#Evolution vs creationism

[the-idiot-17]

ok Ima say something a little controversial

why do people look at evolution as If it is steadfast knowledge? I mean evolution does have ground, yes, but to say evolution is 100% proven to be true would be false.

I could make the same argument for creationism btw, "Oh but look at all this evidence toward a creator" yes yes evidence exists for both cases but that's not my point

My point is that people blindly put faith in a system of science that is a THEORY, evolution is a theoretical possibility for how the world came to be just as creationism is a theoretical possibility.

As I just pointed out yes there us evidence but evidence is nothing without the big picture. We have no clue how the world actually came to be and we shouldn't be fighting eachother over it.

A true scientist would go out of their way learn everything they can about the known universe and pick up all the little clues before deciding whether or not to support evolution theory or creation theory, it's basic math. (The dyscalcular person says)

All I'm saying is that I believe we let our views of the world get mixed too much into science, of course a Christian is more likely to study creationism and of course an atheist is more likely to study evolution. I'm not saying people don't do otherwise I'm just saying that's the most likely to be true.

Also as people who are not of science, we need to stop blindly trusting the world when it says the earth was made this way or that.

For hundreds of years people believed the sun circled the earth, they even has false evidence to prove themselves correct.

Im not saying that the sun circles the earth, I'm just saying that I believe everything and anything has the chance to be wrong, any if our world views could be shattered at any point in time.

Any thanks for listening to my Ted talk, I'm not a scientist, I'm a 15 year old sitting in my room ranting about shut I don't know.

Dont come after me.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

“Either a story conceived almost 2000 years ago is made up, or every credible scientist in the last 150 years is incompetent.“

[shushmal]

Eddie: Hey, Steve... Steve: Mmm? Eddie, slightly buzzed: What... What are we? Steve, high out of his goddamn mind, eyes filling with tears: Dude... Dude, I don't know?? Eddie: Wha— Steve: Dustin says we're monkeys, Eddie!! MONKEYS! What does that even mean???

[constantly-deactivated]

Evolution vs Creation? 👇

Just to make you think about it🤔

[eponastory]

Yall... I can't even...

So I'm not here to make fun of someone's beliefs or call anyone stupid, but there is something I have to address about this movement where Christians believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. I was raised Christian and read the Bible religiously when I was younger. Nowhere does it mention the age of the Earth.

I have my issues with religion. I'm not going to get into it here...

But when someone tells me that my tribe was wiped out 4000 years ago by a global flood...

I'm going to look at you funny.

First off, my tribe has been in the same spot for over 6000 years. If there had been a global flood 4000 years ago, the Chitimatcha would not be here today. Why? Because the land the tribe sits on is swamp. It's all swamp.

Second, if there was a global flood, then how do any of the other indigenous tribes still exist? We have genealogical records and tribal records dating back to when the tribes split. Both Choctaw and Chitimatcha were in the same region before the Choctaw were forced to move. They were likely part of one tribe before they split. Kinda like how the Houmas split from the Chitimatcha. It just doesn't add up to what this movement is preaching.

I will be clear, this is mostly happening in the United States and its a relatively small movement based on someone adding up the ages listed in the Bible without using the Jewish Calender.

I'm not calling anyone stupid, but gullible at most. Because they don't know how to do their own research and trust that theory is fact and not hypothesis.

It's very concerning for the state of the country right now.

[jarredlharris]

A journey out of creationism.

This post is a copy of the answer I wrote to a Quora question.

Have you ever believed in creationism?

I did. I grew up believing in specifically Young Earth Creationism. I as convinced it was true and that all those “evolutionists” were either liars or just easily fooled idiots.

If so, what convinced you that evolution was a more logical explanation?

The short answer is “I learned about science.” Read on for the longer answer.

When I went to college, I got accepted into my university’s Honors Program. This was a program that involved taking a number of specialized courses that tended to focus on critical thinking and important subjects of the day. One of the classes I was required to take as a part of the program was called “Thought and Science,” and I took the second semester of my freshman year.

The name of this course could have just as easily been called “Philosophy of Science.” In fact, that was the title of the textbook the professor chose as our primary textbook for the course. In this course, we learned about the philosophy of science and how scientific inquiry worked. We also learned about pitfalls scientists can fall into like confirmation bias.

The final topic covered at the end of the semester was the subject of pseudoscience. The professor — who was a botanist, a professing Christian, and a dancer, spent a lot of time specifically talking about creationism and why it was a pseudoscience. During his final lecture of the semester, he said something that has stuck with me ever since:

“You can claim that God blinked the universe into existence last Tuesday as a matter of faith. But you cannot make that claim on any scientific basis.”

I realized he had a point. The alleged “scientific” arguments I had learned to support my creationist views were simply rhetoric that my mentors had disguised as being science. I could not deny this because I had just spent the past few months learning what science was and who science worked, and my creationist arguments looked nothing like that.

I didn’t stop believing in creationism right away, but I found myself being more honest — including with myself — about the fact that I accepted it as a matter of faith rather than something that could be scientifically demonstrated to be true.

I don’t really know when I quit believing in creationism. I didn’t really think a lot about the evolution vs. creation debate after that course. But no matter when I finally let go of my creationist beliefs, I know that the class I took from the dancing botanist was the genesis of its demise.

[plaintalkchristianministries]

Is Evolution A Fact? Is God / Jesus Real? Does Archaeology Prove The Bible Is Historically Accurate?

The Bible is 100% Historically Accurate which is Proof God / Jesus is Real. The Bible is the most Accurate History Book ever written. It is the History of mankind. And of God’s relationship with mankind. The most Significant event in Human History is the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The History of this event permeates the text of Scripture. The creation account shows us God…

[thatsthat24]

Sanderstober 2024

SANDERSTOBER IS HERE! Once again, my friends and I are creating art prompts for you all to try your hand at for every day of this month, if you'd like! Try one, try some, try all! If you miss a day but still want to do a prompt from a day you missed, please go ahead! This is all just for fun. If you'd like to share your creations, you can use #Sanderstober2024. I'd love to see! Hope you enjoy them! 🍁

October 1: Always gotta start out this day with the traditional prompt! take a character from media or OC and draw how they look on September 30th vs. how they look on October 1st!

October 2: Create a sheet ghost, but featuring the pattern of a sheet/blanket you own or maybe used to own when you were younger. - This idea came from my friend, Andrea!

October 3: A quick Google search of “keyblade designs” (the weapon from Kingdom Hearts) would show you how the weapon changes based off the property the character goes to! Design a keyblade based around any piece of media, as if the main character from Kingdom Hearts traveled there�� - This idea came from my friend, Rene!

October 4: There’s a lot of fast food and cereal mascots out there… I think you know where I’m going with this. Take any of those mascots and turn them into a MONSTER or KILLER.

October 5: This one’s a play off a prompt from last year AND it’s a writing prompt! Take any famous character from a horror film, and create a nursery rhyme about them. You can make it completely innocent, or, like many nursery rhymes, remain dark but disguised in pretty language.

October 6: Take your favorite animal… and dress it as your dream profession. - This idea came from my friend, Talyn!

October 7: Take one of your favorite movies and reimagine if it had been marketed as a different genre (e.g. Hellraiser as a family comedy, Goodfellas as a romance, etc.) - This idea came from my friend, Joan!

October 8: Turning things into Pokemon tends to be a favorite prompt of mine, and this year, the category is… fast food! Take any fast food of your choice, create a Pokemon, and name it!

October 9: Take any foreign animation cartoon and draw them in the style of a western animation! - This idea from my friend, Dominic!

October 10: Definitely a sucker for fall fashion and aesthetic, so take any character or group of characters from one of your favorite pieces of content and give them a fall aesthetic makeover.

October 11: Crows collect shiny things… what things might the nest of a crow contain from one of your favorite fictional universes? - This idea came from my friend, Lev!

October 12: Take any color and ONLY use that color in order to depict a Halloween, horror movie, or fall scene.

October 13: A very expressionistic vibe for this prompt: draw the aura which you hope to be walking in during fall or Halloween. - This idea came from my friend, Valerie!

October 14: There’s LOTS of new words and sayings out there (skibidi, rizz, Ohio, ick, etc.). Google some, you’ll learn a couple new ones. I want you to create a Halloween monster/creature/cryptid based off one of these new words, as if they were the names of the creatures themself (Oh my gosh… it’s the legendary Los Angeles Ick…)

October 15: Sure, people are scared of Halloween monsters… but are there things that would be scary to those monsters? Get creative and depict some things/scenarios that would be terrifying to a typical Halloween creature! - This idea came from my friend, Jackie!

October 16: Those new horror-fied versions of fast food/cereal monsters from October 4 need weapons… take a meal or the cereal from the brand you got your mascot from, and create a weapon inspired by it!

October 17: There has been lots of theorizing in the fields of science on how the human body may evolve in order to either perform modern tasks better or survive… SO, imagine up a human evolution that has adapted to survive some environment (fire, spider bites, rejection), or one that has adapted to perform a certain task (tennis, gaming, folding clothes). - This idea comes from my friend, Joan!

October 18: So, Toy Story 5 has been announced… draw the next toy that’s gonna be introduced as a character in it.

October 19: Returning to an annual favorite of mine… take any character(s) from a piece of media and depict them in the style of a Tim Burton character.

October 20: As a play off of Dominic’s suggestion from an earlier day, take any western animation’s characters and depict them in the style of a foreign animation!

October 21: Taking inspiration from the movie, Hocus Pocus, take any character from a piece of media and depict them riding what *they* would probably bewitch into a broomstick if they had to in a pinch!

October 22: They’re giving your favorite background character a spin-off series. What does the poster for it look like? - This idea is from my friend, Dominic!

October 23: Ok… that monster/killer mascot you made on October 4th? The movie has to have a setting. Maybe an appropriate building? Maybe an entire town… Depict that setting…

October24: Take a character from your favorite movie/tv show and depict them as if they were a character in a fighting game like Smash Bros. or Street Fighter! What does their special/ultimate move look like? - This idea came from my friend, David!

October 25: Take any fun/special memory from your life and create a children’s book cover inspired by it. - This idea came from my friend, Stephanie!

October 26: Take your favorite classic Halloween monster and use them as inspiration for a new species of insect… - This idea came from my friend, Dahlia!

October 27: This feels like a classic for any time of year: take any favorite piece of media and cast the Sanders Sides in it.

October 28: [Any of your favorite pieces of media] … and Zombies

October 29: Think of a very important key object from one of your favorite movies or tv shows that the protagonist(s) finds. Now imagine they never stumbled upon it. What would it look like 100 years later? What else may have happened to it if the protagonist never found it? - This idea came from my friend, Chantz!

October 30: Now… we combine the ideas together to make the ultimate new Halloween villain! Take your creations from October 4th, 8th, 16th, and 23rd, and place them all together to create a scene of them terrorizing the main protagonists!

October 31: And, as a classic end-of-the-month tradition, today’s prompt is about celebrating the reason for the season, Halloween! Imagine if Halloween was like New Year’s Eve for Halloween creatures/characters. What would they look like, dressed all fancy for the occasion and celebrating?

Got the list fully completed! Looking forward to whatever you all create! 

[dawntheduckrb]

Okay genuine question, do schools actually teach evolution?

I've been roped into watching a christian movie (tm) with my mom, and it's about evolution theory vs creationism, and I'm only now realizing that I have never actually learned anything about evolution in my life.

I'm very uncomfortable sitting in here watching this with my mother's commentary, but it's got me to do some thinking and now I think I've got some video essays to watch while I eat tonight

Edit; thanks for all the helpful comments! I'll be turning off notifications for this post because it's gotten more traction than I planned it to and it's gotten to be more than I can reply to, but I'll still check back on it from time to time!

[sillovn]

Marika, Messmer and the Hornsent World

OK, finally collected and wrote up SotE lore thoughts. Specifically, want to talk about godhood and details of Marika’s ascension. There's a lot to cover...

1. Divinity and Order

Godhood and the Elden Ring now appear to be entirely separate concepts (though it’s still likely that only gods can use the Elden Ring). Ascension to godhood seems related to accessing a skyward divine paradise, the ‘Higher Spheres’ as the Grandam states. Meanwhile, the Elden Ring appears to “only” be a tool a god uses to create Order.

This is significant, as it now appears that Marika is the first god in many ages (possibly ever) to wield the Elden Ring. The pre-Erdtree Hornsent make no reference to it in their belief systems or visual culture. Her ascension thus represents a major shift in the world’s history, rather than simply being the passing of ages (which was a fair idea pre-SotE).

As a side, SotE also introduces a new class of divinity; the ‘Old Gods’ who seem to be long buried and gigantic in size. The single known weapon related to them appears inspired by IRL stone-age arrow points? (Yes, I know it’s referred to as meteoric ore. But AFAIK, the practice of using meteoric metal seems to predates the ‘formal definition’ of metal ages.)

2. What is the Original Sin?

It is something kept in the Land of Shadow and then what? Marika’s Gold-Shadow creation event would make thematic sense as the Original Sin, again lending credence to the idea that Marika represents a significant break with tradition.

Its notable that Enir-Ilim remains untouched by the razing of the surrounding country, also it was already shadowed at the time of the crusade. As others have stated, there’s an intentionally concealed past here.

3. Marika and the Hornsent

There is a specific relationship here – abandonment and betrayal (ie. Marika was known to the Hornsent and they expected her to uphold something). This is to say that narratives where Marika is ‘a survivor who slipped away and returned with vengeance’ don’t add up.

Instead, Im going to suggest that Marika’s godhood was supported by the Hornsent. Firstly, Enir-Ilim is held by the Hornsent to this very day, Marika ascends using their rituals and Divine Gate. Next, note the religious similarity between the Hornsent and Marika.

Tree Worship and accompanying ideas (gold is holy, sap blessings, fear of Fire Giants).

Note how compared to the present day Erdtree, the Scadutree is a physical sap-dripping tree.

Crucible worship (fades away in the Erdtree faith over time)

Jar Sacrifice. The Hornsent create Saints, the Erdtree followers use gladiators to make gargoyles (again, fades after Godfrey)

Shared motifs with dual meaning (punishment vs. fertility). Barbs vs. Arcs, Crucifixion vs. Dripping sap.

Marika’s braids and jewelry are spirals

Point Im trying to make is that the Erdtree religion is an evolution from the Hornsent one – especially when considering the initial ‘Age of Plenty’ of Marika x Godfrey.

Maliketh’s existence also complicates any idea where Marika and the Hornsent were enemies from the start. A Shadow is tasked with safeguarding their Empyrean; Marika’s only use for Maliketh was to seal Destined Death, suggesting the path to the Divine Gate had little resistance. Lastly there is also no mention of any Hornsent divine candidate, so consider – it was always meant to be Marika. As you can imagine, this changes the relationship between Marika and the other Shamans significantly (but note how Godwyn’s assassins were Numen).

So, what did the Hornsent want out of their god? Perhaps it was the ability control the Elden Ring?

The Scadutree’s asymmetrical shape is blamed on a lack of ‘capital O’ Order. The Elden Ring as is known, can be used to create Order. I bring this up because there is a symmetrical ‘Spiral Tree’ motif that appears in Hornsent culture.

Did the Hornsent plan to create a god because the Scadutree failed to achieve its prophesized form? Was the hope that Marika would succeed with a new order-infused tree? If true, then the Serosh-Godfrey conflict was likely about claiming the Elden Ring from Farum (note; you can find Crucible Knights and Beastmen fighting there).

The elephant in the room for this theory is whether Marika was ever subject to the Jar-Saint ritual? It certainly gives a neat explanation for Radagon’s origin (a Lord is needed for a god to incarnate, and Marika stands alone at her own ascension). I don’t have a good answer, but (as stated earlier) we can rule out ideas where violence was forcibly inflicted on Marika. This leaves 2 options…

Marika was the only Shaman never put in a jar. She rose to power off the sacrifice of her kin.

Marika willing chose the jar. Which sounds completely insane, but religious ordeals seem commonplace in pre-Erdtree religion (see. Curseblades, Lamenters, Tutelary Deities).

4. Messmer’s Crusade is later historical event

Consider the following.

Messmer is familiar with Tarnished as a concept

Messmer is a demigod, but has no Great Rune

Messmer’s relationship (in terms of seniority) to Rellana, Gaius and Radahn

Messmer’s army includes troops that are standard of later eras; Perfumers, Omenkillers, Tree Sentinels, Abductor Virgins and various Carian troops. Which could be over-interpreting game-assets, but eh?

Ritual combat exists in the Land of Shadow

This is to say; Messmer’s Crusade occurs after Godfrey’s exile, but not too far into the Marika-Radagon era.

If revenge was the motive, why wait for the passing of an entire age and the exile of the land's foremost military leader?

5. Messmer’s Crusade is about Purity

Its explicitly stated that Messmer’s Crusade was about purity (see. Crusade Insignia, Queelign and the various ghosts). With regard to the timeline above; the rationale for exterminating the Hornsent is simply the emerging Crucible taboo put into action (see. Crucible Talismans). This also explains why the Hornsent were not attacked during the Godfrey era.

So what changed? Perhaps Radagon returning to Marika created Golden Order Fundamentalism and all its present-day taboos?

In fact, the crusade as a whole seems to be a bloodbath between the Golden Order’s rejects - Messmer the serpent, Gaius the Albinauric and the Crucible worshipping Hornsent.

Couple more points...

Prejudice vs. Albinaurics might be an emerging opinion at this time, Gaius is both second in command but also a subject of mockery.

Messmer and the crusade are such a dishonor in Leyndell that it is later covered up. Again, if the motivation was to avenge Marika, then why such attitudes?

Belurat does not have a standing army. Sure, the tower has guards, but Ritual Dancers had to be repurposed to fight the invaders.

What Im saying here is; rather than being a foreign nation, Belurat was simply a city within Marika’s empire. Purged for practicing the ‘old ways’ (ie. Crucible worship).

6. Messmer’s Curse?

What is the Abyssal Serpent? What is Messmerfire? Other than the general Erdtree taboo, each of the other ‘flames’ have a distinct property (both in gameplay mechanic and lore) - Blackflame can kill divine beings, Frenzied Flame melts anything into primordial elements.

Messmerfire has a unique aesthetic, and that’s it?

7. A Tower to Heaven

Some ideas about the nature of Divine Ascension.

As per SotE; there seems to be an implication that the sky above holds a tangible divine paradise; the ‘Higher Spheres’. Ascension to godhood quite literally involves reaching into heaven via. Divine Gate.

The building of a Divine Gate also seems to merely be the final step in the process, establishing a connection between Higher Spheres and the mortal world.

Enir-Ilim provides a template to how the whole process might have worked. Firstly, the Divine Gate must be positioned to reach the sky – in the case of the Hornsent, a tower was used (though there might be other options). Vast amounts of sacrifices are also needed, potentially related to the earlier point as throughout Enir-Ilim, architecture is blended with bodies (are corpses used to make buildings fly?). Given that the Divine Gate continues to function at present, long after becoming petrified; Id’ argue that the sacrifice was about creating said gate, rather than a repeated ritual necessary for achieving divinity. I think it’s also safe to say that the main reason for making Jar-Saints was to provide said sacrifices.

The main point however, is that this ‘Corpse Architecture + Sky’ template can be found in 2 other instances – Farum Azula and The Eternal Cities.

This is not a comment on timeline, just shared goals in creating divinity. In Farum Azula’s case, it suggests that the city has always been airborne, flying due to the numerous Dragons and Beastmen entombed within the city (as opposed to meteor aftermath). Also note that Maliketh’s room (which holds a depiction of the Elden Ring and a statue of an unknown woman) sits at the top of a vast spiral stair where the lower part has since been lost.

As for the Eternal Cities? They seem to be attempting divine ascension without finger influence (see. Fingerslayer Blade), with the sky and lord both being ‘created’. Recalling the Nox-Numen-Black Knife-Marika connection, the Eternal City version of this ritual might very well be direct response to Marika’s own ascension.

8. Great Chain of Being

Next, I want to talk about the nature of the paradise. Rather, the idea that Paradise, The Crucible and the Primeval Current are elements within a larger system (if not entirely synonymous).

SotE gives a glimpse into the Crucible’s appearance: it’s an outpouring of ‘golden stuff’ (see. Divine Bird Feathers) that can be stabilized into a spiral column that links gods and humans (see. Spira). With this in mind, take note of the form of Elden Stars. Compare with the creation account (both Ymir and Hyetta versions); The Greater Will fractures the One Great, spilling stardust (carrying life and souls) across space.

Sure, this is *very handwavy*, but one can imagine a cosmology where life is carried in stardust (Primeval Current), reaches physical worlds and pours from sky to earth (Crucible current, also Bird Warriors are closest to the Crucible). A chain linking back to the very origin of all things.

As commonly noted, ER is known to homage old ideas with regards to philosophy/science. Consider here the ‘Great Chain of Being’, an idea that classifies things on a descending scale of God>Angel>Human>Animal etc. Under this classification scheme, a chain/ladder motif is used to depict these relationships (see. Spira), but more importantly; Angels are thought of as beings of pure spirit (more on this below).

Usual disclaimer that history is not my expertise.

9. God Incarnates

Given the Divine Gate does not seem to lead anywhere physical, are the Higher Spheres a realm of pure spirit? The Sculpted Keeper custom (incl. Lion Dancers, Bird/Beast Warriors) involves the invoking/possession of mortal beings by spirits from the Higher Spheres. The whole practice of horn cultivation exists to enable this.

Going further back in time, the Rauh society had a practice of carving stones to act as homes for spirits. Rauh also seems associated with Golems, Ruined Forges and Divine Towers (details on this culture are for another time) 

You could argue that invoking divinity is the connection across time between Rauh, the Hornsent and then finally Marika.

The passage of history is: God inhabits a statue (Idols), God can be channeled (Mediums), God walks among man (Messiah).

----

Thanks for reading.

[public-grimoire-attempt]

These research topics go beyond the typical beginner witchcraft topics and delve into more nuanced areas, suitable for an intermediate witch:

**Historical & Cultural:**

1. **The Witchcraft Trials of a Specific Region:** Instead of a general overview, focus on a particular region's trials (e.g., the Basque Country, colonial America, a specific county in England). Analyze the social, political, and religious context unique to that area.

2. **The Evolution of a Specific Witchcraft Tradition:** Trace the development of a particular tradition (e.g., Wicca, Hoodoo, Stregheria) from its origins to its modern expressions. Analyze its shifts in practice and belief systems.

3. **Forgotten or Obscure Magical Traditions:** Research traditions that are less well-known or documented. Examples include specific folk magic practices from a particular culture, historical grimoires, or ancient magical systems.

4. **The Intersection of Witchcraft and a Specific Historical Movement:** Explore how witchcraft intersected with other historical movements like feminism, environmentalism, or the counter-culture.

5. **Witchcraft and Colonialism:** Examine the role of witchcraft accusations and beliefs in the context of colonialism and its impact on oppressed communities.

**Philosophical & Theoretical:**

6. **A Comparative Study of Magical Systems:** Compare and contrast two or more different magical systems (e.g., ceremonial magic vs. folk magic) focusing on their theoretical underpinnings, practices, and outcomes.

7. **The Role of Intention in Magic:** Delve deeply into the concept of intention, exploring different approaches to setting intent, focusing intent, and overcoming obstacles to effective intention-setting.

8. **The Nature of Energy in Magic:** Research and explore different perspectives on what "energy" is in magical practice, comparing metaphysical concepts with scientific understandings.

9. **The Ethics of Divination:** Explore the ethical considerations surrounding divination, including issues of responsibility, accuracy, and potential harm.

10. **The Psychology of Belief and Ritual:** Investigate the psychological mechanisms underlying belief in magic and the effects of ritual on the practitioner.

**Practical & Skill-Based:**

11. **Advanced Herbalism for Magic:** Go beyond basic herb correspondences. Research the advanced alchemical and energetic properties of herbs and their use in more complex spellwork.

12. **Mastering a Specific Divination Method:** Deepen your understanding of a single divination method (e.g., tarot, runes, astrology) focusing on advanced interpretations and techniques.

13. **Developing Your Own Magical System:** Create a personalized magical system that synthesizes elements from different traditions and reflects your own unique beliefs and practices.

14. **Advanced Sigil Magic:** Explore advanced techniques in sigil creation and activation, experimenting with different methods and incorporating more complex symbolism.

15. **Energy Work and Manipulation:** Delve into more advanced energy work practices, such as energy healing, distant healing, or psychic attack/defense techniques (always approach these with caution and ethical considerations).

Remember to approach your research with a critical and discerning eye, comparing multiple sources and considering different perspectives. Always prioritize safety and ethical considerations in your practice.

[dedalvs]

My apologies, what I meant is that most of your languages are made for fantastic, fantasy worlds, as opposed to a fictional culture on Earth. If you're creating a language for a culture set on Earth, you'd probably incorporate features that tie it to a real language, am I correct?

I think you still may be misunderstanding what the key questions are and how they factor into language creation. There are two questions:

Is this language supposed to be descended from an existing language (or set of languages) on Earth?

Is this language spoken by creatures that are identical to humans in all the ways that play a crucial role in language use, comprehensijon, and transmission?

These are the only relevant questions. Notice I didn't say anything about where the languages are spoken. That bit is irrelevant. Language has its own geography and it's the only geography that matters when it comes to a posteriori language construction.

For example, looking at Dothraki, the answer to (1) is no, and the answer to (2) is yes. For that reason, Dothraki should be a language that looks entirely ordinary, in terms of how it stacks up with languages spoken currently on Earth, but its vocabulary and grammar shouldn't be directly related to any language on the planet. How could it be, if our planet doesn't exist in that universe? But since Dothraki are completely ordinary human beings their language should be a compeltely ordinary human language.

If you look at the aliens District 9, the answers to both (1) and (2) are no, despite the fact that the movie takes place in South Africa. And, in fact, you see some very interesting linguistic phenomena in that movie, where you have two species that understand but cannot use each other's languages. Its setting, though, doesn't mean that the alien language should be influenced by Afrikaans in any important way, though. It may have "borrowings", but even those would be strange (calques, most likely), since the aliens can't actually make human sounds—the same way the humans wouldn't have "borrowings" from the alien language.

On the other hand, if you look at Trigedasleng, the answers to both (1) and (2) are yes. But the suggestion you seem to be making is that I might kind of haphazardly "borrow" features from an existing language into a language that I'm nevertheless creating from scratch. That wouldn't make sense. Trigedasleng is simply an evolved form of American English with some specific constraints (some quite unrealistic, due to the scifi setting) placed on the evolution. I didn't "incorporate" features from American English: it IS American English, through and through, evolved in a way that makes sense for the setting.

There are certainly a posteriori conlangs where the creator approaches the creation of the language by saying, "I took the initial consonant mutation of Irish and combined it with the triconsonantal root system of Arabic and added the Turkish plural suffix (with vowel harmony) and added the accusative from Esperanto", and the like. This is one of the hallmarks of an amateur conlanger. Not even a creole language in the real world does this. Creole languages draw influences from many different languages, but the resulting system can't be divided up neatly into different linguistic sources. Furthermore, the result is a coherent system that doesn't look like any of the sources. Tok Pisin gets a lot of its vocabulary and grammar from English, but also gets vocabulary from German and other languages that were native to the region. When listening to the language, though, it's not like it sounds like English, then it suddenly sounds like German for a word, then it sounds like a Papuan language, then back to English: the whole thing sounds like Tok Pisin. It's a seamless, coherent system—just like any language, since all languages on Earth have borrowings and features from other languages.

Also, minor nitpick: "real" language doesn't make sense. We say natural language vs. constructed languages. Both are equally real, in that neither has any kind of material existence. A constructed language is a real language with a fake history.

Does this make sense?

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Stephen Jay Gould

Published: May 1981

Kirtley Mather, who died last year at age ninety, was a pillar of both science and Christian religion in America and one of my dearest friends. The difference of a half-century in our ages evaporated before our common interests. The most curious thing we shared was a battle we each fought at the same age. For Kirtley had gone to Tennessee with Clarence Darrow to testify for evolution at the Scopes trial of 1925. When I think that we are enmeshed again in the same struggle for one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

According to idealized principles of scientific discourse, the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions. Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that creationists have come up with something new, or that evolutionists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument. Darrow and Bryan were at least more entertaining than we lesser antagonists today. The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologists questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity. In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned.

Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.

Secondly, creationists claim that "the dogma of separate creations," as Darwin characterized it a century ago, is a scientific theory meriting equal time with evolution in high school biology curricula. But a popular viewpoint among philosophers of science belies this creationist argument. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.

The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters. Their brand of creationism, they claim, is "scientific" because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simple act of trying to falsify a rival and truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that also meets Popper's criterion — it too must be falsifiable in principle.

"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D. from his recent (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?

Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations; how could they? Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created "basic kinds," and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert a dog to a cat or a monkey to a man.

The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.

The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.

Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape�s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.

We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium—see essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Pandas Thumb.) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." Any evolutionists who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.

I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong target. It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…" We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood. It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are not among them.

I am sad because the practical result of this brouhaha will not be expanded coverage to include creationism (that would also make me sad), but the reduction or excision of evolution from high school curricula. Evolution is one of the half dozen "great ideas" developed by science. It speaks to the profound issues of genealogy that fascinate all of us—the "roots" phenomenon writ large. Where did we come from? Where did life arise? How did it develop? How are organisms related? It forces us to think, ponder, and wonder. Shall we deprive millions of this knowledge and once again teach biology as a set of dull and unconnected facts, without the thread that weaves diverse material into a supple unity?

But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.

But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.

[ Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262. ]

==

Over forty years later and we're still dealing with this same nonsense. Now, not only from the religious right but the sex-denialism left.

[a-heart-of-kyber]

I agree with whoever said that Jayce has been manipulated by the void and essentially has facilitated the means for the creation of its perfect host.

Because wtf do you mean "Jayce was sent back to prevent the Machine Herald" no the fuck he was not. He didn't prevent shit. He has left both Warwick and Viktor with the man who went, "What if I mixed you two together? Apex Hextech and Apex Shimmer, wouldn’t that be cool?"

And Viktor told him to fuck off.

But now? NOW?! Viktor is willing.

Seriously, did everyone just hear "glorious evolution" and ignore everything else Singed and Viktor said?

I bet you by Touching the chaos orb, he went to the void world vs. Ekko and Heimerdinger who were pushed into the Actual future and will witness the fallout and return to try and prevent it.

[constantly-deactivated]

Is this Evolution? 🤔

[coffeeandacig]

HUGE M*A*S*H NEWS!

Direct of the MASH Matters Facebook Page

M*A*S*H: THE COMEDY THAT CHANGED TELEVISION, AN ALL-NEW TWO-HOUR CELEBRATION OF TELEVISION’S MOST INFLUENTIAL SITCOM

NEW ORIGINAL SPECIAL AIRS MONDAY, JANUARY 1, ON FOX

Featuring New Interviews with Cast Members Alan Alda, Gary Burghoff,

William Christopher, Jamie Farr, Mike Farrell, Wayne Rogers and Loretta Swit,

as well as Original Series Executive Producers Gene Reynolds and Burt Metcalfe

Plus Rarely-Seen Archival Interviews with Writer/Producer Larry Gelbart,

and Stars Larry Linville, Harry Morgan, McLean Stevenson and David Ogden Stiers

In the all-new two-hour special, M*A*S*H: The Comedy That Changed Television, premiering Monday, January 1 (8:00-10:00 PM ET/PT) on FOX, join the men and women who made M*A*S*H as they celebrate one of the most beloved, enduringly popular, often quoted and influential comedies ever created.

As the definitive look at the 14-time Emmy-winning television classic, the special centers around new interviews with original cast members Alan Alda (Capt. Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce), Gary Burghoff (Cpl. Walter "Radar" O'Reilly), William Christopher (Father Francis Mulcahy), Jamie Farr (Cpl./Sgt. Maxwell Q. "Max" Klinger), Mike Farrell (Capt. B.J. Hunnicutt), Wayne Rogers (Capt. "Trapper" John McIntyre) and Loretta Swit (Maj. Margaret "Hot Lips" Houlihan) and series executive producers Gene Reynolds and Burt Metcalfe. In these intimate, highly personal remembrances, the creation and evolution of the show’s iconic characters are revealed, alongside rare and never-before-seen behind-the-scenes footage, photos and stories.

Writer/producer Larry Gelbart, as well as additional series stars Larry Linville (Maj. Frank Burns), Harry Morgan (Col. Sherman T. Potter), McLean Stevenson (Lt. Col. Henry Blake) and David Ogden Stiers (Maj. Charles Emerson Winchester III) are remembered through a vibrant collection of clips from the series as well as in rarely-seen archival interviews. With unique experiences, observations and memories from 11 seasons of M*A*S*H, this special will make audiences laugh, touch their heartstrings, and leave them on a nostalgic high while celebrating the sustained brilliance of the iconic sitcom.

“M*A*S*H is not only a great television series, it is a cultural phenomenon. It has made multiple generations of viewers laugh, cry and think, often in the same episode,” said Executive Producers John Scheinfeld and Andy Kaplan. “We are excited to team with FOX to create this unprecedented window into an innovative television classic.”

"M*A*S*H is among the most iconic sitcoms in the annals of television history. It's a timeless show that comedically captures the 4077th medical corps and how they managed to maintain their sanity while saving lives on the front lines of the Korean War,” said Dan Harrison, EVP, Program Planning & Content Strategy, FOX Entertainment. “Larry Gelbart, Gene Reynolds and Burt Metcalfe brought this incredible comedy to life thanks to their ensemble cast led by the incomparable Alan Alda. FOX is proud to celebrate the landmark achievements of one of the best comedies ever created."

The M*A*S*H two-and-a-half-hour series finale that first aired on CBS in 1983 remains the highest rated telecast in television history, delivering an incredible 77 audience share and 60.2 rating. To-date, the show has never left the air, continuously running in syndication, on basic cable and now streaming on Hulu. The series was produced by 20th Television.

M*A*S*H: The Comedy That Changed Television is directed by John Scheinfeld (Reinventing Elvis: The ’68 Comeback, The U.S. vs. John Lennon and What The Hell Happened To Blood, Sweat & Tears?) with Scheinfeld and Andy Kaplan as Executive Producers.

Viewers can watch M*A*S*H: The Comedy That Changed Television next day on Hulu, Fox.com, On Demand and FOX Entertainment’s streaming platform, Tubi. On Demand is available for customers of Cox Contour TV, DIRECTV, DISH, fuboTV, Hulu + Live TV, Optimum, Spectrum, Verizon FiOS, XFINITY, YouTube TV and many more.