In the mid-1700s—about a century before the birth of geology and the first scientific attempts to determine Earth's age—an archbishop of the Church of Ireland named James Ussher mapped out the genealogies and chronologies of Biblical characters all the way back to Adam and Eve, and concluded that the world was created in the year 4004 B.C.
The earliest scientific attempts to estimate the age of the Earth exceeded Ussher's number by tens of thousands of years, and the Biblical and scientific accounts have only diverged further since.
So, what happens when you try to reconcile them? We give you (via ilovecharts) the Geologic Time Scale For Creationists:
Arrogance, contempt, viciousness often tend to show up most garishly, while pretending to be reasonable. This isn't even an attempt to discuss the matter of creationism, only a bewlligerent act of mockery.
Some points can be of interest.
In his "Bad Astronomy" blog, recently, Phil Plait condemned "Young Earth Creationism". That is exactly as he phrased it. In other words, Phil Plait seems to be saying, creationism is a legitimate mechanism to consider if you accept an ancient earth. This may cause this to be removed, but I countered some statements he made and, like any insecure megalomaniac, he banned me from his blog, so I haven't had the chance to ask him what he meant. If anyone who has played the worshipful sycophant to Plait's boundless ego still can get on his blog, maybe they can find out what he meant.
Not necessarily that it matters much. Spontaneous generation, the arrival of new forms without precursors, seems to be happening everywhere. The literal explosion of new species, families, genera discovered in just the past decade seems to dwarf any other such period of discovery. And the Lesula monkey, only just announced discovered, is all unusual if not completely unbelievable. There had been expedition afer expedition, thousands of feet of film, hundreds of thousands of photographs, samples, drawings, collected stories, from the region where the monkey was declared discovered, over centuries of time, but nowhere is there any reference to it. It appears to have only just come into existence. In fact, it looks very much as if creation is continuing, wityh species coming into being without "evolution".
so... God/universe just made that monkey appear out of nowhere sometime recently? is that what you're implying? Is this the evidence you are presenting?
Because, personally, I think it all goes to show that Count Dracula is real and keeps making new species from magic. Of course, those arrogant scientists, keeps implying that I'm the crazy one.
Eminently characteristic of New World Order non argument techniques.
I made an argument about the near impossibility, if not the utter unreasonableness, that the Lesula monkey could have gone undiscovered, especially for so large an animal. Rusty Beaumont uses only mockery. The promoters of the untrue do not have anything valid or legitimate to discuss. As a result, they utilize alternate methods, geared only to appeal to the gullible and dim, the target audience of the New World Order. And those techniques include arrogance, contempt, dismissiveness, mockery, vulgarity.
Basically, Rusty Beaumont demonstrates the same level of imbecility as the article.
"If you make fun of something, then you've disproved it!"
That's what passes for "science” today.
In fact, there is absolutely no proof of “evolution” “Scientists” stand next to poured resin casts of shapes and call them “fossils”, then read off a bunch of numbers they made up and claim that “proves” they’re old. In fact, no one among the “rank and file” has seen in their own hands proof that fossils are real, that they’re old and that they “evolved” one into the other. All that there is on the subject are clainms that issue from behind “laborator” doors, with aboslutely no incontrovertible, independent validation. Only the word of “scientists”.
“Scientists” who didn’t warn about fen-phen.
“Scientists” who didn’t warn that there was no evidence whatsoever of banned weapons systems in Iraq.
“Scientists” who claimed that the exact match of isotope desnities on earth and moon was absolute proof that a third body must have hit the earth, causing the mooon to split off. But, then, it was pointed out that, if there was a third body, the isotope numbers would have to be different, reflecting the makeup of the other body!
“Scientists”, incidentally, who have defenders like Rusty Beaumont who don’t realize the phrase is “could have been guided”, not “could of been guided”!
And, note, for whatever pretense of respect for truth that Rusty Beaumont wants to mount, they did not admit that, in fact, no creationist text anywhere said the last dinosaur died in 1927! In fact, the entire article is a lie!
That is “science”!
Gees, Julian, you ask me not to mock you and then you write that? You kind of went on a tangent, full of conspiracy theories, which I know little about and will, in no way, further address. But, back to the subject at hand, and with, hopefully, a little less sarcasm than before...
You do realize that scientific discoveries undergo peer review from scientists across the globe? We're talking about people peer reviewing each other from all walks of life. It's not a private club that you have to pay/legacy/shmooze your way into. Science is results oriented. The evidence is all around you. We are typing on a computer, sending messages through cables, into dishes that beam a signal into satellites,orbiting the planet. We're talking about inventions that have only existed after the birth of modern science. This isn't some easily disregarded theory or hair-brained philosophy. We're talking about undeniable results. Modern science is the reason that we get to live so good. Think of the advancements in food preservation, communication, medicine, transportation, air conditioning, etc. etc. Woman and children have a much higher survival from complications during pregnancy and labor. Entertainment is all around us, all the time, and food has become so plentiful that it has become an "epidemic."
Why on Earth are you bad mouthing scientists like they are some crazy group that spits off a bunch of bullcrap?
And, I thought this was apparent earlier, but don't you think that there is probably a pretty small percentage of people(especially in the middle of Sub-Saharan Africa) that will know that an animal in a certain region, like the Lesula monkey, isn't already cataloged? And, of that small group, there's still a portion that might overlook it or mistake it for a similar species, especially if they can only see it from below a tall, thick, canopy of leaves.
There probably have been many natives that have come across that species on occasion. I'm not an expert on African politics, but I imagine that it might get pretty damn difficult to look for new species of animals in certain regions. But, then again, maybe it just popped out of thin air and quickly nestled in the niche that was, for whatever reason, left available to it.
I guess they are both possible theories, but so is my Dracula idea. It's kind of like the creation theory, except you replace God with Dracula. oh yeah, and it happens at night, because you wouldn't want anyone to see you pulling something like that. And, not because Dracula only comes out at night; that is an outright stereotype that us Dracula believers collectively decided to be offended about.
There are a few points that i think you might need to elaborate on. I'm a bit slow:
“Scientists”, incidentally, who have defenders like Rusty Beaumont who don’t realize the phrase is “could have been guided”, not “could of been guided”!
"If you make fun of something, then you've disproved it!"
That's what passes for "science” today.
- Is this based on this one article on one science website? I don't wear a lab coat, by the way, so I don't think it counts as science when I do it.
"And, note, for whatever pretense of respect for truth that Rusty Beaumont wants to mount, they did not admit that, in fact, no creationist text anywhere said the last dinosaur died in 1927! In fact, the entire article is a lie!"
- Wasn't that the point of this article. To me, it's lining up understood data of modern science with a template from a very common and what I personally believe to be a rather dated understanding in the way the world formed. So, if you believe in natural formation of fossil strata and also believe in 10k years or less creation, here is something that might make you reevaluate your position. Of course they aren't going to write an article about what a large demographic already believes. They wouldn't write an article about an old theory, unless there was a new spin/discovery. This is a magazine, not a text book.
ok ok... i said i wouldn't bring it up, but...
"“Scientists” who didn’t warn about fen-phen.
“Scientists” who didn’t warn that there was no evidence whatsoever of banned weapons systems in Iraq."
- I sure hope I'm not getting trolled. It's really hard to tell.
Among other things, the story is already going around about the "anestheiologist" in Japan who published around 200 "peer reviewed" articles, all of which have been shown to be fraudulent. "Peer review" does not magincally impart truthfulness to claims. The theory that a body hit the earth and caused the moon to split off was "definitively, unarguably proved" by the fact that, supposedly, isotope percentages of many elements are the same oin both the earth and moon. How could the moon not have been split from the earth with that similarity of isotopes, it was insisted. And that was peer reviewed. Now, they are pointing out that, if a third body was involved, some of its material should have gotten included, so the isotopes percentages should not match!
Rusty Beaumont displays the same shallowness of view as all who allow "science" to control their lives.
They are certain "scientists" cannot lie, that whatever they say is true.
Allied with that, they fail to understand that there are alternative explanations for absolutely everything, even if those explanations are not displayed in "science" magazines.
Too, they think that, if something is in a "science" magazine, that automatically makes it true and proved.
But nowhere has it been proved that "scientists" don't lie. "Science" devotees insist that "relativity" has been "proved" by GPS devices working despite Doppler signal shifts from satellites. But no one who claims that has actually ever looked inside a GPS to see if that's what it's doing! They're just told to believe it and they do! They're told to believe that light has the same speed with respect to all observers, even though they've never seen that. And, frankly, what does a computer or even a light bulb prove? Nothing says they work because of what "scientists" say makes them work! No "science" devotee has ever looked inside a wire to see if electricity comes from electrons or tiny aliens moving along it. Devotees laugh, but they never have proved it, they only accept it because they're told to, they never check for themselves.
And, among other things, Dracula was never credited with the ability to create new species, genera, families. God is.
Rusty Beaumont's second comment has much the structure of delusional meandering.
What is really stupid about this sort of article is that within a week this article will be used by young earth creationist organizations to demonstrate how mainstream science lies. Because the creationists will all know they don't have an extinction date for dinosaurs. Many of them use cryptozoological creatures in fact to argue some are still around. And the rest will think they died out after the flood. But whatever they think they will know that an evolutionist ""journal"" is easily demonstrated to be wrong with this article. Therefore it easily is lying about all that other science they know is wrong too.
"And, among other things, Dracula was never credited with the ability to create new species, genera, families. God is."
ummmm... Are you a Dracula expert now? Didn't I just claim that Dracula can do that? Do I need to write it in a book? How many people need to believe in it before it's a plausible assumption? Tell me why my Dracula theory doesn't hold any water. I think you're scared of admitting that it's infallible. Science, my other and lesser God, can't even touch it.
God told me that the earth is actually 2012 years old. Not 6000 or 4.5 billion years. He also told me not to buy the new iPhone 5 because it's overpriced.
I thought this was Popular SCIENCE, not Popular-Jesus-Freaks or Popular-Bible-BAngers?
No evidence for evolution? Really? Ever had your wisdom teeth taken out? Either humans are evolving shorter jawbones or God is a piss-poor engineer. We have organs in our bodies with no purpose, snakes have the skeletal remains of legs, whales have flippers with striking similarities to the toes of other mammals. Not to mention lungs. What kind of idiot God designs a FISH with LUNGS? Lions and Tigers are nearly the exact same animal under the skin, and can even still breed (with freakish and sterile results - kinda like horses and donkeys). How about when we humans take the randomness of natural selection and environmental pressures out of evolution and direct things ourselves? You can see the results in one of the 200-some-odd breeds of dogs you can pick up at Petsmart, many of which didn't exist 50 years ago. How about drug resistant bacteria? We were killing off all of God's beautiful disease-and-human-suffering-causing creations, so he broke into Pfizer and stole the formula for Amoxicillin, reverse engineered a new bacteria that we wouldn't be able to kill, stuck it into a tree (right by the Lesula Monkey he threw together over the weekend, just to f**k with Rusty Beaumont) and Voila! His beautiful bacterium can kill us off instead now. Yay God. And just to be clear - when those bugs develop and immunity to antibiotics, that's evolution in action Bud.
While I'm at it... What happened to good old fashioned Genesis? 1st day Earth, 2nd Sky, 3rd Land, 4th Sun and Moon, 5th Birds and Fish, 6th Man and Animal, 7th just chilled... So is Genesis still going on, or was that first one a mistake? Did God forget something? Cuz I was under the impression that GOD is PERFECT and ALL-KNOWING. Aside from that wisdom teeth thing. That was really dumb.
::sigh:: Pop Sci has ruined everything for me now - I loved that Jesus might have rode a Raptor! Now you've gone and taken that away. :(
Science is the only way to bypass all the irrational failings of the human mind, and exists for the sole purpose of getting the truth - there is no other objective! Science doesn't deliberately try to disprove a god - it just says there is little reason to think one exists.
Faith, on the other hand, plays directly into the irrationalities of the human mind, and enables people to believe whatever crazy batshit they like. As is evident by the many different and contradicting versions of faith-based "knowledge" that exist.
Which is most likely to be true?
Too stupid to understand science? Try religion instead!
Ha ha, it's all fodder anyways, our end date May 21st 2012, lol.
To PopSci Staff,
1) Why did you choose to be anonymous in writing this article and yet give your support by at least adding PoPSci Staff?
2) Will you be doing this more often or is this a onetime event?
3) PopSci Staff, are you amused by the comments on this article? Did this article get the result you were looking for?
4) PoPSci Staff, obviously somebody wrote this article. After reading all the comments, I wonder if the writer at this point would be willing to reveal his\her name?
5) PoPSci Staff, what was you motivation to write this article in the first place?
6) PoPSci Staff, will there be more touchy topics of science you will write about in the future, that will necessitate you continuing being an anonymous writer? And what sort of topics might those be?
@Rusty If you carefully read my post you will understand why I talk about stereotypes.
Characterizing a group of people (creationists) by the ideas of a single person (the ~200 year old archbishop).
This article is characterizing a "movement" based on the ideas of an archbishop from the 1700's.
What if I characterized all white people based on the opinions of a particular white person who lived in 1700. Would that be an accurate representation of white people today?
Do all people from Ireland believe that the earth is only 6000 years old because the archbishop is from Ireland circa 1700? Of course that's a ridiculous conclusion, but apparently acceptable to Popsci.
The archbishop wasn't, and never will be, a representative for any group of people or any particular belief system except maybe Catholicism, but even that's a stretch.
The archbishop's ideas don't represent the group called creationists any more that he represents all Irishmen or all Catholics.
The problem this article causes is that it falsely presents the archbishops ideas with an info graphic that he didn't create as "the Geologic Time Scale For Creationists"
The only thing that makes less sense than this article appearing on Popsci is Popsci being willing to support this article and it's author.
Have I been expecting too much of Popsci?
Ghandi once sagely commented:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Looks like Popsci is in category 2 or 3. Ignoring creationists would be a move in the right direction, and would reflect less insecurity on the part of the editors. The question is, can you do it?
For those complaining about the lack of editorial wrapping for this chart here, note that it was originally published at http://www.mindat.org/article.php/1475/A+Geological+Timescale+for+Creationists without any text explaining the chart, presumably because jokes are best told without wrapping them in explanation.
And of course the chart is clearly a joke making fun of the concept of young-earth creationism. YEC may be believed by many people, but its popularity does not give it a right to respect but rather makes it a proper target for the ridicule it so richly earns from people who value science. Does anyone who believes in YEC believe in this chart's mapping of the geological record? Of course not. But if you look at the comments on the original mindat.org post you can see how the YEC denial of this chart's silliness immediately resorts to the assumption of a whimsically deceptive omnipotent deity. YEC isn't wrong science, bad science, or even pseudo-science, it is anti-science. It seems to me that PopSci is absolutely right to treat YEC with the disdain it deserves.
I am surprised, Robot, that you did not mention the Straw man.
The implication is that young earth creationists, who are theists, believe ridiculousness; therefore, all theists believe ridiculousness. This is an irrational conclusion.
To all the anti-theists: Simply because faith (of any kind) is not based in reason, does not mean that faithful people are unreasonable. Also, though there is, in your estimation, little reason to think that any god exists; there is little (none, in my estimation) that one does not. So, it may be irrational to come to a definitive conclusion in the absence of information, but isn't it more so to do so, calling it "the only rational conclusion?" Further, most theists whom I know, recognize that their conclusion is fundamentally derived from faith and therefore not truly a *definitive* conclusion.
I've always found it rather odd how the creationist movement attempts to co-opt select scientific data to prove its central theory while at the same time it rejects the overall premise of science based reasoning.
Sorry creationists but if the science is too hard or difficult for you to grasp then you should stick to religion. Evolution is based on empirical data and observations. Not second-hand historical "sources" and feelings. Faith does not make fact.
Your flavor of supernatural creationism is based on...what? A book? A religion? The Scientologists have what, 4 or 5 books AND a religion? Does that mean they get to dictate how life came to be? Or should we ask the Muslims because they also a book and religion? Perhaps we should ask the Native Americans how just the Americas came to be because they were here first and that obviously gives more credence to their specific "genesis" beliefs. No, no, I got it. We should just accept the Sumerian genesis beliefs because they were the first civilization and therefore in the best position to get it right.
Give me a break guys. How can you seriously criticize the scientific principles of evolution when you use a COMPUTER (SCIENCE!) powered by ELECTRICITY (SCIENCE!) connected to the INTERNET (SCIENCE!) to do so?
@strider: I read your post and I replied. I feel like you did not even acknowledge it, but you probably feel the same way. This article was specifically written towards the beliefs held by the young earth creationist movement. We're talking about a very unified movement that has been pushing it's agenda into our public school system since way before we were born. People have an infinite gray area of belief, but this ain't about whatever idea you came up with and decided to give the same name. This is about a very vocal movement. Richard Dawkins has been made a celebrity from becoming their opponent. It's not something small. 46% of Americans believed humans popped onto the earth in less than 10k years on a gallup poll from this year. I ask again. Why do you keep pretending like this is not the case. Keep playing the victim, i guess. The time line of 10k years or less did not get started or kept alive by the opponents. It has been a central part of the young-earth creationist movement's platform. You know, the same movement that brought us the theory about the grand canyon being formed by a single flood.
You're more than titled to believe what you want and call it what you want, but understand that not everyone shares the exact same terminology as you. I suppose the author could have posted the phrase "young-earth", but that's the example people think of when they hear the phrase, anyway. It's reinforced in the timeline they show that it's about young-earth creationism.
side note: Theistic evolutionists(Catholicisms official stance)don't claim to be creationists.
Growing up in Puerto Rico I used a lot of drugs, and did of lot of stupid things that I regret, and wish never took part in, but finding Jesus and the strength Of His power brought me out of the gutter, gave me the power i needed to drop the drugs, and finish highschool go on to college, and start my own business, not to say that it has all been rosy, but to say that I believe because I have seen first hand in my life, The POWER OF JESUS LOVE, AND FRIENDSHIP. With this in mind, the world is very very layered, there are layers beyond which the human mind can get to, we can only theorize and hypothasize, all good and well, but in the end, when you look at our life cycle of 85-100 years and the world being around for how ever any years you believe, were like a needle in a pile of hay. So if that needle is going to tell me how the pile of hay got there, I would be a little sceptic. Thats all i am saying.
GOD BLESS AMERICA USA
That graphic, while obviously tongue-in-cheek, does put into perspective the absurdity of the creationist view as a scientific way to look at the world. Look, if you're deeply religious, fine. Whatever. I don't care. But when you try to present your religious beliefs as reality and want it taught along side science when facts completely contradict you, then yes, you deserve a little mocking.
well, bizkit, there's a beautiful lattice work of data. You shouldn't write it off so quickly. Someone in the past could of easily shrugged off the thought of computers or the internet or cell phones. But, hey, it's not so crazy to people that have had the chance to witness the technology.
Yeah, I read about twenty-five comments and heck if I'm reading any more. Creationism is a religious belief. It shouldn't be considered scientific in any sense of the word because it starts with a "fact" (God created the universe 6,000 years ago, or 30,000, or 1 billion, or 8 billion) and whatever evidence is discovered must be shoehorned into that "fact". Popsci rightly derides any attempts to legitimize creationist "theory". It's smart, witty, and offensive -only- if you hold precious the idea that starting from a religion conclusion is a good way to inform scientific discovery. (It's not.)
I stopped reading about 50 comments in because I was too disgusted to go on. For crying out loud, why can't a science magazine publish a humor piece? Most scientific publications could make good use of an editorial cartoonist. And many publications publish unsigned staff-written articles, it's no big deal. It's not a scientific paper, and we're not peer-reviewing it.
A science magazine has every right to mock the very movement that has been repeatedly attacking science and science education. In my view, it has a duty. It is a completely ridiculous notion to suggest that PopSci should engage creationists in any serious way, as if creationism has a leg to stand on. The movement's faux debate ("teach the controversy") is no debate that any serious scientist should participate in or even acknowledge. Absolutely no one has shown the theory of evolution to be anything but the most fundamental working principle in the history of biology - even in the phony "journals" that creationists have cooked up to try to give themselves credibility.
Now as to offense. Why do religionists (and even some non-believers) claim that religion should be exempt from criticism. We can criticize, insult and lampoon politicians all day long, but not their religion. Criticism of religion is NOT criticism of the believer. Being offended is a deliberate choice, and so is putting on a thicker skin.
Well, saffie, no matter how frustrating that "don't criticize religion" loophole might be, I can only imagine that trying to believe the world is 6,000 years old for a chance at heaven has to be like a million times worse. It just has to eat at you all day. I don't know how the shit people are able to pull it off.
And to the creationists...
You don't have to comment about this. But, I think you should really consider long and hard about the fossil record and the dinosaur skulls and skeletons that have been uncovered. Think about the fossils of our ancestors. There is a very noticeable gradient. Think about the genetic coding and the countless ways it has only strengthened the evolutionary theory that predated it by over 100 years.
Creationism can only work if the world's creator has created all these systems to trick us. And, if God is real and he is going to try and trick me, then I'll be humble enough to admit that I never really stood a chance of figuring it out, anyway. So, if God is trying to trick you, in some elaborate/convoluted plot, then please just let him. Don't be the guy that tries to act like he knows how God operates. Where's your freaking humility? God is mysterious, right? Let him be mysterious. We can look at the world around us, the one he supposedly made for answers and more questions. We can search for the consistencies and use our intellect to make educated guesses, but nothing more. Doesn't that sound a lot more God-like then him possessing writers to talk about how great he is and how you need to constantly feed his ego.
You asked me why I brought up stereotypes in my original message and I elaborated on what I meant.
Creationist maybe be unified, but they aren't unified on the archbishops ideas nor the chart that wasn't created by a creationist. Therefore "the Geologic Time Scale For Creationists" is a misrepresentation.
I'm a creationist myself and I don't agree with the archbishop nor do I agree with the chart. I literally know hundreds of creationists who would hold the same view as I do when it comes to the archbishop and this chart. I think the view point of hundreds in a group is a more accurate representation of what the group stands for than a really old guy and a chart.
Aren't those who belong to a group allowed to speak up when they feel they are being misrepresented? Or must we be silent and accept any and every misrepresentedation?
If you can understand that then you get what I'm trying to say. I just don't understand why you think a guy who is ~200 years old and a chart that wasn't made by a creationist is an accurate representation of what creationists believe. If this is not what you think then there is nothing more to add to our bit of discussion.
On a different note, as a creationist I don't think creationism is a science or based on science.
Since when did science become the one and only acceptable way to explain the world around us? If my world view doesn't cause you harm then why you mad bro?
This is a big ol' world we live in and there is room enough for two (or more) ideas on the origin of the universe and/or life.
"On a different note, as a creationist I don't think creationism is a science or based on science."
- couldn't agree more. When the time comes that people stop trying to pass it off as science will also be the time you'll stop hearing rebuttals from the science communities. Science is a cold-hearted beast that only cares about consistency. Put the message out there. Creationism is not science. keep saying it to your "hundreds of creationists" friends. Tell them to stop talking about it in a scientific context. Let them know that it shouldn't be mentioned in a science classroom.
Also, quit trying to chalk all this up to an archbishop from 200 years ago. Like I said, it's an argument very much alive today.
YEah, duh, it's a magazine. They can post things in a somewhat humorous light. Pop-sci has always been fairly light hearted, with a fairly casual demeanor. They've written loads of slightly humorous columns. If creationism wasn't some theory that was backed by judeo-christian beliefs, then you probably wouldn't care. What if they wrote a humorous article that poked at scientologists beliefs? Also, for the sake of hypothetical comparisons, pretend the scientologists have been trying, and sometimes successfully, to put their theories into public classrooms.
I am literally taken aback by the amount of rage from creationists because of a silly chart that, even though it may not represent your specific creationist beliefs, is an appropriate jab at creationism in general. Creationism does not coincide with science. It never will. Are you truly that surprised that a publication about SCIENCE might find some comedy in something so unscientific, but is often presented as such by bible thumpers and Texas politicians? Why are you even here?
Great, many of you are saying religion and science aren't related. That holds true as an absolute, but when religions often make claims that completely disregard science, the logical people have a right to defend reality from fiction. This holds especially true when considering that many backwards ass places in this very country are contantly trying to diminish the role of real science in schools and plant "Intelligent Design", a thinly veiled version of creationism in the classrooms, it seems not only appropriate but imperative to point out the absurdity of it all and offer actual knowledge instead of religious propoganda.
Believe what you want, but don't get mad when someone points out the flaws in your belief, ESPECIALLY on a website dedicated to science. Boo hoo, you feel insulted. Cry us a river and pray for some logic.
I applaud your right to your opinion and the freedom to express it, as well as others.
Some 13.7 billion years is the consider age of the cosmos.
Some 4.5 billion years ago Earth was made.
Some 100k ago intelligent\various primate humans showed up in the picture of life on Earth.
Some 10k ago the cradle of civilization was found
and noted in their text Gods from above made
several versions of humans, settling on one version for the benefit of the Gods.
It was science that noted they were the cradle of civilization and in the same breath they discount their writings on the wall about Gods.
Science also notes the very real possibility of the possibility of much intelligent life exist out in the vast cosmos. This seems contrary to the previous thought process.
We humans and our science tweak around very much with DNA and human DNA.
Yes to evolution.
Yes to occasional pot-luck changes to evolution; shit happens!
Yes to past tweaking from visitors from above from the cosmos.
Yes to intelligence to in the vast cosmos.
Yes to current tweaking of DNA now.
Yes to religous groups noted things down for the benefit of growth for our inner maturity and being.
Yes to science for noting things down about our physical world.