An Old Science book from 1650

[AkiraTheViking]

I had to reread that sentence 4 times before I understood it. So with no evidence they put fake creatures in the book because they assumed their imagination was a message from god. LOL Idiots. I have to admit though if it wasn't for that source of fiction we wouldn't have good epic fantasy shows/movies like TLOTR and GOT.

[ignoramus]

Guys, does it make sense that evolution made us to be reproductive our whole life?
I think it does.

As Abaris said, maybe nature didn't intend us to live beyond 40?

But nature also gave us intelligence which allows us to live way beyond that point.
Just another example of evolution working blindly.

There is no right and wrong evolutionary path, there's just evolution.

[AkiraTheViking]

Say I have that same book and look what I found in it:



ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY SPIDER!!!!

[Minimalist]

You know what though, I sometimes like to look at history with the idea that humans haven't changed that much.

But their thinking has.

This quote from Frederick the Great is amusing....

If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army.

but probably false.  In the 1750's it was just one more way to die and at least you got paid and didn't have to work in the fields.  Those wounded in battle stood an excellent chance of dying from infection but the same was true of some farmer who got his foot run over by a wagon.  As Abs said, death was a constant presence.  I always found this chart to be instructive.



Between infant mortality, death in child birth, plagues and infections the basic life expectancy hardly changed throughout the millennia...until very recently when science developed anti-biotics and sanitation and germ theory.

In the 20th century people started to think that they did not have to die of the first bug that came along.

[ignoramus]

No wonder the afterlife was such a popular idea!

[Jackalope]

Meh, I'm with abaris - this was a time where superstition was the norm, European science was a mere toddler, and people were by and large ignorant. Even Issac Newton would be working on alchemy over half a century later. John Locke was still a young man. Empiricism is certainly older than that, but it had not been fully embraced in the West.

That book is a product of its time.

[ignoramus]

Let's not forget another book written about that time also which stubbornly refuses to fuck off!

[Jackalope]

Let's not forget another book written about that time also which stubbornly refuses to fuck off!

KJV?

[ignoramus]

Let's not forget another book written about that time also which stubbornly refuses to fuck off!

KJV?

Spot on!

Or Shakespear?
Difference is nobody dedicates their life based on the stories of Shakespear.
And no Shakespearian society wants 10% of your income to read you the bullshit on a Sunday.

Now out damn spot!

[abaris]

No wonder the afterlife was such a popular idea!

What's often overlooked. People had no reason to be skeptical. There was virtually nothing to compare religious theories against. Nothing to suggest that the world hadn't been created. Nothing to suggest it's real age and nothing on humans having evolved from other species.

In the 17th century astronomy started to take off, but there still was no clear distinction between astronomy and astrology. The real changes came from the age of enlightenment, political movements, such as the French revolution, and in their wake the scientific discoveries of the 19th century.