” So, the question is this: Exactly what kind of a god would that be?
Without really defining God, Kaku said that the laws of physics can give us an idea about what God is like. That is, God would not be a personal god or a god of intervention, a god who parts the waters. However, a universe created by God would be a universe of order, beauty, harmony and simplicity. In short, Kaku believes in the god of Einstein and Spinoza. No doubt, Kaku’s perspective won’t make either religious leaders or atheists very happy.
So, let’s take a look at the beliefs of Einstein and Spinoza. Einstein said that, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” While most people are familiar with Einstein, not too many people know about Spinoza. Baruch Spinoza was a famous 17th century Dutch philosopher. According to Wikipedia, Spinoza believed that “…everything is a derivative of God, interconnected with all of existence.” Further, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that Spinoza’s God is an “infinite intellect.”
While some might disagree, it appears that both Einstein and Spinoza believed in Intelligent Design. However, there’s not much doubt that neither Einstein nor Spinoza believed in the god of the Bible, the god of intervention. So, who exactly, then, was the god of the Bible? Well, let’s just say that the god of Genesis was an interloper of sorts. He definitely had a big ego since he told man that there were no other gods besides him, even though the Bible says that he was not the god Most High. In any event, he certainly would not qualify as the god of either Einstein or Spinoza, that’s for sure.
“Beyond all finite experiences and secondary causes, all laws, ideas and principles, there is an Intelligence or Mind, the first principle of all principles, the Supreme Idea on which all other ideas are grounded.”
Science says that man evolves by natural selection, although it’s never been shown exactly how that works. Along comes molecular evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei who says that mutation, not natural selection, drives evolution. Whether its natural selection or mutation, or a combination of both (or neither), it has never been enough to sustain a species since 99% of all species that ever lived, including every one of man’s hominid ancestors, have become extinct. As the fossil record demonstrates, extinction is a perfectly natural response to changing environmental conditions. So, is man next?
We have been taught to believe that man is constantly, yet ever so slowly, evolving in an upward direction over thousands, if not millions of years. At least, that’s what we have been taught to believe. At the end of the last ice age, man was barely eking out an existence, all the while living in caves. Suddenly, in the 4th millennia B.C., man overnight (in evolutionary terms) started doing miraculous things, like building fantastic pyramids. This process occurred supposedly over a period of two thousand years, give or take. Again, that’s what we’ve been taught.
There is a certain amount known about the two great civilizations that developed after the last ice age – ancient Egypt and Sumer (Mesopotamia). Strangely enough, though, both of those civilizations arose abruptly and disappeared almost as abruptly. So, the question is this: Where did the knowledge and advanced technology come from to build these civilizations and why did their knowledge simply vanish? Great pyramids were built in China, Egypt, Eastern Europe, South and Central America, among other places. The thing is: Has anyone built a great pyramid lately? Why not? From the end of the Indus Valley civilization in 1300 B.C. to the nineteenth century, a period of over 3,000 years, man actually accomplished precious little. Having built the pyramids, among other great archaeological works, man was still driving around in a horse and buggy (chariots having been first invented around 2500 B.C.). That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Here’s how it’s possible, though. You see, underwater ruins from around the world are an indication that an advanced civilization existed on this planet prior to the end of the last ice age. The rise in the world’s oceans that accompanied the end of that ice age, sent monolithic structures, and even whole cities, to the bottom of the sea where they remain today. The world is just now rediscovering such sites – from India to the Black Sea to the North Sea to the Caribbean to the South Pacific, among others. This radically changes the evolutionary timeline for modern man, pushing it back by thousands of years, assuming, that is, that modern man even built these sites. Perhaps, there were even two different civilizations living side-by-side with one another. After all, a recent genetic study shows that in ancient times modern man had sex with an unknown species.
Unbeknownst to many, de-evolution has already been observed in nature. For example, recent genetic research has shown that the worm has evolved to be less sophisticated than its ancestors. The implications of this discovery are quite profound in that it shows that a species can de-evolve to a more primitive form. That really shouldn’t come as a big surprise because man used to have a much bigger brain as revealed by scientists’ discovery of the remains of a 28,000 year-old Cro-Magnon man. Further, the results from recent scientific studies show a decline in man’s intelligence. Exactly in what direction, then, is the species really headed? It might just be possible that man has actually been de-evolving.
Some geneticists claim that man’s DNA is currently in the process of evolving from a 2-strand double helix to a 12-strand helix. So, possibly we could see yet another dramatic spike in evolution, not unlike the Cambrian Explosion which was biology’s equivalent of the Big Bang whereby a vast number of life forms came into existence in a blink of an eye, so to speak. Either way, de-evolution or evolutionary spikes, evolutionary theory will need a major rewrite.
“Trying to read our DNA is like trying to understand software code – with only 90% of the code riddled with errors. It’s very difficult in that case to understand and predict what that software code is going to do.”
– Elon Musk
Legends from around the world tell of blue-eyed gods. For example, the god of the Incas was called Viracocha, the Mayas had their Kukulkan and for the Aztecs it was Quetzalcoatl. These gods were all described as having blue eyes. Likewise, the ancient Sumerians and Egyptians thought that blue eyes were a sign of the gods (and royalty), as many of their statues show. Even statues of Buddha show him with blue eyes, as traditionally Buddha was regarded as having the Thirty-two Characteristics of a Great Man (one of which characteristics was blue eyes). It makes one wonder if God could have possibly had blue eyes.
Science says that in the beginning man had dark eyes. Life began in Africa, right? However, a funny thing happened on man’s sojourn out of Africa. A recent genetic study at the University of Copenhagen says that 6,000 to 10,000 years ago a person was suddenly born with blue eyes, for the very first time. Before that, we supposedly all had brown eyes.
Today, the catch phrase in science is that blue eyes were caused by a mutation, which of course means that scientists don’t really know how it first occurred. Supposedly, one person was born with a mutation in the gene that controls eye color which resulted in blue eyes. This was followed by identical second and third mutations, and so on until finally the mutated gene became so prevalent that blue eyes occurred naturally in child births. I said, supposedly.
Certainly, there were changes in the DNA but the real question is where did these changes actually come from? That is, either DNA has the innate ability to change on its own or it can be altered by outside forces, or perhaps even both. However, science seems unsure which it is. All they say is that blue eyes were caused by a mutation. The scientists at the University of Copenhagen who did the genetic research say that this particular mutation was “neutral” in terms of whether it improved the chances of the species survival. Neutral is, I believe, a first for science. That’s because either scientists believe in natural selection (a positive change) or conversely believe that mutations have always been shown to be the result of defects in genes (a negative change). In any case, if a mutation was not due to a defect, it would certainly imply some sort of intelligent design of DNA which allows the DNA to adapt on its own to its environment.
According to the University of Copenhagen study, blue-eyed people migrated from the Black Sea area to various parts of the world – east to China, south and east to India, west to North Africa and Europe (and eventually North America) and south to Egypt and the rest of the Middle East. Linguistics has also traced these very same people through the progression of languages of what’s referred to as the Indo-European family of languages. In essence, it’s one family and one bloodline and it now stretches virtually around the world. By some estimates, there are 300 million people today with blue eyes. Despite historical migration, the highest percentage of people with blue eyes in any one country still live fairly close to the epicenter (the Black Sea). For example, in Estonia, a vast majority of people still have blue eyes.
However, what very few people are talking about is that fair skin and blond hair also mutated in the same timeframe as the mutation associated with blue eyes. A case-in-point is the recent scientific study by an international team of researchers headed by Harvard University which says that Caucasians first arose some 8,000 years ago. In addition, the scientific consensus is that Caucasians also came from the Black Sea area. So, both blue eyes and fair skin arose in the very same timeframe and in the same geographic area, the Black Sea.
What this really amounts to is a “poof” moment. Some people just suddenly (poof) got blue eyes instead of brown, blond hair instead of dark hair and fair skin instead of dark skin. One could even go so far as to say that the very first blue-eyed person also had fair skin and blond hair. Those three physical traits are genetically linked in ways that science does not yet fully understand. After all, almost all people who are blond with blue eyes have fair skin.
After leaving Africa, other unexplainable changes took place in man, especially in Europe. About 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals were replaced in Europe by Cro-Magnon man. Some mutation; we literally got a whole new species, with Cro-Magnon being considerably larger than Neanderthal. Since Cro-Magnon man was also larger than Sub-Saharan Africans, their geographic origins are in doubt. However, the bigger question is how did they evolve, since they were a mutation that was so great and so sudden that they don’t fit in the context of evolutionary theory. Then, Cro-Magnon man disappeared some 12,000 years ago and was replaced by modern man who is smaller than Cro-Magnon (including having a smaller brain size). Somewhere along the way, modern man wound up with three different skull types, only one of which is obviously of African origin. Confusing, right? Try fitting evolutionary theory into that scenario.
Then there is the curious case of Rh negative blood. It’s a real can of worms. Science is stumped as to how man originally came out of Africa with Rh positive blood and then developed Rh negative blood, especially since Rh positive blood is incompatible with Rh negative blood. The mystery only deepens when you realize that almost no Africans or Asians have Rh negative blood. It’s basically a European (Caucasian) thing.
In the final analysis, we have fallen back on the concept of mutation because we don’t have a plausible explanation for how man evolved. Like I said earlier, either DNA can evolve on its own (with all the implications of intelligent design that this would entail) or there were outside influences which would explain the sudden and significant evolutionary changes in man.
The elephant in the room is that blue eyes, blond hair and fair skin may be linked to one ancient gene pool that carried all three of those genetic traits. That is, we all didn’t evolve from just one gene pool. Religiously speaking, we didn’t exclusively evolve genetically from Adam and Eve. For example, in the Bible there were the Sons of God who mated with the daughters of ancient man. You may not buy into that story, however, a new DNA study from the Harvard Medical School in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, found that ancient man had sex with a still unknown species.
No doubt, this relates to the results of a genetic study of Ashkenazi Jews which traced the Ashkenazi origins back to just four women carrying distinctive mtDNAs that showed that they were not related to each other and that their genetic origins are unknown. The same could be said for man in general. His true origins are simply unknown. God may have had blue eyes, after all.
Interestingly enough, this might lead to what some would consider to be a politically incorrect worldview. That is, the difference in races is caused by man’s evolution from more than one gene pool. In other words, not all of our genes came “out of Africa.” Now, you may be wondering why you haven’t heard about this before. Like I said, it’s politically incorrect – a dirty little secret that has been intentionally suppressed from the history books…but, of course, now you know.
“The falsification of history has done more to mislead humans than any single thing known to mankind.”
– Jean-Jacques Rousseau
In his book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking said that, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” The first question that comes to mind is how can something be created out of nothing? However, in addition, this statement raises other questions while providing no real answers. Let’s break it down.
How can you create something out of nothing (and from nowhere)?
In science, it’s impossible to create something out of nothing. Mathematically speaking, 0+0 will always equal zero.
The universe can and will create
So, exactly what kind of life force is this, anyway, that can create? After all, creation implies intelligence.
How is it that a Natural Law allows the universe to create?
Natural laws determine the process. They are predictive (only), but they do not create anything themselves. Besides, as Einstein said, “If there is a law there is a lawgiver.” Interestingly enough, theoretical physicist S. James Gates, Jr. says that his research indicates that the Natural Laws of the Universe contain embedded computer codes. If not a lawgiver, then, there must have been a super-intelligent computer programmer instead.
Theories, fossils and reverse engineering
So, what we really have here is an attempt to provide a quasi-scientific explanation for an ideology. How did we ever get to this point? Well, to begin with, some scientific theories have been reverse engineered, so to speak. That is, scientists first started with a theory and then the framework for scientific enquiry was constructed on top of that, in order to hopefully provide the necessary observations to prove the theory; such was Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for example. Darwin realized that the fossil record did not, at that time, support evolution but he assumed that future examination of the fossil record would eventually produce the necessary observations of transitional fossil forms required to prove his theory. However, it was none other than Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist himself, who later admitted that those fossils couldn’t be found.
Aside: Of course, Darwin didn’t know anything about DNA (how could he have known?) and, if he had, I seriously doubt that he would have ever promulgated such a theory in the first place.
Where did time, space and matter come from?
Here’s the problem facing scientists on the issue of the origins of life in the universe. According to scientific theory, time, space and matter were all created simultaneously out of nothing (and from nowhere). The universe (poof) just popped into existence. Just poof.
Of course, science now admits that the universe had a beginning (The Big Bang). It was Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, who observed, “If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match.” It follows, then, that since the Big Bang had a match there must also have been a match lighter (i.e. a cause). In this case, the cause could only have come from beyond space and time.
As for “creation out of nothing,” it’s just a euphemism for the unknown, a way for science to claim that it understands something that can’t really be understood scientifically. As the ancient Greek philosophers noted, the only thing that can be created from nothing is nothing.
In his book The End of Science, John Horgan raised the issue that there is a limit to knowledge as science attempts to push beyond what’s observable, since it is not possible to observe what exists beyond space and time simply by observing Nature. Yet, scientists do it everyday, with no thought about using the scientific method. Robert Lanza explained it thusly, “We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.” Stephen Hawking, of all people, should know better.
“Reality is not confined to space and time. The psyche is not under obligation to space and time alone.”
– Carl Jung