Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

Then let him say "I have no evidence". That will save a lot of time.

People see what they believe. When I cite evidence and I have cited tens of thousands specific pieces of evidence and could cite far far more if I were challenged or anyone chose to discuss this instead of their own beliefs. Evidence that supports my theory is handwaved, gain said and turned into strawmen. I am "corrected" often which is when instead of arguing against the evidence I present, believers in Darwin and the status quo merely state THEIR OWN BELIEF about its meaning. People very very rarely actually address any of my evidence OR any of my arguments. They see reality through the kaleidoscope of their own beliefs so of course my beliefs and my evidence is distorted and confused into a misty aura with no meaning except to those suffering from the inability to accept modern beliefs.

I don't expect you to see this either. I've cited dozens of times and then it is quoted in the very post I am told I have no evidence at all. I consider much of my evidence to be profound because it flies in the face of belief and points in only one direction; the direction of reality. Here is an example I'm sure you'll recognize since I've posted it so many times with no significant contradiction. You still won't see it but you should recognize the words because they've been posted so many times. History doesn't start for 1200 years after the invention of writing. This is a fact and all facts are evidence. All facts should be explained by prevailing theory or the very least no fact should contradict prevailing theory. Some anomalies are only natural because of the reductionistic nature of science and model formation in each individual. But this fact (go back and find it since you missed it many times before) contradicts everything we believe. It is not explicable in terms of the models and theory that comprise the status quo. The first thing people would have recorded would be ancient stories, history, and the knowledge they acquired to do everything they did (science and/ or metaphysics. Yet nothing at all survives. Nothing was copied for preservation. Nothing survives in whole or in part. Indeed there are blank pieces of paper all the way back to the invention of writing but nothing that is written on for many centuries. Then most of the writing that does survive is indecipherable gobblety gook that modern "theory" actually believes is incantation!!! I should not need to point out the illogic of this so invite the reader to find it himself. Scholars believe that the only bits of writing that survive are representative of all the writing and imply the reason for the invention of writing was to create lists. It simply never occurred to them that what survived is a result of the mother of all sample bias. They pull things out of tombs and "temples" and extrapolate it as representative of a culture and society. They interpret and translate everything in terms of later beliefs nd then assume the writing is the earliest example of superstition. It's all nonsense. People really do make sense but only in terms of premises and OUR premises are at fault.

I have shown massive amounts of evidence to prove this. Some of this evidence is equally profound but it is equally invisible to believers. The exact same "symbols" are inscribed in caves all over the world. This is wholly inexplicable in terms of all applicable theory but is fully consistent, even expected by my theory which was developed BEFORE these symbols were even known.

Across the board all evidence and experiment agrees with my theory but not only is this invisible to believers but the very words are invisible. They are brushed off in the parsing. They don't even make it to consciousness. If the words are seen thy are gainsaid. No, nobody has ever cited an experiment that contradicts any part of my theory. Yes, there have been earlier incarnations of the theory that were disproven by readers but NOT the current version.

Here's another bunch of words which is not parsed properly, gainsaid, ignored, handwaved, and twisted into something that can be dismissed out of hand. Most won't see it and will just think I'm repeating myself again! Reality occurs in events. On every level from the microscopic to big bangs everything is an event that occurred due to the logic (laws) of nature that applied to initial conditions. But Darwin thinks that change in species is different. He actually believes that tiny changes accumulate until no new species arises (every individual is the same species as its parents). His position springs naturally from his many assumptions I've listed many times even in the last several days. He could have have come up with no other wrong conclusion than the wrong conclusion he invented. He believes nature has some deficiency that stops her from making one fit individual after another. Nature isn't alive or conscious but nature isn't like humans who waste lives, effort, and wealth. Individuals are all different because nature "knows" that to survive bottlenecks and to propagate life that there have to be different genes in each species. This is almost certainly what all those unused genes are in the genome; directions for life to survive under any conditions whatsoever. Short of being entirely consumed in a supernova or crashing into a red giant odds are good nothing could extinguish life on earth.

But I know in advance there will be no discussion of any facts because my evidence is invisible. It will be parsed wrong, hand waved, and turned into straw. People will play word games.

If anyone wants to discuss the evidence I'm your man. Don't expect a reply to word games or lectures. I don't agree with your premises (the premises) of modern science so I'm interested only in logic, experiment, and fact. I wouldn't mind some "evidence" if common sense is used in its citation. Interpretations of fact based on failed or disputed paradigms are irrelevant.

 

[gnostic]

Then let him say "I have no evidence". That will save a lot of time.

Oh, he wouldn’t never admit that he was wrong to say he had claimed that he had “all the evidence”.

He doesn’t have honesty in his bones.

Just like he would give up his delusion that people 40,000 years ago of advanced civilization, with advanced science & language (a language that no one can decipher except him.

He speak of Darwin’s illusion, but what he think of his world of palace or paradise, is really a rabbit hole he had fallen into, head first.

 

[cladking]

That's why you need to look into the Bible itself. If you believe in God, I suggest you pray.

I believe most people should pay more attention to the Bible and this especially applies to those who believe there is no God.

I believe that the Bible contains much of human history or history can be deduced from it.

It is interesting the writers were so keenly aware that language is confused. This is why they had the admonitions to not change a single word in scripture. They knew the writing was already confused or it was incomprehensible so any changes to fix it or clean it up would destroy the original meaning. Most of the authors were well aware they didn't really understand what they were writing or even the subject. They were merely copying or translating earlier "holy books". Little did they know the meaning of these older books.

 

[cladking]

If your goal is to be understood, you want to be clear, not to force people to try to guess what you might mean.

Perhaps you missed it when I told you before. Language acquisition is learning to parse modern language. In order to do this each individual sets aside undifferentiated brain tissue that becomes the brocas area. Ancient Language was natural to the brain and babies communicated from birth. They didn't begin to become "proficient" until they were two years old and countless billions of new pathways began forming in the brain that allowed four dimensional thinking necessary to manipulate the natural metaphysical language. They had no brocas area because it never materialized.

In order to use abstract, symbolic, and analog language we don't need to think in more than one dimension. Our train of thought is defined by our operating system which is complex language. Since all words are defined and have elements of abstraction it is absolutely necessary that we choose definitions for each word on a real time basis when communicating. This process is called deconstruction or parsing. I tend to use the word "parsing" for simple communication like the one word sentence "Fire!" or "Chocolate!" and "deconstruction" for any thought sufficiently complex to require more than one sentence.

As with EVERY SINGLE WORD IN EVERY SINGLE MODERN LANGUGE there are no rules at all for what word is used. Words, every single word, even including words like "metaphysics" means exactly what the author defines it to mean. Those who parse such words otherwise are playing word games. They are not sincere.

 

[cladking]

As with EVERY SINGLE WORD IN EVERY SINGLE MODERN LANGUGE there are no rules at all for what word is used. Words, every single word, even including words like "metaphysics" means exactly what the author defines it to mean. Those who parse such words otherwise are playing word games. They are not sincere.

I didn't read Gnostic's post until after I wrote this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evidence that supports my theory is handwaved, gain said and turned into strawmen.

I've been trading dozens of posts with you for months, and I still don't know what you are calling evidence for any of your rogue claims. I've seen some arguments that I found flawed (and told you which and how)

People very very rarely actually address any of my evidence OR any of my arguments.

I'm usually bogged down trying to decide what you mean. Just for fun, give me one of those evidenced arguments now - your favorite one, the one you think best evidenced. Tell me something you believe that contradicts evolutionary science, and show the evidence that you say supports that conclusion, evidence that would convince critical thinkers that you are correct.

Ancient Language was natural to the brain and babies communicated from birth.

Here's a good chance for you to provide your evidenced argument and sound conclusion if you have either. Why do you claim that babies communicate from birth? And if that were true once, why not still?

They see reality through the kaleidoscope of their own beliefs so of course my beliefs and my evidence is distorted and confused into a misty aura with no meaning except to those suffering from the inability to accept modern beliefs.

Why do think that that doesn't describe you?

I believe that the Bible contains much of human history or history can be deduced from it.

Nothing can be deduced from the Bible (or any other writing that purports to describe reality) other than that it was written and contains claims, the historicity of which cannot be confirmed without supporting empirical evidence.

 

[cladking]

Why do think that that doesn't describe you?

It does describe me.

The "kaleidoscope" through which we all see is unique to each individual. It is composed of what we believe is real because we are each seeking truth and reality. This is the nature of consciousness; to seek reality through pattern recognition. This is not the sole definition of "consciousness" but is part of it.

Homo omnisciencis is different. We are out of step with all other life forms. We are each born the odd man out. We each adopt a unique set of beliefs and use very similar thought patterns based on language principally. Our search for truth and reality BEGINS with what we believe to be true. This is necessarily founded on the thinking of previous generations which is also unique to homo omniciencis because no other species has language sufficiently complex to build on the work of previous generations.

Despite the fact that we all reason to our assumptions I believe I am right because my assumptions were right. Anyone starting with the same assumptions would reason right to the same place I started and ended. Ironically sir Isaac Newton studied and translated one of the most important clues to the nature of human life looking for ancient wisdom and despite translating a corollary to his laws of motion didn't recognize what he had found. One of his assumptions was spot on and led him to the right place but another was wrong so he didn't know it when he got there. This is simply our nature; it is the nature of consciousness operated by an abstract language to reason in circles. Once I learned this I rearranged my models slightly to decrease the probability of going in circles but I don't know if it has worked or not. I do know that humans think they can assess empirical evidence but we are nearly insensate compared to how sensitive we believe we are.

Yes, I reason and circles and always have but only recently discovered this. I always knew beliefs were critical but didn't realize their full power to always drive us in circles. It's our belief that our assumptions are reality that leads us to believe we know everything. We have beliefs about everything and knowledge/ understanding of nothing.

I am also well aware that if I'm right about Darwin and Evolution that it is not because I'm knowledgeable, smart, or so highly competent. It is solely because I've built on the work of "people" all the way back to "Adam and Eve". It is because I stumbled on the reality and knew what it was because my assumptions were mostly correct.

I'd be perfectly willing to discuss more evidence if you'll merely acknowledge the evidence cited in the posted at the top of the page (#5841). There's simply no point in going on if you can't see what's already posted because it's all a part of a whole. All experiment and all reality is intimately connected at all times. Reductionistic science and theory must be extrapolated properly if it is extrapolated at all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Despite the fact that we all reason to our assumptions I believe I am right because my assumptions were right.

I need more for myself. I need empirical confirmation that the conclusion is correct, not just the premises.

It's our belief that our assumptions are reality that leads us to believe we know everything.

That's not my experience. It's also not how I think.

I also don't ask my beliefs to do more than accurately anticipate outcomes in order to consider them correct (knowledge). Others dither over objective and absolute reality and often despair that if they can't know what lies beyond consciousness (and they can't), that they can't know anything or that what they consider knowledge is less than that.

I'd be perfectly willing to discuss more evidence if you'll merely acknowledge the evidence cited in the posted at the top of the page (#5841).

What I saw there was a wall of words. I don't know what you are calling evidence or what you say it is evidence of to you. Give me an original claim of yours and some evidence you think supports it and contradicts the accepted science. Can you do that? Consider the original claim that dark matter exists. The evidence for it includes the mechanics of rotating galaxies including the most peripheral stars, which remain in in the galaxy and orbit its center as often as the more central stars. Look at how brief that was. We can do the same for the steady state universe and the cosmic background radiation, the discovery of which falsified it just as briefly. We can do that for the claim that Bill Cosby was a good guy, or that Donald Trump was a business genius also in less than a paragraph each.

Your turn if you can.

 

[cladking]

Why do you claim that babies communicate from birth? And if that were true once, why not still?

Babies still communicate from birth in natural language. They bend over backward trying to establish communication. But nobody today speaks Ancient Language so they get no response, no encouragement, and no direction. Most babies with good vocabularies can put together simple sentences by about six months and some are more advanced but they are only dimly coming to understand nobody speaks their language and some are already beginning to unlearn it. Communication is too simplistic at such an age to benefit from talking to cohorts. To be a baby is the pursuit of knowledge and abilities. They even "babble" to try to get a response. As their vocabularies expand simple rules of grammar begin to take shape in the brocas area. Just like ancient babies they begin becoming proficient at about two years. The difference is ancient babies needed no broccas area and all those connections that formed between two and three years remain in constant (some even continual) use. Ours atrophy or fall into disuse but they needed them for four dimensional thinking. They didn't experience "thought" as we do because there was no lag between perception and response. We live in this area. Our thinking is generated here. They weren't aware of it and didn't experience thinking. They were aware of their existence and consciousness but had no experience of thinking. Their awareness was held as experiential knowledge; in their guts and bones. All real knowledge is visceral but we experience book learning as knowledge, again because we mistake our beliefs for reality.

 

[cladking]

What I saw there was a wall of words. I don't know what you are calling evidence or what you say it is evidence of to you.

There were three main points. For each I predicted they would be invisible. They will be invisible here as well;

"History doesn't start for 1200 years after the invention of writing."

"The exact same "symbols" are inscribed in caves all over the world"

"Reality occurs in events. "

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cladking]

I also don't ask my beliefs to do more than accurately anticipate outcomes in order to consider them correct (knowledge). Others dither over objective and absolute reality and often despair that if they can't know what lies beyond consciousness (and they can't), that they can't know anything or that what they consider knowledge is less than that.

Predicting you can go to the office if you turn the key in the ignition is not exactly higher level thought.

People don't need to know much in order to get through their daily routines in most cases. Even where a great deal of knowledge is mandatory the simple fact remains that much of what we believe is simply not true. Treatment for patients with conditions that present abnormally may well be standard but are not necessarily going to lead to a cure or improvement in symptoms. Medications will have different effects on each individual. A ping may be caused by low octane gas but there are other reasons and identical models will react differently to the same fuel. Some cars don't even have ignition switches any longer.

I am speaking in generalities that apply to all people and you are speaking of how you perceive your own beliefs. It's not that you are wrong, merely that you are seeing a piece of reality from a specific perspective. You don't need to examine your beliefs but they still lead you in circles and you still are transforming into your beliefs over time. I'm talking about a far bigger picture than what any individual believes. I am talking about why Darwin was so wrong and the real nature of life and how it changes. The "theory" of Evolution works just fine for most people despite the fact that it distorts the reality that it purports to highlight. Very few individuals need to understand how life changes in their day to day life. But each still acts on his beliefs. We are each a collection of beliefs and Darwin is commonly believed.

 

[cladking]

The difference is ancient babies needed no broccas area and all those connections that formed between two and three years remain in constant (some even continual) use. Ours atrophy or fall into disuse but they needed them for four dimensional thinking.

Just as mother nature doesn't waste resources in the production of less fit individuals, mother nature would not waste billions of brain cells in every human. Obviously our predecessor species (homo sapiens) had need of these brain cells. I believe it was for the usage of complex metaphysical language.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Babies still communicate from birth in natural language.

Where's your supporting evidence?

Most babies with good vocabularies can put together simple sentences by about six months

So then you're not talking about babies communicating pre-linguistically from birth.

As their vocabularies expand simple rules of grammar begin to take shape in the brocas area.

According to Chomsky, the rules of language are hard-wired into the brain a priori and force conception to occur as objects (nouns) and processes (verbs) with features (adjectives and adverbs) and in relation to one another (prepositions) - a sort of universal grammar imposed on all speakers in all languages.

The difference is ancient babies needed no broccas area

Are you aware of what's Broca's region is for? It's for articulation of speech, not comprehension (spoken or written) or the ability to think in language. I had a post-stroke patient with a Broca aphasia. He lost all speech except the f-word. It was the only word he could speak. I watch him in frustration with fully formed thoughts in mind that he was unable to launch followed by a few examples of the word he COULD speak.

I always wondered why any words at all were preserved, and why if just one, it was that one.

One other anecdote only tangentially related. I was charting in the nurses' station of a nursing home with a demented white woman sitting beside me in a wheelchair, "It's only a n****r. It's only a n****r," which was a bit off-putting, but hey, it was what it was and I had work to do.

Then I see a black woman with a young baby in her arms approaching us, and I thought, "Oh, no." Before the woman got close enough to hear, the demented woman saw the baby, silenced, and beamed a huge smile as she held her arms out to the woman and baby to hold it. The black woman allowed the demented one to caress the baby and the demented woman was delighted. It was a beautiful moment. Soon, the black woman, also very pleased collected the baby, wandered off, and "It's only a n****r. It's only a n****r" began again.

So what was I witnessing, I wondered? This woman also had a very limited vocabulary, but from dementia rather than stroke, and it was words that shouldn't be repeated, which is interesting enough, but this woman didn't appear to be a bigot, so why were those the last words she could remember if she wasn't one? I decided that she must have learned those words from somebody like her father at an early age, and they were burned in such that when everything else had been erased by plaque and neurofibrillary tangles, this was still playing in her mind.

They didn't experience "thought" as we do because there was no lag between perception and response.

Like a patellar reflex. No thought required. No brain required.

There were three main points. For each I predicted they would be invisible. They will be invisible here as well;

"History doesn't start for 1200 years after the invention of writing."

"The exact same "symbols" are inscribed in caves all over the world"

"Reality occurs in events. "

You are correct. These words mean nothing to me without your clear description of what you think makes those comments controversial and what evidence you think makes them true. I think that several of us are stumped at why this is an impasse why you seem to think that you are making evidenced arguments.

 

[Hamilton]

Really. Can you show me the data you are using to make these claims?

Can you put numbers on "very many". Is that like a billion?

Sarcasm.

 

[Hamilton]

People see what they believe. When I cite evidence and I have cited tens of thousands specific pieces of evidence and could cite far far more if I were challenged or anyone chose to discuss this instead of their own beliefs. Evidence that supports my theory is handwaved, gain said and turned into strawmen. I am "corrected" often which is when instead of arguing against the evidence I present, believers in Darwin and the status quo merely state THEIR OWN BELIEF about its meaning. People very very rarely actually address any of my evidence OR any of my arguments. They see reality through the kaleidoscope of their own beliefs so of course my beliefs and my evidence is distorted and confused into a misty aura with no meaning except to those suffering from the inability to accept modern beliefs.

I don't expect you to see this either. I've cited dozens of times and then it is quoted in the very post I am told I have no evidence at all. I consider much of my evidence to be profound because it flies in the face of belief and points in only one direction; the direction of reality. Here is an example I'm sure you'll recognize since I've posted it so many times with no significant contradiction. You still won't see it but you should recognize the words because they've been posted so many times. History doesn't start for 1200 years after the invention of writing. This is a fact and all facts are evidence. All facts should be explained by prevailing theory or the very least no fact should contradict prevailing theory. Some anomalies are only natural because of the reductionistic nature of science and model formation in each individual. But this fact (go back and find it since you missed it many times before) contradicts everything we believe. It is not explicable in terms of the models and theory that comprise the status quo. The first thing people would have recorded would be ancient stories, history, and the knowledge they acquired to do everything they did (science and/ or metaphysics. Yet nothing at all survives. Nothing was copied for preservation. Nothing survives in whole or in part. Indeed there are blank pieces of paper all the way back to the invention of writing but nothing that is written on for many centuries. Then most of the writing that does survive is indecipherable gobblety gook that modern "theory" actually believes is incantation!!! I should not need to point out the illogic of this so invite the reader to find it himself. Scholars believe that the only bits of writing that survive are representative of all the writing and imply the reason for the invention of writing was to create lists. It simply never occurred to them that what survived is a result of the mother of all sample bias. They pull things out of tombs and "temples" and extrapolate it as representative of a culture and society. They interpret and translate everything in terms of later beliefs nd then assume the writing is the earliest example of superstition. It's all nonsense. People really do make sense but only in terms of premises and OUR premises are at fault.

I have shown massive amounts of evidence to prove this. Some of this evidence is equally profound but it is equally invisible to believers. The exact same "symbols" are inscribed in caves all over the world. This is wholly inexplicable in terms of all applicable theory but is fully consistent, even expected by my theory which was developed BEFORE these symbols were even known.

Across the board all evidence and experiment agrees with my theory but not only is this invisible to believers but the very words are invisible. They are brushed off in the parsing. They don't even make it to consciousness. If the words are seen thy are gainsaid. No, nobody has ever cited an experiment that contradicts any part of my theory. Yes, there have been earlier incarnations of the theory that were disproven by readers but NOT the current version.

Here's another bunch of words which is not parsed properly, gainsaid, ignored, handwaved, and twisted into something that can be dismissed out of hand. Most won't see it and will just think I'm repeating myself again! Reality occurs in events. On every level from the microscopic to big bangs everything is an event that occurred due to the logic (laws) of nature that applied to initial conditions. But Darwin thinks that change in species is different. He actually believes that tiny changes accumulate until no new species arises (every individual is the same species as its parents). His position springs naturally from his many assumptions I've listed many times even in the last several days. He could have have come up with no other wrong conclusion than the wrong conclusion he invented. He believes nature has some deficiency that stops her from making one fit individual after another. Nature isn't alive or conscious but nature isn't like humans who waste lives, effort, and wealth. Individuals are all different because nature "knows" that to survive bottlenecks and to propagate life that there have to be different genes in each species. This is almost certainly what all those unused genes are in the genome; directions for life to survive under any conditions whatsoever. Short of being entirely consumed in a supernova or crashing into a red giant odds are good nothing could extinguish life on earth.

But I know in advance there will be no discussion of any facts because my evidence is invisible. It will be parsed wrong, hand waved, and turned into straw. People will play word games.

If anyone wants to discuss the evidence I'm your man. Don't expect a reply to word games or lectures. I don't agree with your premises (the premises) of modern science so I'm interested only in logic, experiment, and fact. I wouldn't mind some "evidence" if common sense is used in its citation. Interpretations of fact based on failed or disputed paradigms are irrelevant.

Cladking - Arguing against religious beliefs is difficult. I appreciate your efforts. Your posts are interesting and show more patience than I am willing to exercise at present, because of the futility of trying to explain (not persuade, just explain) to closed minds.

Whether true or false, there are people who believe the earth is "flat", a world flood covered every speck of land, and Darwin was a genius. No amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. This is a process they must initiate on their own.

You can tell they have proscribed you and your beliefs when they mock your beliefs (.e.g. calling the god you or others believe in, "Sky-god"), and when they denigrate people for having a different view (belief, interpretation, conclusion) (e.g. calling them "cranks" and worse). These are those who would eagerly light the wood ablaze to burn these their new and hated heretics.

 

[John53]

I think I've worked this out. I should believe whatever is posted without question or need of evidence. Everyone is right (except Darwin of course).

 

[cladking]

These are those who would eagerly light the wood ablaze to burn these their new and hated heretics.

We are rapidly approaching a new age of the glow of reeducation camps. If you disagree with the status quo you are less fit to survive anyway so giving natural selection a little boost is a good thing. How appropriate we can be turned into soap to wash the heresy right off of right thinking people.

Meanwhile we are being manipulated by those who hold to purchased science and whatever the priests of finance want us to believe.

Tower of babel 2.0 is coming. We'll have a many headed beast with many arms and no ability for the heads to communicate one with another. The beast will flail and perish and all might die. Since we don't understand how science works most won't see it coming.

We don't learn from history, we can't learn from science, and refuse to learn from religion or philosophy. We keep repeating the same mistakes ands will until we are extinct. Modern language (homo omnisciencis) may turn out to be a failed experiment in superstition and abstraction.

 

[Hamilton]

I think I've worked this out. I should believe whatever is posted without question or need of evidence. Everyone is right (except Darwin of course).

More useless sarcasm.

 

[John53]

More useless sarcasm.

How else do you answer claims without evidence?

Repeated requests for evidence of your claims went unanswered but sarcasm got a response so I'd say it wasn't useless.

 

[cladking]

Cladking - Arguing against religious beliefs is difficult. I appreciate your efforts. Your posts are interesting and show more patience than I am willing to exercise at present, because of the futility of trying to explain (not persuade, just explain) to closed minds.

Thank you. Beliefs are the hardest thing to talk people out of and I need to at least get people to help on the reinvention of ancient science. It may be our only hope. The quickest route to this is showing the Great Pyramid is a time capsule but in 16 years of shaming Egyptology and archaeology all I've accomplished is to get them to prove I was right and then ignore the evidence. Ancient science and many specimens and samples are in a huge time capsule under the NE corner of the structure.

But there are many routes to this because the theory makes many predictions. People can't see a theory because it is dissimilar to modern beliefs and most modern theories. Modern theories are reductionistic and this one is not. Rather it is paradigmatical and puts everything back together again. Technically, of course, it's really a series of related hypotheses which is theoretical only from the perspective of natural or ancient science.

Somehow over the decades not only Darwin has become a religion but for the main part all of science has become a religion with Peers its priests. All of science has also gone to the highest bidder and used as a basis to control finance and fiat. Our economy hums along at about 3% efficiency and no one notices.

One of these days "soon" there should be a breathless announcement that the great pyramids were built with linear funiculars and soon after ancient science will arise from the ashes of history right along with the history of homo sapiens all the way back to "Adam and Eve". Ancient science might save us from extinction.