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.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.