Extraterrestrialism: Part Three

If asked the question about your ultimate origins, you might reply that you were of this or that nationality, perhaps with ancestry from this or that other place. Perhaps if you’re a bit more clued you’d say “Africa” as the birthplace of the human race. If you’re really cluey, you might say the oceans, the undoubted place where life itself got its start. But no doubt, no matter what, you’d say you were “terrestrial” – of this Planet Earth. Alas, you’re still not cluey enough. You’re extraterrestrial. We are the aliens, directly and indirectly.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

The ‘Gods’ Mate with Humans

* We should be no more able to mate and be fertile with an extraterrestrial than we are with a species that’s even far closer to us in terms of terrestrial ancestry, like felines say, unless aliens and humans are much closer in genetic similarity than is even remotely suspected. That therefore should put the kybosh on that alien-human possibility. As to the feline-human combo however, one could in theory manipulate the DNA and other genetic bio-molecules of the feline and of the human to be compatible enough to produce a cat with human features or a human with feline features. If you’re advanced enough in genetics and biotechnology, just about anything goes. No doubt extraterrestrials that can traverse the depths of interstellar space will also be technologically advanced in other areas – like genetics. Regardless, mythologies are full of the ‘gods’ having their wicked way with Earth women (sometimes the reverse – ‘goddesses’ have their wicked way with terrestrial males), but in any event it gives a whole new meaning to that phrase “close encounters”.   

* Demigods are an obvious product of a ‘god/goddess’ mating with a mortal of the opposite sex. So by my reckoning at least demigods and demigoddesses like Gilgamesh, Brahma, and Shiva as non-Greek examples, and Achilles, Helen of Troy, Heracles, and like [King] Minos [of Crete] were really human-alien hybrids. For all you Christians and religious types, there are those Sons of God/Daughters of Men unions noted and logged in the Bible. Since many of them in turn mated with mortals and produced offspring, and they in turn ditto right on down the timeline, that means that most of us have probably a tiny percentage of our genetic makeup that is ultimately extraterrestrial in origin. 

* Miraculous Births: if ET is a master at genetics, maybe ET is also a master at other anatomical wonders, or at least biotechnology. . 

** Much significance has been made of THAT virgin birth as recorded in the New Testament. However, Jesus isn’t the ‘lone ranger’ when it comes to being born of a virgin. In addition to Jesus, there’s the Assyrian/Babylonian Marduk; Zoroaster too was born of a virgin and a shaft of light! Many more examples can be found in mythologies from around the world. Of course what was miraculous back then isn’t quite so miraculous now. They obviously hadn’t heard about, or any conception of, artificial insemination, invitro fertilization way back then.

** Apart from virgin births, there’s records of those giving birth way, way beyond their childbearing years, like Old Testament Sarah (born Sarai) giving birth to Isaac via Abraham, who, given his advanced years probably had a hard time getting it, well hard. 

** Moses was born circumcised and was able to walk-the-walk and talk-the-talk immediately after being born.

** The Greek Goddess Athena was born fully formed and clothed when born from the head of Zeus; Aphrodite, like Athena, had a rather odd ‘birth’. She was also ‘born’ thanks to some weird biology between seawater foam and those severed private parts of Zeus’s grandfather, Uranus. Zeus also gave birth to Dionysus from his thigh. Helen of Troy, daughter of Zeus, was apparently hatched from an egg.

** While dealing with Greek mythology, it seems King Minos pissed off Zeus’s brother Poseidon. Poseidon, ever inventive, caused Mrs. Minos (Pasiphae) to lust after a bull (and presumably the bull to lust after Mrs. Minos). The end product of this sexual union became that human-bovine hybrid, the Minotaur (and that’s no bull!).

* All this is just barely scratching the surface. No matter the culture, you’ll find something in the annals of their register of births that are quite out of the ordinary.

The ‘Gods’ Other Genetic Engineering Experiments

* Animal-Animal Hybrids: Why ancient cultures around the world depicted a menagerie of imaginary or mythological animals in their artwork, on their everyday utensils, clothing, jewellery, etc. as well as real animals is quite beyond me. You’d think there would be more than enough real animals to represent if they wanted to depict the images of animals. Or, of course, maybe their imagery of their imaginary zoology wasn’t quite so imaginary. For example, imaginary beasties, animal-animal hybrids, often had an attachment of wings placed on common animals like horses (Pegasus) and lizards (dragons) and lions (Griffins). This was, well, commonplace. But surprisingly, as if lacking imagination, there are no winged cows or zebras or frogs or mountain lions. Not even common domesticated animals like cats and dogs were depicted with wings. Very selective, which suggests that which was so depicted was real. And how can you get a winged lizard (dragon)? Well it has to be genetic or bioengineering of some sort.  

* Human-Animal Hybrids: Where does one start here since there are thousands of examples? You name the animal, and I’m certain somewhere, at sometime, that animal’s head was depicted on a human body; or a human head was depicted on the animal’s body. Any textbook on the gods of ancient Egypt will provide examples. Apart from that, there’s the Minotaur (noted earlier), the Centaur, the (Greek) Sphinx, etc. Is this all human imagination on overdrive or something else?

* Shape-Shifting? While you might like to turn into a fly-on-the-wall that’s impossible since said fly would have your mass and thus be unable to defy gravity. Oh, and even if you could figure out how to nullify gravity, you can’t shape-shift into a fly so the problem is moot. However, that doesn’t detract from the massive mythological literature that selected individuals can indeed shape-shift – Zeus is well known for that trick and not just from one organic form into another, but from organic into an inorganic form as well. The Mesoamerican Olmecs had a were-jaguar cult. Now shape-shifting is known in the biological world, albeit not sudden transformations. Tadpoles shape-shift into frogs; seeds into plants; babies into adults; flatfish (flounder) alter to have their eyes on one side of the head. Thus, it’s not totally beyond the pale to suggest that shape-shifting totally belongs in the realm of science fiction, fantasy and horror (like werewolves). Either the concept of relatively sudden shape-shifting is nonsense, and there are myths and legends that say otherwise from all over the globe, or else some sufficiently advanced technology – super-science – is operating behind-the-scenes. 

The ‘Greys’

* Thus far I’ve been pretty much addressing the past – ancient mythologies and associated ‘gods’. However, the pattern continues. Extraterrestrials are still, apparently, very much interested in biotechnology, genetics and genetic engineering. Enter, the ‘Greys’.

* Genetic Harvesting: There are two separate areas suggestive of aliens in the here-and-now highly interested in terrestrial biochemistry, reproduction/sex and genetics. Animal mutilations are in no doubt a reality as something tangible. UFO abductions of humans being subjected to various medical / genetic / reproductive tests is equally reported, but not as equally validated. Still, it’s not good policy to throw babies out with their bathwater and one really does have to come to terms with the question that revolves around why would anyone in their right mind make this stuff up? It’s certainly not for fame or money!

** Animal mutilations are certainly well documented, and the cause(s) are mysterious to say the least. If human culprits, why hasn’t anyone been apprehended, tried and convicted of violations of animal welfare laws, destruction of private property (if livestock) and trespass? If natural predators are to blame – well that should be bloody obvious if true and no controversy should therefore ensue. If extraterrestrials, well that explains a lot that natural predation can’t like precision incisions and lack of blood and no hoof/paw prints and no signs of a struggle, though it also leaves mega-questions unanswered. Presumably, it has something to do with ET interest in terrestrial biochemistry and genetics.

** Human-Alien Hybrids: If UFO abduction accounts are taken at face value, then extraterrestrials are mightily interested in the creation of more hybrids – not animal-animal hybrids like the Chimera, or human-animal hybrids like the Mesopotamian Shedu (winged bulls with human heads) but human-alien hybrids, something perhaps akin to those alien-human (‘gods’ mating with humans) referred to above in all things mythological.

In conclusion, we have an extraterrestrial legacy because 1) we’re a child of the Universe – a child that originated out of the origin of the Universe; 2) we’re star-stuff; 3) the origin of life was probably ‘out there’ somewhere and migrated to Earth; 4) ET exists and the Fermi Paradox says ET must also exist here; and 5) there’s just too much damn weird stuff around that falls better into place by assuming those ‘ancient astronauts’ and extraterrestrial UFOs.

Extraterrestrialism: Part Two

If asked the question about your ultimate origins, you might reply that you were of this or that nationality, perhaps with ancestry from this or that other place. Perhaps if you’re a bit more clued you’d say “Africa” as the birthplace of the human race. If you’re really cluey, you might say the oceans, the undoubted place where life itself got its start. But no doubt, no matter what, you’d say you were “terrestrial” – of this Planet Earth. Alas, you’re still not cluey enough. You’re extraterrestrial. We are the aliens, directly and indirectly.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Origin of Humanity

* Just about every religious mythology, and every culture has one, well you’ll find something along the line that the gods (or God) created human beings. Let’s take that at face value. Now ‘created’ doesn’t mean creating something from scratch. If you ‘create’ a plank of wood, you create it from an existing tree or log, not from your home chemistry set (though in theory you could do so since ultimately chemicals make up wood). You probably ‘create’ your meals from ingredients you got from the supermarket. Again, your home chemistry set had nothing to do with it, and even if you did grow your own vegetables and herbs and raise your own chickens and pigs, you still started from existing ingredients – seeds and other advanced biological products like eggs and baby pigs. That analogy equally applies to the case of the ‘gods’ creating humans. They didn’t start from clay and dust and the gods’ equivalent of a home chemistry set. They started work on pre-existing advanced ingredients.

* At this point of course, based on previous remarks, you realise that there are no gods. The ‘gods’ are of course just technologically advanced extraterrestrials with intellectual powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal humans.

The ‘Gods’ Create Humans

* What’s common in mythology is not only do the ‘gods’ create humans, but we (humans) were created in their (the ‘gods’) image. Alien genetic engineering assists in providing an explanation. Now the ‘gods’ have a choice. They can do the hard work here on their new Planet Earth, their home-away-from-home abode, or else they can employ the natives to do the hard work for them. Unfortunately, when they arrived, there were no suitable native life forms they could employ to do that work, so, it’s creation time – the ‘gods’ create, dada, the human species – all of them, one step at a time; there’s no immediate creation of modern Homo sapiens. Fortunately, the ‘gods’ have some promising genetic material to work with – the primates in general and the chimpanzees in particular. Now what clues do we have that we’re a part of this Planet, but at the same time apart from this Planet; that there’s something slightly screwy about human beings.

* One item more than slightly screwy is just that super, ultra, amazing, coincidence that each and every one of our more than 20-plus hominoid ancestral species went extinct – each and every one. All the in-betweens bracketing chimpanzees on one side to Homo sapiens on the other – kaput. That really defies the odds and the natural order of things. Could it be that once an ancestor had been genetically engineered and given rise to the next generation that that species was no longer of any use and cast off to fend for itself yet not having evolved naturally, being unable to do so?    

* The sudden arrival of culture about 50,000 years ago is puzzling. Around the parts of the world that were inhabited by various species of humans, culture arrived in a relatively short period of time. Things like cave art and petroglyphs; mother goddess ‘Venus’ statuettes; burials and grave goods (implying the concept of an afterlife). Why? Whenever something happens very suddenly, in diverse places to boot, one might look towards a guiding hand of outside intelligence. 

* The sudden arrival of civilization about 8,000 years ago is equally puzzling. Once upon a time all humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Some human bands still are. However, many human societies, around 8,000 years ago give or take (6,000 BC or thereabouts) underwent a career change and developed agriculture and animal husbandry and settled down. We became ‘civilized’. Small settlements became villages; some villages morphed into towns some of which in turn grew large enough to become cities. That transition happened in a relatively short period of time in various cultures that at that time had no cross-pollination. Why? The traditional nomadiviic to quasi-nomadic hunter-gatherer way of life, a way of life practiced by all other animal life forms (predators are the hunters; prey the gatherers) served us well too for millions of apparently natural evolutionary years. So what changed unless it was artificial manipulation from outside forces? It’s either that or coincidence stretched to the breaking point.

* Human societies have creation mythologies, and not just of humans, but by all rights shouldn’t since there’s no obvious first-cause creations that have transpired within individual human memories and overall histories. Some external power must have clued our remote ancestors that there were such things as first-cause creations.  

* Unique Human Traits

** Clues include the most obvious of the obvious that we come in breeds. We are one species but there are many racial/ethnic variations on the theme. How do we explain dog breeds and breeds of roses? - Human breeders. How do we explain human breeds? - Alien breeders!

** Our nakedness relative to our furry primate ancestors and current primate ‘relatives’ is another clue – there are multi-dozens upon dozens of primates; only one ‘naked ape’ (humans). Why did we alone lose our fur? I mean when the outside temperature drops much below the comfort threshold, we require in no uncertain terms clothing. When it hits freezing point, we can’t survive without clothing, yet our furry animal cousins seem to manage A-OK. There’s many an image of a furry mammal surviving, even thriving in the snow. Quite apart from the fact that fur is a better regulator of temperature than just sweating (our main means of temperature regulation), loss of fur resulted in other highly negative evolutionary rock and hard place restrictions. We’ve exchanged temperature regulation via fur for control via sweating. Humans of all the mammals are the species that sweats the most. The retrograde step of temperature control via sweating instead of fur imposed two additional restrictions on us. We were forced to stay close to reliable sources of fresh water and it also makes us way more dependent on supplies of salt since salt is excreted from the body via sweat. Salt supplies in the natural environment are rare – so rare that once upon a time salt was extremely valuable and you got paid in salt. It’s were we get our word, salary from. If only we’d kept our fur. Now the relevant issue here is that Mother Nature doesn’t tend to select for traits that decrease survival value. Therefore, perhaps something other than Mother Nature is at work here, maybe like Mother ET.

** Then there’s our bipedal gait relative to the rest of the mammals. Name me one other mammal that routinely walks on two legs.  That’s probably because there are many negatives to a bipedal gait, like loss of stability and strife if you lose the ability to use one leg. Again, it’s not like Mother Nature to encourage evolutionary features that have more negative implications relative to alternatives. We should have evolved as a traditional quadruped but with two additional arms!

** We show way more signs of visible aging than our animal cousins. Our cats and dogs don’t tend to get grey hairs and wrinkles. Is this another sign of genetic tampering?

** Animals don’t seem to have the same sort of need for bathroom/sexual privacy that we have – animals are hard to embarrass. They do what they have to do and don’t give a damn who’s looking. Did we inherit a sense of embarrassment from our creators?

** On the other hand, we also have a sense of humour that even the ‘higher’ animals seem to lack.

** There’s our very high IQ relative to the rest of the animal kingdom, a comparison that’s not even remotely a close contest. While that’s not an evolutionary negative (well not so far at least), the awesome gap between us and our nearest intelligent rival species l is, well, just awesome.

* Why is the human species so vastly different in so many different ways from the rest of our animal kin? Might it be our extraterrestrial ‘gods’ that made it so? Then there’s our ability to mate with the ‘gods’ and produce viable offspring.

To be continued…

Extraterrestrialism: Part One

If asked the question about your ultimate origins, you might reply that you were of this or that nationality, perhaps with ancestry from this or that other place. Perhaps if you’re a bit more clued you’d say “Africa” as the birthplace of the human race. If you’re really cluey, you might say the oceans, the undoubted place where life itself got its start. But no doubt, no matter what, you’d say you were “terrestrial” – of this Planet Earth. Alas, you’re still not cluey enough. You’re extraterrestrial. We are the aliens, directly and indirectly.

Origin of the Universe

* Once upon a time there was this Big Bang.

* Since we are a part of the Universe, and since the Universe had an origin (the accepted standard model being the Big Bang event some 13.7 billion years ago), that alone of necessity means we have an extraterrestrial legacy since everything that makes you, you was born in that event, thereby in a manner of speaking making you 13.7 billion years old!

Origin of Our Stellar Solar System & Earth

* As it was in the beginning, well so too did our Sun and Planet Earth have a beginning.

* We are Star Stuff. Our solar system, our Sun, the planets, including Earth, were all formed out of the remains of extraterrestrial gas, dust and debris from older stellar systems, scattered to the four interstellar winds by supernovae explosions, over four and a half billion years ago. Thus, that too alone, no matter which way you slice it, means we (as beings part and parcel of our stellar system) are extraterrestrial in origin.

Origin of Life

* The terrestrial origin of life may have happened within that petrii dish/test tube called Planet Earth - Or maybe not. IMHO it happened way too quickly and way too soon post Earth’s formation to probably have been a solely terrestrial happening. There’s an alternative called panspermia which expands both the time and space available for life’s origin by many order of magnitudes.

* Panspermia is the idea that Earth was seeded by cosmic spores or microbes that were expelled from some other planetary abode in some other stellar system and drifted across the gulf of space. An incredibly tiny fraction of these cosmic spores lands on suitable planetary environments, where they survive and thrive and evolve. Our Earth was one such place for their lucky landing. It’s akin to a plant producing millions of spores – 99.999% of which fail to land on fertile ground; but that tiny fraction that does is all it takes to keep the species keeping on keeping on. 

* Ballistic panspermia is a slight variation on traditional panspermia in that the microbes or spores are inside the protective covering of a solid object – dust or tiny rocks, even massive rocks. These, alone with their microbial passengers get blasted off home turf by incoming ballistic objects (impacting meteors), escape their home planet and a few eventually, by chance land on another suitable abode. That Mars rock, ALH84001 that caused such a stir several years back is one such example of a potential case history of ballistic panspermia.

* Directed panspermia is yet another variation on the theme, only in this case there’s intelligence behind the scenes, either sending out canisters of microbes willy-nilly in a shotgun manner, and/or directing that canister specifically at a chosen target.

* The upshot is if terrestrial life’s origin was via a form of panspermia, then we humans, being a species of terrestrial life, ultimately had an extraterrestrial origin. If a Mars rock full of microbes impacted Earth billions of years ago, well, we might be the Martians transplanted from the fourth rock to the third rock from the Sun. Perhaps our origins were even farther a-field. Perhaps some cosmic gardener planted life here billions of years ago, maybe even stuck around to fertilize, cultivate, prune, and weed that garden. 

Extraterrestrial Life, Intelligence, Civilization and Technology: The Fermi Paradox

* The Fermi Paradox can be summed up simply enough by pointing out that as long as you assume the existence of at least one other technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilization with the same sorts of ‘boldly going’ drives as we humans have (i.e. – plain old curiosity, the what’s on the other side of the hill, if nothing else, then just as humans explored and colonized Planet Earth in a tiny fraction of the Earth’s existence, technologically capable extraterrestrials would have explored and colonized the Milky Way Galaxy in a tiny fraction of its existence. In the case of humans, we don’t need to ask “where is everybody?” We’re everywhere. In the case of ET, we do ask “where is everybody?” They should be here. Scientists say they’re not, never have been, and thus have to explain the paradox. On the other side of the fence, those who see evidence in those ‘ancient astronauts’ and in UFOs have no paradox with which to have to come to terms with.

* The ‘Gods’ arrive. Very few people today would try to defend the position what in the vastness of the cosmos we, human beings, are the proverbial intelligent ‘IT’ within that cosmos. Since we are the new boys on the block, having only existed as a unique species several hundreds of thousands of years at best in a Universe that’s 13.7 billion years old, the odds are pretty good that our intellectually cosmic superiors are out there. Now on the likelihood that at least one such superior extraterrestrial intelligence will boldly go and explore the cosmos, let’s define ‘cosmos’ and restrict that term to our ten billion years old Milky Way Galaxy, the time it would take that extraterrestrial intelligence to explore every nook and cranny of our Milky Way Galaxy is but a tiny fraction of the age of our galaxy. By analogy, Planet Earth has existed four and a half billion years; yet as noted above our 100,000 plus year old species crawled all over it in real quick-smart fashion, as did the bacteria, plants, insects, and other life forms as well. Translated, since there’s nowhere to hide Planet Earth from the ‘I spy with my little eye’ aliens, we’ve been found! The extraterrestrials have arrived, not yesterday but millions of yesterdays ago. And since Planet Earth is a hospitable bio-friendly place, one with a pretty unique property – a biosphere – they decided to stick around and set up camp. Because these beings are high-tech, and because any sufficiently advanced technology is something supernatural to any sufficiently lower technological civilization (like us), that supernatural quality gets interpreted as beings who ARE supernatural – deities or ‘gods’ – not interpreted by the great unwashed primitives as flesh-and-blood extraterrestrials. Our cultural mythologies, worldwide, are full of references to ‘star beings’; ‘guardians of the skies’; ‘sky gods’; ‘gods in the heavens’ and gods who come from the stars or who are associated with specific stars and constellations, most notably Cygnus, Sirius and Orion.

To be continued…

How Come Civilization? Why Creation? Part Two

Modern human beings went from a relatively simple hunter-gatherer existence over a rather long-term, in fact quite lengthy time frame, then, in a rather all-of-a-sudden time frame, we settled down and acquired what we’d all accept as living as a collective civilization or as civilized societies. Why did the transition happen and so suddenly after such a long incubation period. What makes us unique? Was it just good old Mother Nature, or was there a special guiding hand – or tentacle or claw as the case may be perhaps.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

There’s another puzzle. That puzzle involves the gods or ‘gods’ creating humans or humanity in the first place. Before I get to the puzzling bit, consider some examples:

The Near East: The creation of humanity, the first people, according to the ancient myths, were either born or formed by hand. Two deities were responsible for creating humankind. Often, the reason given for creating humankind was to provide workers so that the younger generation of gods could be relieved of the hard work. Kindly note that last sentence – humanity was created to do the hard work while, I guess, the ‘gods’ could eat, drink and make merry and enjoy the good life! That’s quite a common theme in mythology; gods create and rule; humans toil.

Greece: The Greek god Prometheus was a Titan who created people from clay.

Norse: Odin was the leader of the Norse gods and the creator of both the world and people.

Maya: The gods made people from corn. They used corn for the bodies, and corn meal for the arms and legs. The corn people were the ancestors of the Maya.

Australia: The supernatural creatures of the aboriginal Dreamtime created the empty world, followed by landscapes, lakes and rivers, plants, humans, and animals. As cultural heroes, they brought advances such as the power over fire, weapons, and hunting skills, as well as clan orders and wedding regulations to humanity.

Lastly, we all know about the Book of Genesis and the so-call creation of Adam and Eve from dust and ribs and probably from whatever else was handy.  

Now here’s the puzzle. It’s somewhat difficult to understand why humans would attribute the creation of humans (and plants and animals) to mythological gods. I mean, even to our earliest ancestors, it’s obvious that people come from people (or at least from females – the biological role of the father might not have been obvious nine months after the fact). In most cases it’s obvious that like comes from like (that’s why Siegfried, a student of nature in the Richard Wagner opera of the same name figured out he wasn’t really the son of the dwarf Mime).

So, if direct observation tells you that people create people, why not assume an infinite backwards regression (or in reverse, generation follows generation follows generation) and there was no beginning, no first creation of people. That makes logical sense. Why would humans not accept this as the natural order of things? Now of course if the ‘gods’ really did assist in the evolution of the modern human, and told humans as much, well that explains those creation tales.

But there are several other puzzles. The first is why did some cultures seemingly defy the ‘gods’ and reject settlement civilization (cities, towns, villages) and remain a nomadic hunter-gatherer society? The most obvious answer is that not all physical geographical environments are equally suitable for a sedentary existence of permanent settlements. The Australian aborigines and Australia a case in point - too dry, too hot, too wet, too constantly changing from drought to flood and back again, coupled with a lack of a suitable native agricultural crops (wheat, corn, rice) and/or native domesticated eatable animal, like sheep, pigs and cattle. There’s more to civilization than urban living. The aborigines have culture – art, music, language, and law, the ability to cook, even though they had no cities, towns or villages.

Yet another puzzle might seem unrelated, but I’ll present it anyway. All humans are one interbreeding species, yet we have one other unique feature (apart from top of the pops in IQ) – different races or breeds. Now skin colour is easily explained by resorting to environmental factors. But what evolutionary selection pressures accounts for other racial differences, which tend to be facial features? We all look pretty much the same from the neck down; at least after you separate the males from the females. That’s apart from fingerprints (or toe-prints?), but unless you’re into law enforcement we don’t tend to identify our family, friends and neighbours by examining their fingers! How do you tell people apart? - By their faces primarily. And it’s not just the broad spectrum racial facial features – it’s just as easy to distinguish an Asian from a Caucasian as it is to distinguish two separate Asians or two separate Caucasians (identical twins excepted perhaps). What is the survival value, the evolutionary selection pressure that makes nearly everyone facially unique? 

Take any other wild creature – one that humans haven’t domesticated and genetically tampered with. Say the great white shark or the common house fly or the blue-ringed octopus or cane toads. As is the case with elephants or zebras, if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. You can’t tell them apart. In a police line-up, of say half a dozen German cockroaches, could you identify the one that you saw crawl across your kitchen floor? I feed and watch a lot of wild birds, but I’m damned if I can tell one sulphur-crested cockatoo from another. They all look the same! Perhaps that’s why wildlife biologists and medical researchers have to tag their wildlife or little white mice so as to be able to tell who’s who.

Even with our domesticated and artificially breeding of selected species, we usually tell them apart in the first instance via their size, behaviour pattern and most of all external colouration patterns.

So why our unique faces? Perhaps the ‘gods’ further genetically engineered us that way in order to help tell us apart.

Here’s another mystery.

Say you lived 8000 years ago at the dawn of the transition from ‘primitive’ hunter-gather to ‘sophisticated’ urban dweller (well maybe a farmer or herdsman in a small settlement). Now you have no knowledge of modern biological evolution, the origin of species, or physical geology or cosmology or astrophysics. Would you, in pondering life, the Universe and everything (in your spare time of course) come up with an ‘in the beginning’ or ‘as it is, so shall it have ever been so’? I would suggest the latter because in your world, your environment, your environmental world view, everything is cyclic – a seemingly endless repeat of events, of events, of events, of events (like a stuck record): Birth-death-birth-death; seasons come and seasons go, but always in the same order; the Sun rises-sets-rises-sets-rises-sets; ditto the stars, their patterns and movements are endlessly fixed (patterns) and cyclic (movements); you go from full Moon to quarter Moon to new Moon to quarter Moon to full-quarter-new-quarter, etc. You witness no Big Ticket newness – no acts of grand creation. You have no real reason to assume any grand scale ‘in the beginning’.

Why would you assume that the ground beneath your feet hadn’t always existed as that solid good earth? Wouldn’t such an idea seem rather alien? It would go against the grain of commonsense.

Day after day, year after year, you see the Sun rise and the Sun set. The exact same set of observations, the circumstances surrounding what the Sun does daily, has been passed down generation unto generation. Nobody has experienced anything different no matter how far back your ancestors go. Why would you not assume it has always been that way; that way forever and ever, amen? There seems no need to postulate that some natural event, or deity, created the Sun.

That’s not to suggest you wouldn’t invent deities in order to explain natural phenomena you had no understanding of, like the tides or volcanoes or earthquakes or eclipses or where does the Sun go at night and why rain, wind, thunder and lightning? It’s just there’s no need to invent creator deities, deities who did things ‘in the beginning’.

Yet ancient mythologies nearly all adopt creator deities and an ‘in the beginning’. The Universe isn’t cyclic – it had a creation (the Big Bang event). Ditto the Sun and the Moon and the stars and the Earth (land, sea and sky) and plants and animals and humans. All were created ‘in the beginning’. Why? Maybe because there were ‘people’ around 8000 years ago who did have knowledge of biological evolution, the origin of species or physical geology or cosmology or astrophysics and were able to pass on that information to the human populace who (not fully grasping the technical fine print) incorporated those revelations into their world view: what has come down to us as mythology.

In conclusion, there are anomalies with respect to the origins of humans (Homo sapiens), some of our attributes like our intelligence and facial features, as well as our relatively rapid rise from hunter-gathers on the plains of Africa to hunter-gathers on the Lunar plains. Mythology explains much of this as acts of the gods (yet why creator gods), yet we reject the existence of the gods and thus gloss over the resulting anomalies. The compromise is to give short shrift to the supernatural gods, but credibility to the ‘gods’ as flesh-and-blood extraterrestrials who stumbled across Earth while exploring and colonizing the Milky Way Galaxy many hundreds of thousands of years ago. 

The Creation: God vs. Natural History: Part Two

Probably among the most familiar of familiar phrases in the English language is one that starts out “In the beginning God created…” However, there are alternative non-theological variations on that phrase that fall more in the realm of natural philosophy (or as we call it today, science). What’s at stake is the credibility of God’s alleged word vs. the credibility of the word of science. Christians might believe the Bible, but they put their real faith in science when they turn on their TV set or board an aircraft. So too should they put their money on the scientific (natural history) scenarios of the creations.

In the beginning God said a whole bunch of stuff central to His creation of life, the Universe and everything.*

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Botany is next up on the creation agenda. Of course you need land and water before you can have a garden (hydroponics and phytoplankton aside) so the ordering is, well, in order. Except God then makes a mistake. He starts off all things botanical with grass, which, truth be known, is a pretty complex and highly evolved plant. There were lots of simpler plants that pre-existed grasses. Even the dinosaurs existed before grass did! What God should have said is that “let the Earth bring forth algae and phytoplankton and mosses and ferns”. That would have been a detail which would have made botanical atheists stand up and take notice of Biblical bona-fides.

But, just when you think the Biblical creations gets things in a reasonable and logical order, here comes the next bit – the creation of the Sun, Moon and stars. The relevant quote, in case there’s any doubt:

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Okay, the Moon and the stars aren’t all that relevant, but what did all those plants, those grasses, herbs and fruit trees, do for solar energy (photosynthesis) before the Sun got created? This is without question a major Biblical screw-up; the height of all that’s illogical in the scientific ordering of things, but then the Bible and science are not exactly bedfellows. Science on the other hand has the Sun and the Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago – plants came much later on and thus they never lacked for solar energy.

The screw-ups keep on keeping on. Next up we have the creation of marine life and avian life. Unfortunately for God, He screwed up by including whales among marine life. Okay, whales are marine creatures, but they are not fish. Whales are mammals. God apparently created whales before the end of the fifth day of creation. After the fifth day had ended, and the sixth day had begun, God then apparently created mammals, like cattle, and lots of other critters that in the fossil record preceded whales, as well as those things that “creepeth” upon the earth for example (I assume worms and snakes, etc.). What’s the relevant proof?

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

We note that whales were created before other beasts as outlined in Genesis 1:24. Yet, as any biologist will outline for you, whales evolved from land mammals and went back to a marine habitat. Whales are a relatively recent product of natural selection. They were hardly an animal that kicked off the mammalian branch of the tree of life, contrary to what God says. 

Take as a further example the creation of the male and female of the human species, which is I’m sure a bit more relevant and personal to all you readers. The barebones (as it were) were given in Genesis 1:26. Now, finally, God gives out the details!  

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Well at least now we get some sort of explanation – the male created from common dust; the female from the masculine rib. Details are still thin on the (dusty) ground, but the dust-and-rib theory is at least something that scientists can explore and play around with. Hands up all of you who attended high school biology class or university Biology 101 and got the dust-and-rib explanation? I thought so. Biologists have found a more convincing explanation. If you don’t need dust, and you don’t need ribs, then you don’t need God either in the equation. That aside…    

Now if you’re a male, are you overjoyed that your original alpha-male ancestor was made out of ordinary everyday garden-variety dust? Would you be happy if you had been made out of dust motes? If you’re a female, does it tickle your fancy that you’re (well your sex is) just a second generation afterthought (there is quite a break in Genesis between Adam’s creation and Eve’s coming to the party); a creation from a masculine rib? Does any of this strike you as slightly ridiculous? That’s all the more so since the creation of the original alpha-male and alpha-female afterthought was just a one-off. Post-dust and post-rib it was creation by that time-honoured mechanism – sex, which is smelly and messy and rather hit-or-miss. I mean hey, if dust and ribs work, well when you’re on a winner, stick to the original blueprint. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. God should have left the dust-and-rib instruction manual behind. So, if a modern loving couple wants a bouncing baby boy, well a bit of housework will round up the raw material. If it’s a little girl, well hubby can have a rib job at the local clinic. Okay, that’s ridiculous. But if it’s ridiculous now, it was equally ridiculous back then.

Now kindly note another creation screw-up here. We’re all familiar with the concept of day and night; morning and evening. Now the question is what celestial object is responsible for there being light and darkness, day and night, morning and evening? Did I hear you suggest that the Sun was the orb responsible? If so, go to the head of the class.

But it comes to pass that we have this verse:

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And then we have this verse (repeated from above):

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

So the upshot here is that day and night, morning and evening, existed prior to the creation of the Sun. Wow! Neat magician’s trick that!

Now kindly note yet another creation screw-up here.

Recall: Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Recall: Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Now recall: Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone.

Now recall: Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.

In Biblical parlance, this is the equivalent of the chicken and egg question. Which came first, man or beast? The Bible provides statements for both that’s can’t both be correct, so take your pick. Whichever you pick, the alternative then has to be nonsense. Odds are neither version is correct.

Now if God is perfect, there can be no Biblical screw-ups. If there are Biblical screw-ups, then either God isn’t perfect or the Bible is NOT God’s Holy Word. A reasonable explanation is that the Bible was written by non-perfect humans, and God doesn’t exist since the errors, the screw-ups, were never corrected by Him. God never proofread His own Holy Words!

One further anomaly that proves just about beyond any doubt that Genesis is the work of man and not of God; we note the endless repetition of “And God said.” My question – prior to Adam, just who was around back then to copy down anything that God said? And if the answer to that is nobody, then presumably God is just talking to Himself! Or, more likely as not, the entirety of Genesis, creation and all, is just an early example of what would later become known as science fiction.

*Kindly note that all Biblical references have been taken from the Book of Genesis that appear in the King James Version of the Bible.

The Creation: God vs. Natural History: Part One

Probably among the most familiar of familiar phrases in the English language is one that starts out “In the beginning God created…” However, there are alternative non-theological variations on that phrase that fall more in the realm of natural philosophy (or as we call it today, science). What’s at stake is the credibility of God’s alleged word vs. the credibility of the word of science. Christians might believe the Bible, but they put their real faith in science when they turn on their TV set or board an aircraft. So too should they put their money on the scientific (natural history) scenarios of the creations.

In the beginning God said a whole bunch of stuff central to His creation of life, the Universe and everything.*

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [God creates photons and electromagnetic energy.]

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [This makes little sense, but it’s a division of heavenly ‘waters’ from the earthly ‘waters’. There’s earthly ‘waters’, and then there’s everything else above the earthly ‘waters’ – the firmament.]

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. [The distinction between land and sea is noted as the earthly ‘waters’ undergo a partial phase change.]

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. [Botany makes an appearance.]

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. [The creation of the Sun, the Moon and the stars is noted.]

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [God creates fish (including whales) and birds.]

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [Add to that the invertebrates, mammals, reptiles and amphibians.]

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

These are statements, but not explanations, far less adequate explanations. It’s akin to sleight of hand, the snap of the fingers, the waving of a magic wand. Its parlour tricks that dazzle but you’re left none the wiser. You’re awed by magicians’ tricks because you can’t figure out how they do them; and they’re not telling!

We note by the way that microbes, bacteria, viruses, unicellular critters, etc. don’t get a mention in Genesis. There’s no “And God said, let there be microbes”. That’s one major omission. Of course humans didn’t have microscopes back then and I guess God forgot to tell His scribes about the reality of the greater part of Earth’s biomass so that’s why they didn’t get a mention. All of God’s creations would fall apart at the atomic seams if it wasn’t for the strong nuclear force, so why didn’t God take credit for that? Okay, so the human author(s) of Genesis presumably didn’t know much about atomic physics, but they did know about gravity (the force that really dominates the Universe, including much of reality back on Terra Firma, including much of their reality. So why no “And God said, let there be gravity”? 

Those significant omissions aside, and they are significant, religion, as in the Bible, gives you various creation statements as we’ve seen. If the Bible gives you creation explanations of any kind, they are downright weird, if not supernatural, and certainly not verifiable explanations. Science tries to give you logical explanations for creation events and to the best of its ability, verifiable explanations.

So, God created the “heaven and the earth”. Heaven apparently is as in all things not earth – the rest of the cosmos. Out of what did God create heaven and earth? Out of nothing? Out of some pre-existing primordial matter that presumably God didn’t create but had available to Him as a raw resource? Or, alternatively, if He did create this primordial stuff, then He then took some time out to figure out what to do with it. Decisions, decisions! I mean if God is immortal; and the heaven (cosmos) and earth aren’t, then a lot of water passed under the bridge between God, and God’s creation of heaven and earth. In any event, where are the details? If I told you I had created a jumbo jet in my heavenly garden shed, you’d ask questions. You’d require the nitty-gritty details, as in made out of what, and what size – life-size or toy model – and can it fly. Was it carved or assembled from pre-existing parts or were the parts all created from scratch, and if so where did I get the raw materials from? 

Now even I have to admit, when it comes down to the creation of “heaven” (the Universe or cosmos presumably), scientists (cosmologists) come out with some pretty far-out-star-scout statements too. And some pretty far-out-star-scout details, but at least there are details. The nitty-gritty is that 13.7 billions years ago (science – vs. 4004 BCE God), there was a Big Bang which somehow created the Universe (matter, energy, time and space) from nothing, and to top off the silliness, that all happened in a space way, way, way smaller than a pinhead. Pull the other one fellows! However, at least they do have some observational evidence – runs on the board – to support at least the 13.7 billion year ago event (though little else), evidence which the 4004 BCE Biblical version lacks. For example, there’s the measured redshifts of the galaxies which suggest the cosmos is expanding. Reinforcing that there’s the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) – the temperature of the cosmos – which keeps getting cooler as the cosmos expands. CMBR measurement meets CMBR theory. Also an area when observation matches prediction is the cosmic ratio of hydrogen to helium. So, the Big Bang has runs (as in details and evidence) on the board. Genesis 1:1 doesn’t.

The “earth” part on the other hand has science on a far, far firmer ground. Astronomers have certainly witnessed the overall process by which extra-solar planetary systems are currently forming, and extrapolation then gives the process that created our Sun and planets, including the Earth, isn’t difficult. In brief, it goes something like this. Interstellar dust clouds rotate and contract due to gravity. Contraction down into a much relatively smaller volume makes for extreme heat and pressure. That heat and pressure eventually triggers nuclear fusion – a star is born. The surrounding debris under gravity contracts to much smaller bodies where the heat and pressure isn’t quite enough to trigger fusion. Those smaller bodies become the orbiting planets – like Earth. As I said, observations are made, explanations are given and details are, well, detailed. So when it comes to accounting for the creation of the Earth, it’s science on top by a mile, or two or ten.

As to the creation, or separation, of land and sea, well you certainly don’t need supernatural processes to account for that. Take a lump of mud or sand; add water; stir until everything is a uniform mixture or slurry. Let stand. What happens? The mud/sand sinks or settles to the bottom (gravity again) and you have separation of church and state – sorry, land and water. Science trumps God again. The Bible should have mentioned gravity and density, but it failed to do so. The Bible should have also mentioned the atmosphere when noting the separation of the land from the waters. Somehow God forgot to mention His role in separating out the atmosphere from the lithosphere and from the hydrosphere. That’s another major oversight IMHO. 

To be continued…

*Kindly note that all Biblical references have been taken from the Book of Genesis that appear in the King James Version of the Bible.