The insanity of Humanity

I need to take a moment to spout some vitriole directed at the masses of "trained" scientists who are making contributions to whole of human knowledge: Are you guys stupid?

Evolutionist keep arguing all of life as we know it came from wet, hot rocks.

Case in point. Researchers have just recently submerged a small robotic submarine and roved the deep waters off the coast of India with a high resolution camera. In the process, surprise of all surprises, they managed to photograph species hitherto unknown to mankind. Some of them are creatures of similar nature to other known species but some have been less categorizable in the current trends of thought. These scientists argue that this is of course, mounting evidence for evolution.

A quote: "Were you there when I plumbed the depths of the ocean?" ~ God, challenging Job's notion of knowledge.

My point: Are humans so insanley proud to think that we could somehow espouse the very workings of our planet or even the universe into a neat categorizable unified theory of mathematic coincedence? Modern science consistently argues that given time that any of this could happen. To think hat somehow the cogs of all of this massive biological machinery that operates more profoundly accurate than anything men can come up with is just coincidental is the epitome of stupidity.

Riddle me this: Which evolved first in the human race: the liver or the spleen? or how about the liver and the pancreas? Neither organ can function without the other and they are profoundly absent in many subspecies that live quite well without them, and if we functioned at one point well without them what would the need of growing these function specific organs be anyways?. Now, a scientific mind might argue that their beginnings could have begun sympathetically and grown together. Mathematically for this to happen the human race or our precursors would have had to been on the planet simultaneously with the rest of planetary evolution (for billions of years instead of mere hundreds of millions - darnit, math and the laws of probability keep getting in the way) or we are so consequently lucky that it all happened just like it did that we should be thanking our lucky stars and living life to the fullest just because we should be glad we're alive and sufficiently self-aware that we can be introspective into the workings of life to begin with.

For a real mind trip how about looking at the biology of a blue whale. They shouldn't exist according to evolution. They are breathing mammals that have sophisticated bouyancy and pressurizing systems allowing them to dive for the food they eat, namely, nearly invisible to the naked eye plankton. What? If you're still wondering how the liver and pancreas in the human body could have evolved simultaneously or independently, don't bother wondering how an animal as heavy and large as a whale can manage to pressurize part of its body while leaving the rest unpressurized so its massive heart and organs can still function while diving to a depth that should crush it or how how their lungs could be so efficient that their dive times are so ridiculously long while their enormous organs should be shutting down from a lack of oxygen that they are required to use from air because they're mammals. Or how about the fact that their own mass should in essence, crush them for being that big. Their size alone is enough to question how they would evolve into such a large creature. It's inefficient to be so big and how could they have evolved the required sophisticated organ structures they have to compensate for their size while they got so big? The one precludes the other. If they were small enough at one point to not require them to grow or dive so deep for food, they wouldn't have developed the structures they have for maintaining their very size. But if they started so big for unknown biological reasons they would have simply died out because their size would have killed them before they had millions of years to grow the right organs to perform the basic food practices they now utilize quite well. And for that matter, why haven't they grown a form of gills yet?

"But that's not how it works," they didn't evolve to meet an end, they say. What you're seeing is a species meeting the end of its evolutionary line. Nature took its course to become this and it will end there unless it evolves again to meet the demands of survival. Ughh... there's always an excuse.

Who was the one that decided to let those who choose to observe and report tell us we're an accident? Science is not a game to prove who can disprove that an old guy lives in the clouds. Even the truly ignorant can look up and say, "The old man upstairs ain't there." As time presses on and scientists and sociologists and physicists and astronomers and researchers who contribute to men's knowledge accumulate data and add it to the collective libraries of human thought it is not only obvious, but undebateable that the physical presence of an all knowing God in day to day life is absent from what they are observing and reporting. But you can also quantitatively prove that men's knowledge is INCOMPLETE!

In our pride as a species it is glaringly obvious that it is impossible to collect, review, analyze, categorize, sub-categorize and hypothesize and test all of life and what it constitutes. You can't watch people in New York and expect someone on a ranch to behave like someone from a large city. You can't probe the ocean off the coast of India and expect the fauna to be the same as what you might find Antarctica or near Hawaii. But this is what we're letting grant hungry scientists throw at us. There are teams of scientists trying to figure out human biology that have been unsuccessfull at figuring out what the direct cause of artheroschlorotic plaque is. Their are thousands of enzymes in the human body that we're not sure what they're doing, we just know they are there. There are many there I would imagine we don't know about.

A single human cell is more complex in mechanism and metabolism than we are capable of observing with our eyes in nature on a grand scale, and yet, we know the beginnings of all things. We've somehow tracked the creation of the universe and even set a timeline on how it probably happened. We've clustered regions of established science into bite sized peices that we can feed to others and with pride and no shame say, "This is how this happened." Yet, the overall ignorance of the grand scheme of life and how anythings works or is even unified eludes mankind so deftly. A question as simple as, "What's down there?" baffles the brilliant to the point where if they have a brain they must say, "I don't know." And if you at some point must say, "I don't know," I would venture a guess that you are a very very tiny thing that has no control of your life and very little of your place in this world. Your cells certainly are functioning independent of your thoughts because if they were subject to you, you would simply die because of your ignorance.

We are wet, carbon-based dust, subject to the gravitational pull of a large spinning object hurtling through the solar system around an enormous hot ball of gas that is subject to the gravitational pull of other large bodies of dark matter and stars, and blah blah blah. We don't even know that because it is outside of our reach to measure, quantify, and collect data.

We've come to a lot of these conclusions in ignorance. Is it the bliss that so many claim it would be? No, because in the course of the data collection, a handfull of men and women who were given the opportunity to spend enormous amounts of money on research came to their own personal conclusions and became their own high priests of religious thought. In their pride they have set humans as the determinant factor for existence. That's seems like pretty thin ice for a species so delicate. In all of our pride we certainly shouldn't have come to the conclusion that we are our own masters. To be so self-aware and yet so incredibly ignorant at the same time is unique to humans. To have ever uttered the words, "I don't know," one shoud be willing to at least say, "It is possible." And that stretches to all things. No, we do not know.

The guy with the beard digging in the ground in Africa doesn't know where we came from.

The lady with the beaker and petri dish in a lab somewhere does not know where we came from.

Stephen Hawking does not know where we came from.

If he's so smart why hasn't he figured out how to fix his body? All of that brain power and he chose to exert it probing the universe from a wheel chair. It's counter-indicative of the nature of survival. According to evolution a simpler and more ignorant but hardier life form will replace him and thrive in his place. But in his pride he chose take on the idea that there's nothing out there that is smarter or more powerful or more capable than us that could exist outside of our simple dimensional world.

The question is: if there was, and if that being or beings were that much more capable and intelligent than us, why would they show any more compassion or understanding to our less-capable species that would appear as dominant on earth but submissive to them/it? Hawking finally came to that conclusion; but only just in time for a press release to coincide with his book being published, though.

I'm done rambling for the day.