Books by A.O. Kime
"Metaphysical realities in America's politically-challenged democracy"
"A sagacious accounting of the Stone Age and the beginnings of civilization"
U.S. colleges and trade schools
Odd combination of directories you think? See 'faces'
A.O. Kime Articles:
Shoofly Village ruins
Stone Age history
Stone Age timelines
Stone Age tools
Dynamics of now
Evil (nature of)
Gift of life
Light (nature of)
Time (nature of)
Curse of science
Int'l Criminal Court
Rule of law
(1st edition - Oct 2013) by A.O. Kime
for information on 'renting' this article, see Rent-a-Article
The unanswered questions concerning human origins and other matters of
life such as our sixth sense, instincts and subconscious mind have been
tormenting mankind for millennia. Science hasn’t gotten us anywhere. Or
else they lead us astray… certainly the scientific notion we evolved
from apes (primates if you prefer) isn’t correct.
So it is… life’s mysteries are as much a mystery today as they ever were.
Seemingly, in order to find the truth we need to put our brain into hyper-drive. Specifically, we need to power-up our focusing abilities. As it is, we can’t seem to focus on all the God-given clues at once. Clues, after all, are all we have to work with and the accuracy of any ethereal picture is relative to the number of clues considered.
Our attention span is the problem which has difficulty focusing on all the direction-pointing clues (amassed over the years) at the same time. While at first glance seemingly we only have a few to work with… it‘s because all those past lightning bolts are soon forgotten. They have a way of evaporating in our memory banks. It’s largely because the clues are fleeting and so very vague… therefore hard to ’capture’ (and remember).
In essence, it becomes a matter of extracting (and remembering) from life and living as much as we can. It’s a note-taking process which takes time however. If not a lifetime. Often though, those forgotten lightning bolts had left an indelible mark… had shaped our thinking. It probably explains the different outlooks an elder would have compared to a teenager.
And, across the board these outlooks are different.
Of course, all along it must be determined whether these extracted clues would qualify as ‘contributing factors’. They must be sorted out… but a tall order to determine which clues are pointing to our origins. And, as said, it’s also a tall order to remember them. For the note-takers, with the clues being so hard to describe the notes had better be good.
In the end, it’s all about recognizing the clues and incorporating them to see what they spell. Missing one or two would surely paint a different picture.
For example, in trying to determine human origins the various languages
may be a clue (although a ‘lightning bolt’ of the ’dawning’ variety -
not really one from out-of-the-blue). What explains these different
languages? If we all came from the same area our languages would be
similar… at least most all the words. After all, why would groups of
people later want to change the original term for water? Or a tree, leg
or rock? There should only be minor differences in languages over time
(one would think).
Of course, this could indicate humans (or their humanoid progenitors if that was the case) didn’t have the ability to speak until after the major migrations… after they dispersed themselves across the globe. If true, then it would tend to favor the idea it was humanoids who migrated... although one would have to assume they had no vocabulary. While it is far more likely multiple languages already existed (the alternative explanation) - meaning then it was more likely humans who migrated - a couple more points before that is addressed.
Although the slow development of speaking abilities would support the idea that humans ‘evolved’, it is doubtful these sub-humans - now separated by long distances - would all become humans (with speaking abilities) by coincidence. Surely the homo erectus in Asia didn’t become ‘Asian humans’, nor did the homo erectus in Europe become ‘European humans’, nor did the homo erectus in Africa become ’African humans’. Being far apart they would have evolved differently (if they evolved at all).
Perhaps though, ’evolution’ works differently than thought. It could be a case of different evolutionary processes… some species being immutable (i. e., most reptiles), some being more influenced than others (by the scientifically accepted factors) and, possibly, some being ’destined’.
Of course, being “destined to acquire certain characteristics” hasn’t been a theory thrown around much before (if at all). No one seems to have ever seriously considered it as a possibility. While that's not necessarily being advocated here, it’s a notion that could coexist with the actualities of evolution… would explain things better. At least generally. While scientists have gotten portions of the evolutionary processes right, the notion that humans evolved from primates is simply ‘pseudoscience‘. It is simply wrong… the similarities between humans and primates (or even homo erectus) are merely a coincidence. But in allowing for the possibility we evolved from homo erectus, it's only conceivable if “destined to acquire certain characteristics” was the case.
However, in considering homo erectus existed only during earth's ancient past, there’s no supporting evidence humans have been around for more than 20,000 years (if that long). And, since science has never produced the ’missing link’ tying homo sapiens (humans) to any sub-human species (i.e. homo erectus), 'Divine Creation‘ is the only other viable explanation. Furthermore, since humans haven’t changed in the last 7,000 years (since the pyramid-building days) - and with no evidence they were any different earlier - it suggests humans are effectively immutable (minor variations the exception - the ebb and flow of subtle differences is normal in all species).
While there seems no logical reason to greatly alter a language, a lot
can happen to it over the course of centuries. Regional dialects can
develop and probably the greatest contributor to changes. But
refinements and the inclusion of foreign terms can also have a great
affect. For example, modern English wasn’t developed until the 12th
century… being a blend of Old English, French, German and a little
Latin. Before that however, the origins of the different languages are
just everyone’s best guess… nobody on earth knows for sure. While the
original language (if there was one) might have been terribly lacking,
what could possibly be lacking with its nouns? At least the nouns should
Since virtually none did, this is strong evidence there never was a single ‘original language’… and since humans and languages walk hand-in-hand, there were already different languages in their homeland when they dispersed. It would explain the differences which then persisted.
The development of written languages would have largely halted the processes of change however. It makes the language ‘official’ (thus stable) and that first began to occur around 3000 BC (the Sumerians). But for the original lexicographers and their dictionaries, depending on how a word was pronounced would affect how it was written. So, as to the extent languages changed geographically would depend on how long humans existed before a pronounceable alphabet was accessible.
Determining whether there was a ‘single original language’ or ‘multiple original languages’ would tell us a lot about our origins. But there is another reason to rule out a single language… it spells a single pair of breeding humans which in turn spells interbreeding (which can or will doom a species).
However, the possibilities are practically endless in how more than one language can arise out of a single pair.
One such speculative but simple scenario would be this… to guard against
interbreeding God would have created multiple pairs of humans. Moreover,
the different languages which ultimately developed would mean these
humans appeared in different locations some distance apart (otherwise
the different clans would have spoken the same language).
But who can say what God did? The chances are the process was far more complicated (for example, if genes are more erratic in prototypes requiring only one pair). Yet, however these multiple pairs were created - whether directly or later through the prototype's children or grandchildren - the end result is effectively the same.
If based on the 12 phylum of languages (Merritt Ruhlen‘s theory although as controversial as anyone‘s) would suggest there were 12 pair. However, the major races (Caucasian, Negroid and Asian) would say there were only three pair. Some races might not have survived however while others may have been just less distinguishable (as in today’s Arabs, Indians and Indonesians for example). But whatever the number, it doesn’t tell us whether they were humans or humanoids (to leave in that possibility). What clues would?
While homo erectus specimens such as Peking Man, Turkana Boy and the recent discovery of one in Russia obviously once existed, there’s just too much of a time span between those ape-like humanoids and evidence of the first human beings to believe them as progenitors. These humanoids lived roughly a million years ago whereas humans have only been proven to be a recent phenomenon. In the great void in-between, nothing has ever been discovered even remotely resembling a link. Zilch, nada.
The 150 year-old challenge to Charles Darwin's evolutionists of “where’s the missing link?” still haunts. DNA proves nothing either - it only proves coincidence. In the greater scheme however, that most all creatures have eyes, ears of sorts, a nose of sorts and a tasting tongue is not a coincidence. It is pretty much 'standard issue'. Science's ‘tree of life’ is nothing more than a forced fit like so many other scientific force-fits... the Stone Age timeline for example. Nor are there any inheritable genes to explain the exclusive traits of humans such as honor, compassion or intellect. In fact, there are no such genes at all.
But having some faith in science, the evidence is more solid humans have only been around for about 12,000-15,000 years.
But can the scientific timelines be trusted? As will be addressed shortly, the means for measuring could be more error-prone than thought… especially concerning the age of a rock and therefore a petrified fossil. That they can determine the age of a rock amidst a mountain of rocks would seem absurd.
Of course, there could be other reasons for these different languages.
Although no evidence exists, some believe the various peoples came from
different planets. For good reason however, humans don’t seem to belong
to this plant and animal kingdom called earth. We don’t fit in.
And, that we ‘don’t fit in’ would seem to be another clue. Being so profoundly different than earth’s plants and animals, it certainly describes us as ‘aliens‘ doesn‘t it? We stick out like a sore thumb... certainly it could be said we’re the fly in the ointment. We’ve upset the whole system, thrown it out of balance.
This clue doesn’t point to the reasoning behind it however… why humans exist on earth. For that question, the Bible has its version as does Greek mythology although it’s not really ‘myth’ - its allegories are just more imaginative than those in the Bible. Later tinkering was the cause for the excesses. Anyway, that's another subject.
In essence then… aside from languages and that ‘we don’t fit in’ there may be dozens of other things we never thought to consider. Or what we are considering might be based on faulty information. For example, there’s a good chance many scientific timelines are wrong… like the age of the universe, sun and earth. Of course, this could affect assessments on how long humans (or any living creature) have been around.
The scientific constants used to measure may not be as dependable as thought. They may not always apply. For example, radiocarbon dating may be influenced in more ways than known. For one, to possibly skew the analysis who knows how many nearby fires (producing carbon residue) might have occurred over the centuries? Perhaps too the speed of light isn’t always reliable. Although just hypothetical, who can say, for example, it isn’t affected by time (’older‘ light might be either slower or faster than ‘newer‘ light). Perhaps dark matter also has an effect. In short, measuring methods have not been tested against everything.
On the other hand, knowing what life is about could change everything. Or even having greater knowledge. For example, the possibility exists that life is a ‘dimension’. Or, that life is a ’hologram’. But if to ever get anywhere would first require, among other things, the correct analysis of our instincts, subconscious mind, sixth sense and the phenomenon of dreaming. Proof of ‘instantaneous creation’ would at least settle one argument.
But until then we can only go with the knowledge at our disposal...
future curve balls be damned. So… has anyone ever correctly analyzed all
the clues and then considered them all at once?
It’s a matter of holding the thoughts about dozens of different things at the same time to form a picture. However, being so dependent on moods and memory it can be very difficult to capture and hold a multitude of thoughts at the same time… especially when just one can be so fleeting. It’s like trying to hold horses, pigs, chickens, sheep, turkeys and goats all in a place with no fence during a blizzard.
Gotta be a hell of a cowboy for this kind of a roundup.
Yet, that’s what it will take… it’s the ‘formula’.
That’s why the theory of evolution as it pertains to humans is surely wrong… because it only takes a few factors into consideration. It is shallow-mindedness. For that matter, scientists haven’t even got ’evolution’ completely right yet… the truth is that it varies among species. It ranges from being immutable to species that can rapidly mutate (canines are highly affected by crossbreeding) and there are probably dozens of types in-between.
A good beginning is to quit listening to the scientists… the scientific mindset has no room for metaphysics (the greater realities). They relish only in their mechanical explanations. And, in lacking the greater aspects, their versions of the life-related realities amounts to pseudoscience. Book it… about almost everything life-related they’d be wrong.
Of course, their career depends on them sticking to the same story.
While a line-shack mentality is something cowboys often develop when
isolated in a line-shack on a ranch, a backwoodsman or a relatively
isolated person often develops it as well. Being isolated makes one
think differently as a result of sharing their space with God instead of
people. Of course, cavemen would have been
first to recognize this curiosity.
This type of mentality would freely affirm life comes from the ethereal - not from anyplace in particular .So, to them, the question “where did we come from?” would depend on what one means by “we“. Linage and genealogy, in other words, only concerns the body. It really isn’t ‘us’. (see my theory of cohabitation in the article "Human Evolution, Creationism and a Mind Possessed")
But in considering the human subconsciousness a different matter (being
‘life’) and setting it aside - the human body also came from ‘out of the
blue’ largely because of ‘Divine Creation’. So, as to ‘where’ humans
came from, whenever that happened would be the answer (because
out-of-the-blue doesn't tell us much).
From the information provided in the Old Testament, Adam and Eve were created around 6,000 years ago. However, it appears the Old Testament only traced those associated with the Jewish religion (who were not necessarily Jewish themselves but the linage thereof).
But whether 6,000 years ago, 12 or 20, further contemplation of languages should yield more information. Then, of course, there are those forgotten clues and those yet to surface. The jury is still out… this article largely being just food for thought.
The oldest known structure is the stone
tower in Jericho (8000 BC) and to hazard a guess only about a thousand
years earlier was when humans first appeared. On the outside, 2-3 thousand.
While it would have only taken them less than a hundred years to develop
the building skills - at least for this first project - for a variety of
reasons their building aspirations would have to wait.
For one, it would take far longer than a hundred years to create a civilized society of any size. Building something aesthetically grand would require a labor pool while at the same time make sense (the population would largely determine the appropriateness).
In other words, although the Egyptian pyramids exemplifies best this ancient ‘building revolution’ (a phenomenon likened to the ‘industrial revolution’ of the 19th century), calculating backwards from its very beginnings one can estimate when humans first appeared (whether by divine creation or otherwise).
After all, being so imaginative, creative, industrious and driven - human characteristics since the very beginning (deny that if you can) - only un-conducive circumstances and the hurdles encountered would hold humans back. For a timeline, it’s just a matter of imagining and factoring in those obstacles.
However, it wouldn’t be necessary to affix a lifespan for each obstacle - all would exist (or end) within the timeframe of the last obstacle… probably being the one that endured longest. Most likely it would be the needed population although that would encompass the question of what was thought appropriate. Would it take 10,000 people living close together or 50,000?
Other factors could string out the decision to build for several generations as well. Perhaps the individual with the idea (the spark) had not yet surfaced. Wars or plagues could also delay it. But still, by calculating the population growth mathematicians could get pretty close… maybe within 500 years. Sociologists - who know a bit about the habits of men - might be able to narrow it down even further.
Critical for accuracy however is knowing what was built first and when. Perhaps the stone tower in Jericho wasn’t first or else the timeline is wrong. Still, there is no better way than using the beginnings of the building revolution to estimate the time of man’s appearance. It is key… a monstrous clue with flashing lights, blaring horns and signal flares.
As more evidence man is a fairly recent phenomenon, his aggressive (doggedly) nature and wasting time don't mix. He is a phenomenon after all, so different, so alien, so intertwined with God.
Last modified: 03/09/16