Questioner
Senior Member
- Nov 26, 2019
- 1,593
- 85
- 50
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #21
And who cares? Evolution is a multiculturalist theory, hailing back to 15th - 19th century Britain, and Francis Bacon's scientific methodology - outside of that relatively tiny industry, it's no more valid or relevant than any other silly theory, or body of mathematical approximation or abstraction.You fail to understand what "proven" means. All you did is make a simplistic assertion or argument from authority fallacy on the basis of something or another.Evolution's just an ugly, little archaic 19th century theory for the most part, assuming that it wasn't just stolen from better variants on evolutiary thought to begin with.All the theory of evolution is about is our common ancestry, most of what passes for "evolutionary" discussion on the anti-intellectual mass media is just childish nonsense, rhetoric, marketing, and general aesthetic repellence for and by the aesthetically repellant.
Creation, as I've aptly demonstrated, is the superior philosophical theory in pretty much every area there is, if it weren't for "ugly people", I bet that 99% percent of the childish popular discussions about "evolution" (or de-volution, more appropriately, given the digusting and devolved nature of most of its fetishizers) would cease to exist.
I don't believe the theory of evolution. Perhaps for the animal kingdom. Man was greated by a God, remember Genesis?
Most of what passes on the archaic mass media about ugly-lution is just dated 19th century propaganda for people who can't read, or only read at the 6th grade level, and haven't intellectually evolved past the archaism of the 19th century to begin with.
In it's dumbed down popular incarnations, it's basically just a "religion" for ugly and socially worthless people, ironically the most devolved members of society fetishize it in the most unhealthy ways; I suppose even the ugly, hideous, and archaic need a "god", or a "sky daddy" of sort, when in reality most of their childish little views have more in common with a Ninja Turtles cartoon than anything else, including more contemporary books and writings on evolutionary thought itself, some useful information it does contain, though arguably said information was better socially contextualized in the legal philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes and other evolutionary thinkers, than that archaic old Codger Darwin, who if he didn't outright steal and plagiarize his theories from better authors, was at most someone in the 19th century who had barely even caught up to what had been postulated and a component of traditional folk wisdoms, some of which were even "religious" in their nature, since as early as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers.
Evolution was proven by Richard Lenski's E-Coli experiments.
Evolution, as in Darwin's theories thereof is "multicultural", in the sense that it's one of many of the theories that falls within the scope of the Englishman's Francis Bacon's scientific methodology.
So you prove yourself a fraud, having no problem with multiculturalism or the appropriation of theories from the English-speaking or Western world.
As far as Baconian scientific theories just being little approximations from mathematics, many of which are highly dated, hailing from the 19th century or before, at least as far as outdated popular media on the subjects go, they're not particularly significant except to superstitious people who voyeurize mass media and simplistic arguments from authority on the subject or subjects in question.
Outside of the very limited scope in which Baconian scientific theories are used for their pragmatic purposes, akin to other theories, or bodies of mathematical approximation and abstraction, they aren't significant at all, their popular appeal just being the result of uneducated people voyeurizing the mass media and propaganda than any meaningful claim to legitimacy or authority outside of that very limited context.
The theory of Common Law, for example in the English-Speaking world, likely has more direct impact and bearing on everyday life, than silly and outdated popular speculations about evolution and silly things like that anyway, other than in the case of uneducated voyeurs and fetishists who spend more time fetishizing their childish, ugly, and archaic speculations about the subject in question than they do any actual "evolving", or (consensual) mating, reproduction, things like that - almost insinuating the idea that learning about evolution to begin with is worthless, since more often than not it seems to have a negative correlation with actual mating, survival, reproduction and things like that, as opposed to other and likely aesthetically superior pursuits to begin with, such as arts, sports, and music, or other mathematical and intuitive endeavors.
We share 50% of our DNA with a Banana.
As a Slav, you can't even make any assertions on the basis of evolution within Francis Bacon's natural sciences anyway, given that they originated in Britain and Western Europe; so all of your childish assertions on "evolution" further prove how much of a multiculturalist you are.
No. It's a childish and overrated theory for simple and superstitious people, having been a component of folk wisdom and various strains of evotuionary thought since as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and others; long before Darwin stole it, that's all it is.Get over it, Evolution is supported.
Most of the nonsense you and other uneducated and superstitious people read or learn about it isn't even contemporary anyway, it's just outdated information from outdated 19th century theorization and such. Computer sciences will likely just render those archaic natural sciences more or less obsolete anyway, as far as new areas of learning and discovery in the 21st century and information age. They'll be regarded as archaic as alchemy is, outside perhaps of whatever trivial pragmatic purposes they serve within the small context of their own industries.
The structuralist-systematic philosophy of Creation, is arguably intellectually and aesthetically superior in pretty much every area, in regards man and womankind's place in the cosmos.