A Layman's Theories on Scientific Theories

In New Mexico, the events surrounded William Bonny, a.k.a. Billy the Kid. On the Outlaw Trail, it was Butch and Sundance. Over in Arizona it was the Earp brothers and Doc Holiday. We all know the old west stories. They have inspired many memorable novels and Hollywood films. The stories and legends best known to us are largely embellishment, but there has been serious research to decipher fact from legend. What we find is that after the fiction is set aside, there is very little evidence of what really happened in these peoples' lives. During the few decades that these outlaws operated, they had railroads, telegraphs and newspapers, in other words mass communication. The railroad delivered current news and information from coast to coast within a couple of weeks, the telegraph within hours. While it cannot be compared with the split second capabilities of today's telecommunication and internet systems, in their day these advances were the latest in technology. Also consider that by then they could keep accurate records, time and many other elements of information. Despite all this capability at the time, researchers today often resort to theory when explaining the lives of these outlaws. The events took place less than 125 years ago, and we still debate whether Butch and Sundance died in the Bolivian outback or not. Butch's sister admitted to seeing him in the 1920's, but even after digging up a Bolivian grave and DNA testing, there is still no conclusive proof either way. The people involved with these events are long gone, and the remaining evidence left is open to question.

Now let us go back a mere five hundred years to South America. According to science, the great civilizations in this area are showing the first signs of decay. One civilization has already fallen hundreds of years earlier. Communication was limited to local populations unless sent on foot to and from other tribes. Most people here were supposedly illiterate. Only special dignitaries could read stones engraved with symbols. The most we know about these people are only from their conqueror's pen. The Spaniards subsequently destroyed or melted down everything else other than the useless carved stones. At least some natives were literate and able to read the strange symbols of their history, but that ability was mostly lost in the forced conversion to Christianity. Before the European invasion, the story in the Americas remains sketchy, but this does not stop researchers from culling their alleged factoids and making suppositions. Looking further back in time to the opposite side of the world, where humanity blossomed from, the suppositions grow more numerous.

There are many archeological documentaries on television to get the idea. Watch and listen closely. The explanations usually begin with, "We believe" or "We think". As the interview progresses the language in their suppositions becomes more definitive, sometimes even sounding downright factual. The problem of course, is that their speculations rely on the entrusted theory of how humans evolved. How can facts derive from theories? The theories do make sense. Nevertheless, they are admittedly only theories in the end. Now it is difficult to dismiss the archeological evidence standing before our eyes, but are we sure that the interpretations and timetables are positively correct? Unless we were actually there when the stone was dressed, how can we be so positive that we know the intention of its making? Is our interpretation from satisfaction in assuming humans were the only thinking people here? Is this why we believe the primitives worshipped insect gods when we study their artifacts? Were the natives so dumb as to look at a flying bug they could stomp out with their foot, and worship it as a god? Why is it when we look at wondrous ancient buildings we explain it away with slave labor? Are we too proud to admit that there may have been a race greater than humans, at the time?

Science is similar to religion in this respect. They tell us to believe they are right, even in the face of opposing possibilities. There is something wrong with such tactics. No disrespectful intentions, but it is like a donkey that refuses to get up and move on because it prefers the coolness of the mud it is sitting in. The problem is that the donkey does not go forward. If the commonly accepted theories are possible, can a layman's be too? A layman does not determine the scientific technologies required to accomplish certain abilities. It does not require predetermined timetables. So far, the only thing we know is one day this current version of human just showed up. Knowing what science knows today, surely anything is possible. So let us consider our human ancestors. You know the more primitive ones. Our ancestors supposedly built huge structures we would take great pains today in duplicating, and they did it with only crude hammers, chisels and logs. These people achieved all this even though we consider ourselves more advanced. How plausible does that sound? There is a vast amount of explanations as to how this came about. Archeology has documented the learning curve through the centuries with artifacts.

Take Egypt for example. The accepted explanation is that the primitive pyramids in the surrounding area of Giza's Great Pyramids are the earliest. These tiny, less advanced structures represent early attempts before learning the skills required to build the great ones. These are the accepted facts, but consider this. What if it were the other way around? Were the more primitive pyramids erected by humans an attempt to replicate something they had seen their gods do before? Most of the smaller complexes uncovered around the Great Pyramids are enclosed mud and brick living quarters. Some say that these buildings may have been the workers' residences. Unfortunately, there is not enough living space for the needed mass of laborers envisioned by the accepted theory of construction. The buildings may have been living quarters for the stonemasons but could there another reason for them being there? Could they have been constructed by others wandering through the area in later centuries? Maybe they decided to erect a village in the shade of the unexplainable structures. Another thing, does it not seem strange that the pyramids are essentially solid with no steps? We do know that flat bricks of limestone once covered the pyramids.

The Sphinx is solid too, although there is a chamber now believed to be underneath its foot. Some think that the sphinx is even more ancient than the pyramids. Why did they exert so much effort to only place blocks atop another? There are tunnels and chambers within the pyramids of course. These chambers are supposed to be secret access chambers to the king's tomb. If tomb robbing was a known occurrence at the time, why were the pyramids not built closer to a more protective major city, and why such a large and obvious burial chamber? This can be in part due to the King's ego, but no one needed a treasure map to find these things. You could see the Great Pyramids for miles. Unless they were guarded twenty-four hours a day, anyone could walk up and start digging away. Would they not have learned this all by then, from their supposedly previous attempts? If the pyramids' purpose was to protect the king and his treasure, they fail miserably in location and security. Maybe the importance of pyramids and kings had faded. This seems like a possible explanation for the pyramids' eventual abandonment, maybe.

Seen from a layman's view, the most outstanding feature of these supposed burial tombs is the basic simplicity of the chambers. Thieves may have taken precious jewels and golden statues, but did they steal the usually exquisite and colorful paintings on their walls too? The tomb decorations are important guides for the deceased on their journey to the underworld. Egyptian burial chambers are normally carved, and painted elaborately. They contain images of important accomplishments of the deceased. During the dignitary's life, their tombs were constructed. Upon their death, many rituals were required before entombing them. The wall decorations were a key feature in these rituals. There is nothing of the kind in any of the Great Pyramids. They may have picked the chambers clean, but thieves usually did not bother with the religious paintings and decorations until much later. When tombs eventually are found by archeologists all that usually remain are the decorations.

Maybe the grandeur of later burial chambers was a replacement for the imposing pyramids of the past, but it is odd that nothing decorates the Great Pyramids at all. There is no writing, paintings, names or otherwise. Some point to the graffiti in the upper chamber. We are supposed to believe that a measly enslaved stonemason is the only one to think of honoring the deceased royalty. Writing could have been on the original limestone bricks, but are we really sure? There is something more to these pyramids than meets the eyes. Even the sphinx is a more elaborate structure, but it is not a burial chamber. Seeing them all with simple layman's eyes, they look more like buried toys in a child's sandbox. Researchers believe there was a time when this wasteland of sand was a green and fertile valley. Were these the tallest structures to withstand whatever calamity took place here? Could it be that what we are looking at are actually the tops of a buried city? Under the millennium of shifting Egyptian sands, are there the remnants of a unknown civilization waiting to be discovered? Other structures may only lay hundreds of feet below. Current archeological digs around the small living complexes could literally be only scratching the surface. The riddle of the sphinx now becomes clearer. If a great city does lie underneath, the pyramids are just merely capstones of buildings. There would be no need to decorate inside. No one was supposed to see the interior.

Could this layman's theory be possible? It may sound far fetched, but considering how little we really know about the origins of ancient civilizations, what we do know relies mostly on assumption. This is just one example in a world of ancient questions. A scientific approach of discovering the truth is a very good one indeed. This is not a damnation of the process or the results. Like religion, science also has self-imposed barriers to overcome that are based on unproven assumption. In compromising, it must come from both sides. We must establish a middle ground. Think of it, acceptance that there could very well be something to the religious stories and myths might lead to increased knowledge and understanding. Creation could be the answer after all. If that is so, the ancient artifacts and evidence could reveal things we never anticipated. It could have far reaching implications to our long entrusted theory of evolution. Another similarity that science has with religion is faith. We have faith in what we have determined to be the facts, unproven as some may be. It is in an organized and proper format, approved and accepted by learned scholars. In most cases, this is perfectly acceptable. In some instances, it can be an impediment. Sometimes science seems over-enamored with the human experience. We are the center of the universe. God and myths are only the creation of our superior minds, and yet they keep preaching about the possibilities of advanced civilizations in outer space. Scientists still attempt to make contact with them to this day. How can an outer space civilization be possible and not ancient astronauts on earth creating humans? Science will occasionally become stuck in its own validity and importance, at times huffily explaining away anything that does not meet its accepted criteria.

Are they like this at all times? This is definitely not the case. There are researchers out there charting new ways in thinking. Already archeologists are discovering new finds that change the perceptions we had before. Many known facts have been unquestionably validated. Like God, is science all seeing, all knowing? This is most definitely not true. Scientists are humans, and humans get it right and get it wrong. The earth is flat. Machines are not possible. The Titanic will never sink. Humans cannot fly. Outer space is unreachable. At the time, educated experts had faith in these opinions. What was then, now is. What we once thought before can eventually change. If we continue to cling on to old ideas and dismiss any alternative notions, how can we really move forward? Considering a different beginning for human existence can only help in understanding why we are here. Science can make this possibility explainable, and remove it from the preconceived notion that the idea is nonsense. Could we not at least consider it?