This is totally in line with Immanuel Velikovsky's Earth in Upheaval.
Velikovsky discusses the fossil record, the history of catastrophism vs. gradualism, Cuvier, Lyell, Darwin and others. I think reading Earth in Upheaval would cast a good bit of light on this subject to anyone interested. Toward the end, Velikovsky discusses a proposition for the sudden appearance of new species immediately following world catastrophe.
Also, to get a better idea of how credible his sources and conclusions are, watch the series on Earth in Upheaval on See the Pattern Youtube Channel. Here's the first two in the series:
Do you prefer this narrative--the species Homo sapien was a chemical composition genetically considered too flawed by a higher form of life residing in another galaxy. This organic matter, was exiled to planet Earh as a way of both discarding it and experimenting with its intellectual and technological growth before the "reset" button is finally pressed, thus cleansing the Earth and starting afresh. 😁
Maybe, that's why it was never about survival of the fittest, but always about the survival of the richest. 🤑🤑🤑
Um... I guess I'll go ahead and say yes, I think... Does this higher form of life have supernatural powers, or just powers that are beyond human understanding?
(btw... if your comment was a satirical analogy for something, it may have gone over my head)
Nice essay. Brings up very good points. To your last question- I suspect the science is not more honest about this due to the the questions it would reveal.
Take for example what is now known about the Laschamp excursion and the extinctions that followed. If people thought that uniformitarianism is not accurate, that gradualism is interrupted and that evolution was punctuated by catastrophic events- they might start looking as to why. The look long enough they might see a concerning pattern.
Hmm... Maybe it's just slipping my mind, but I don't recall hearing about the Laschamp excursion.
Yes, catastrophism is indeed a problem for Darwinism. If there have been five or six mass extinction events, that gives a lot less time for all the required random mutations to take place.
Darwinists like to act as if the only thing required for their theory to work is sufficient time. But if most species eventually get wiped out in a mass extinction event, that mean most phyla have a lot less time to work with.
It was partly facetious. Nonetheless, let me ask you this--when you look at an insect what do you intuit? Perhaps, you wonder if it's poisonous or if you're bitten will you develop anaphylaxis. Maybe, you think the insects are useful and can be harvested for honey, or will be good pollinators. It's also possible that as you continue to observe them their actions appear unpredictable and illogical. They become aggressive or violent for no apparent reason.
In any event, a form life which can create intergalactic civilizations might have the same relationship with humans as Homo sapiens have with insects.
I'll definitely entertain that possibility! Part of the annoying thing about the endless Darwinism Vs. Creationism debate is that the Darwinists are able to straw man all their critics as Young Earth Creationists who insist upon an extremely literal interpretation of Genesis.
I converted to Creationism this year... but I'm not a Young Earth Creationist. Although I certainly can't disprove that the Earth was created in six days, it is difficult to imagine what exactly a "day" was before the Sun was created, which according to Genesis occurred on the 4th day.
I am at peace with the creation being a Great Mystery... It may be that the means through the universe came into being are simply beyond human understanding.
As Terence McKenna liked to say "The universe may not only be stranger than we suppose, it may be stranger than we CAN suppose."
This is totally in line with Immanuel Velikovsky's Earth in Upheaval.
Velikovsky discusses the fossil record, the history of catastrophism vs. gradualism, Cuvier, Lyell, Darwin and others. I think reading Earth in Upheaval would cast a good bit of light on this subject to anyone interested. Toward the end, Velikovsky discusses a proposition for the sudden appearance of new species immediately following world catastrophe.
Also, to get a better idea of how credible his sources and conclusions are, watch the series on Earth in Upheaval on See the Pattern Youtube Channel. Here's the first two in the series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmHua7D6gR0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFJKDlYndSY
okay, I'm sold. Earth in Upheaval's going on my to-read list (right next to the Jesus Dynasty)
Do you prefer this narrative--the species Homo sapien was a chemical composition genetically considered too flawed by a higher form of life residing in another galaxy. This organic matter, was exiled to planet Earh as a way of both discarding it and experimenting with its intellectual and technological growth before the "reset" button is finally pressed, thus cleansing the Earth and starting afresh. 😁
Maybe, that's why it was never about survival of the fittest, but always about the survival of the richest. 🤑🤑🤑
Um... I guess I'll go ahead and say yes, I think... Does this higher form of life have supernatural powers, or just powers that are beyond human understanding?
(btw... if your comment was a satirical analogy for something, it may have gone over my head)
Nice essay. Brings up very good points. To your last question- I suspect the science is not more honest about this due to the the questions it would reveal.
Take for example what is now known about the Laschamp excursion and the extinctions that followed. If people thought that uniformitarianism is not accurate, that gradualism is interrupted and that evolution was punctuated by catastrophic events- they might start looking as to why. The look long enough they might see a concerning pattern.
Hmm... Maybe it's just slipping my mind, but I don't recall hearing about the Laschamp excursion.
Yes, catastrophism is indeed a problem for Darwinism. If there have been five or six mass extinction events, that gives a lot less time for all the required random mutations to take place.
Darwinists like to act as if the only thing required for their theory to work is sufficient time. But if most species eventually get wiped out in a mass extinction event, that mean most phyla have a lot less time to work with.
Thanks for the kind words!
It was partly facetious. Nonetheless, let me ask you this--when you look at an insect what do you intuit? Perhaps, you wonder if it's poisonous or if you're bitten will you develop anaphylaxis. Maybe, you think the insects are useful and can be harvested for honey, or will be good pollinators. It's also possible that as you continue to observe them their actions appear unpredictable and illogical. They become aggressive or violent for no apparent reason.
In any event, a form life which can create intergalactic civilizations might have the same relationship with humans as Homo sapiens have with insects.
I'll definitely entertain that possibility! Part of the annoying thing about the endless Darwinism Vs. Creationism debate is that the Darwinists are able to straw man all their critics as Young Earth Creationists who insist upon an extremely literal interpretation of Genesis.
I converted to Creationism this year... but I'm not a Young Earth Creationist. Although I certainly can't disprove that the Earth was created in six days, it is difficult to imagine what exactly a "day" was before the Sun was created, which according to Genesis occurred on the 4th day.
I am at peace with the creation being a Great Mystery... It may be that the means through the universe came into being are simply beyond human understanding.
As Terence McKenna liked to say "The universe may not only be stranger than we suppose, it may be stranger than we CAN suppose."
Great work!