Darwin, this name to some people signifies the god of evolutionary theory. I guess that if you were to ask 90 percent of scientists about evolution, they probably would state that Darwin was right on the money. Here is the thing and I have said this before, if a discovery is made in any scientific field that does not fit into the accepted method of things, most of the time it is just disregarded by the bulk of the scientific community. Nowhere is this more evident, than when we study where we came from. This article will not deal with those that agree with Darwin, the 90%, it will deal with those that are either not sure or disagree with him. First I would like to ask a question, if I said to you, construct a series of skeletons from remains that show the evolution of man and you had unlimited resources to do so, don't you think that that you might be able to assemble them in a series that might look evolutionary? You probably would, but does this mean that this is the way things actually happened? First of all, you would have had a preconceived notion that man evolved and you would just be fitting things into this notion as evidence, you would not have started with a blank slate, as you should have. Darwin was a very smart man and suggested two important terms to us. The first was survival of the fittest and the second was natural selection.

What does natural selection mean exactly? It means that organisms that survive are the best equipped to survive, because they are the strongest both physically and mentally. Is this really the case? Why is it that after all the time man has been on the Earth, there are some very sick individuals that are part of our population, if this is true? The human race, even taken as a whole, was certainly not the strongest race on Earth. They were the smartest, as far as we can determine today, however. Being smart does not make a person fit. It does help them to survive. So what does this leave us with, a non fit person who has brains? Does this fit the explanation of what Darwin had to say, I don't think so? Then there is natural selection. Webster's online dictionary describes it as, "a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment". Well wouldn't this seem to rule out things like hypertension, cancer, mental illness and other such maladies? This is certainly not the case for humans, is it? Every day people are marrying that have all sorts of diseases and I bet this has been going on since the human race first stepped on this planet. How does this confirm natural selection? It doesn't.

Evidence has been found that indicates that a race of giants lived on this planet. Some of their skeletons have been found, but this has mostly been disregarded by the scientific community. If these giants were as smart as us and there is no reason to believe otherwise, why didn't they reproduce to such an extent that they took over the planet? Think about it, if they were as smart as us and far stronger because of their size, wouldn't they have been more fit than us? This would have given credence to the theory of survival of the fittest, wouldn't it? If one giant would have been found, then we could have said that it was an abnormality, after all this happens from time to time, but when you find a site that has many graves of giants, then you have to wonder, don't you? A group of Russian scientists went on an expedition to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt in 2005. They claim to have discovered several graves of giants. Some of the mounds in the mid west United States have yielded the skeletons of giants, people about 8 feet tall or taller. Where did these people come from and how come there are none of them alive today? I could be wrong, but the way I look at things, we should all be giants by now, if survival of the fittest was true. We should also be the picture of health and have a life span far longer than we do. Do we have any other evidence that giants existed on this Earth? We sure do, it is in the form of ancient, huge stone tools, such as extremely large hand axes and such. These were far to heavy for the average person to wield. The person using them would have to be a giant.

Recent DNA tests have shown that we are not descendants of Neanderthal men or women. It is true that they are going to test again, but every test, so far, as come to the same conclusion. Nethenderthals were on this planet for about 500,000 years, far longer than the scientists say that modern man was. Because of this, Darwinists state that the tree of man branched off. Does this have to be true? No where in any of this, is there any allowance for the fact that modern man may have come from somewhere else. Am I saying that we are all aliens? No, but I am saying that maybe we should keep this possibility open. I mean, for all we know, we could be what is left of the Martians. Maybe some got off the planet before it turned into what it is now. They might have come to Earth and started a new race. Sure it sounds far out, but all possibilities should be considered. We should never look at things with a closed mind. I think that one of the worst things a scientist can do, or any person for that matter, is form a conclusion before he determines all the possibilities. Today we are a little more open to the fact that life may exist on other planets. In the time of Darwin, this wasn't even a thought. To me, this makes Darwin's theories hobbled by the beliefs of his time.

Whether one believes in creationism or not, is not the point here. The point that I am trying to make is that there are many other things that could have led to us being here. Creationism might be one of them, but it certainly is not the only choice. When we talk about man's origin on Earth, we are not necessarily talking about how he was created, we are talking about why he is here. This may be an entirely different thing than asking how he was created. If he came from somewhere else and settled here, that might explain how he got here, but it wouldn't explain how we was created. If man didn't come from anywhere else and just appeared here, then we would have to say that creationism is correct. If he just appeared on another planet and then came here, the creationists would still be right. Here is the thing, when we talk about God, we usually base what we say on the bible. While the bible has a very good record of being right historically, a lot of material was left out of it. Who is to say whether some of that material might be correct and should have been included. When we look at things on the whole, are the stories there meant to be literally correct, or are they more like lessons to us. There are a lot of stories in ancient tales that preceded those in the bible, but were very similar. So much so, that it seems that some of the stories in the bible may have come from them. This in itself might be ok, since the stories may be correct. Look at the flood tales that exist in almost every culture. They sort of prove that there was a great flood, don't they.

Every time I hear about Darwin and how sure he was that we evolved from nothing to reach where we are, I have to think of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The dinosaur display there is one of the biggest in the world. For over 30 years the scientists there were sure that the display was correct, then suddenly they realized that some of the creatures had the wrong heads on them and they had to switch them. Well, couldn't Darwin have the wrong heads, figuratively speaking? I think that there is so much more to be considered today than there was in his time, that his theories should be reconsidered. At the very least, DNA research should be undertaken into the so called chain of modern man. It would be difficult because those old bones are very hard to get DNA from, but wouldn't it be worth it? Hey it could turn out that we are not related to any of those other creatures that are said to be our ancestors. Wouldn't that set science on its collective ear?