Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Evolution: Inception, Deception and Corruption

Important: this is nothing more than my own personal anecdotal evaluation of evolution. It isn't from an informed or even particularly interested perspective. It isn't meant to be a technical oriented debate for which I am admittedly unprepared to engage in. You can't ask for anything more from me. It is what it is.

[b][c=A69800]I'M MAKING NO CLAIMS[/c][/b]

I offer only my uninformed opinion based upon personal experience and what little knowledge I've been presented with over time. For my own possible instruction through any correction in response. I'm pretty confident that no one here will agree with my conclusions.

Evolution is an ancient philosophy. Evolutionists are often surprised upon learning of Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, and Aristotle's primitive contributions. @newjaninev2 has mentioned, and I agree, that Darwin didn't "invent" evolution and there was something going on between the ancients and Darwin. What that is, I don't know, perhaps newjan can inform us.

From the ancient philosophical perspective I see evolution in its primitive rudimentary form, well, as purely philosophical. Epistemological.

Definitions are . . . .

Philosophy: the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.

Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

What I think happened is that with the first industrial revolution the aristocracy began rightfully to question the oppressive and repressive paradigm of theocracy.

Aristocracy: the highest class in certain societies, especially those holding hereditary titles or offices.

Theocracy: a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

Perhaps elite would be more accurate than aristocracy.

Elite: a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.

In short, power shifted from the priest to the intelligentsia.

Intelligentsia: intellectuals or highly educated people as a group, especially when regarded as possessing culture and political influence.

Even that is problematic because the intelligentsia had been the theocracy until their influence began to wane. So it was a class struggle.

Class: the system of ordering a society in which people are divided into sets based on perceived social or economic status.

The objective was to diminish God.

The advent of steam powered machines, though not incorporated on land in the UK, had a global impact on this alleged struggle in two ways that I can see. The obvious resulting mass migration introducing and popularizing alternative and/or atheistic belief systems and more interesting, the availability of exotic animals touring internationally, especially in the puritanical US.

It was common to cover even piano legs with clothing to maintain pure intentions. A favorite among the aforementioned exotic animals was the chimpanzee, who was dressed in human attire for comical and puritanical reasons.

They look so human. Darwin believed that monkeys, apes and humans must have a common ancestor because of our great similarities compared to other species.

The objective, or motive, if you like, for the struggle having been established all that was needed was to fill in the gaps, no pun intended.
Imsleepy · 31-35
[quote] I offer only my uninformed opinion[/quote] Hey, at least you were honest.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@DocSavage [quote]You should read the responses I’ve been getting. Everyone is either stupid, misinformed, or both. Except him , of course.[/quote]

No. Including me. I've been pretty clear about that. Not that that would be necessary . . . TO ANY SENSIBLE PERSON!

[Laughs]
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino [quote] I asked for and accepted it[/quote]

You made absolutely no reference to the evidence I gave you.

You got as far away from that evidence as possible.

You offered no conclusions from that evidence.

You failed to offer a better (or indeed any other) explanation for that evidence.

So... let’s do it again, and see how you go
DocSavage · M
Your objective is to diminish science it seems.
Why ? Are you hoping that by bringing up corporations and corruption on the part of the corporate, you can change the equations back in favor of god ? Is that what you consider to be the issue ? A competition as to which is true ? You lose in the end.
The corruption you speak of, doesn’t change the science itself. Nor does it add to the credibility of your god. Science however is true, for all such beliefs. You have to compete not only with science, but all other religions as well. A task, no living person can accomplish.
redredred · M
@AkioTsukino You just pile meaningless words on top of irrational conclusions making no sense and contradicting yourself constantly. I still want to know, was it a head injury or a neurological infection that you suffered?
This message was deleted by its author.
redredred · M
@AkioTsukino Ahhh, the race card. I knew you’d step into it eventually. Thank for essentially admitting you have no rational case to make. Apology accepted.
DocSavage · M
[quote] Just checked google. According to it, there are 8.7 million species of animals today. How many pairs of them do you realistically believe could fit on Noah’s ark ?
You will notice , I said species , not kinds. Since you do not acknowledge evolution, Noah would have to take two of every animal. Species might evolve after leaving the ark, but not according to you. Especially difficult if you include extinct animals, like dinosaurs as many creationist do.
You might shave off a few of the aquatic species, but that depends if your water canopy is fresh water or salt water. ( don’t get me started on the physics on that one ) makes a big difference to marine life.
Then of course, there’s some of the basics. You need food and fresh drinking water for a year at least, without and way of preserving it. You got tons of shit, and only one skylight for ventilation. In such cramp conditions, most of the animals would be dead within the week, at best.
This is assuming that the whole ark , didn’t break apart, and sink from the weight on day one.
And of course, since all plant life would be destroyed after being under water for so long, the remaining animals would end up killing each other to survive after landing.
How does the Bible explain away these things.
That’s what I meant about numbers. They just don’t add up.
[/quote]
I’ve been reading and watching your post and threads. You already said in one of them , you don’t even understand how evolution works. You rejected the explanations given and the evidence shown.
The objective is not to diminish god. ( you already did that ) the object is to live in the real world. To see the bigger picture.
You know, there’s more to life than just god.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
Darwin's great success is directly attributed to British imperialism. The Brits wanted to justify their empire so they claimed to be higher on the evolutionary ladder than say the black skinned people of Africa whom they viewed as being more closely related to gorillas than to humans. Of course the Christian ideal of no race or gender or creed as all are one in Christ Jesus had to be eliminated so Darwin's theory helped in that department as well. If there was no God then any words written in the Bible could be dismissed/cherry picked at will. There was no science behind either the ancient Greek or the modern evolutionists and the more science that is being done the more evidence we are finding for God. Sy Garte and James Tour can give you the rundown on biochemistry and the impossibility of life ever starting through purely 'natural' means.
DocSavage · M
[quote] But you aren't a scientist. Science is distorted by militant radical fundamentalist atheists in a religious fervor. That's what you are. So they can do away with God. That is what baffles me about them. If they don't want gods all they have to do is not have gods. They don't want anyone else to have gods. Because gods get in the way of their religion.[/quote]

Does anyone else here, enjoy the incredible hypocrisy.
@redredred I don't know who this was addressed to, but I never join groups, it leads to or facilitates group think. Plus, if I was ignorant enough to think there were no gods I wouldn't see the logic in objecting to them any more than I would Santa Claus, rotary engines or pitri dishes. Even if I personally had no gods. That would seem petty, hypocritical, xenophobic, ignorant and pointless to me.

On the other hand, so would objecting to a No-Gods-Club. You see what I did there? I took the sociopolitical bullshit out of my life and replaced it with a deep sigh of contentment. I freed myself from ideological fixations.
redredred · M
@AkioTsukino You should free yourself from the remaining mass of psychological defects apparent in virtually everything you write.
This message was deleted by its author.
DocSavage · M
Why not just admit, that society and cultures evolved too ? Evolution is change over time. History is the same. It’s the nature of life. Beliefs, government, war, technology, education, politics, pandemics, all part of the changing times. Dark ages, revolution, reform, corruption, all cycles.
Not the fished product.
[quote]I'M MAKING NO CLAIMS[/quote]
*proceeds to make a series of claims*

 
Post Comment