It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
This is a topic that you could go on and on about (I certainly could), but this subject is so touchy (at least to the religious) that it leads to stubbornness on both sides. Creationists can't accept the idea that maybe...just maybe...that fiction book they read might have flaws in it, and Evolutionists refuse to just give up on trying to explain facts to people who blindly go with what their parents told them. I know it took me quite some time before I realized that I was wrong on the Creationist side and that science was obviously more logical. But if you don't want to change your opinion, fine, you don't have to. Arguing about it will not justify your opinion any more than it would justify mine by arguing my point.

Science - "Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?"
Religion - "Here are the conclusions, what facts can we find to support them?"

My advice is to come to the mutual agreement that you disagree. I have had this argument many a time and usually nothing comes out of it. But I understand the need to defend your side, and if that is what you wish to do, so be it. Good day.




posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
How strange the notion that evolution is somehow counter-God. I think the closeness of chimp dna is evidence enough that the theory is correct. This in no way negates the glory of creation in my mind, infact makes it all the more wonderous.


Well.. Yes, it does counter-God. By saying evolution and God worked together to create the Earth means that you do not credit the Bible's take on creation.

So firstly, you are saying that the Bible is NOT the inspired word of God.

Secondly, you are saying that man wasnt made in Gods image, he actually evolved from an animal. So in fact, humans are advanced animals, not made for a purpose as the Bible would indicate.

Thirdly, you are limiting God's power by saying that there is 'no way' he could have created the earth and man in 7 days, so you cease to be worshipping an all-powerful God.

Fourthly, your faith is now divided between man and God. Who do you belive now.. science or God? 50% - 50%? Which is more powerful?

I'm sure there are more reasons why evolution and the Bible can not mix. If your church is preaching that it can, then I would be arguing that what they teach is contrary to the message in the Bible.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25
So firstly, you are saying that the Bible is NOT the inspired word of God.

But thats hardly a counter to god, its just a counter to a particular idea about a particular god.


Secondly, you are saying that man wasnt made in Gods image, he actually evolved from an animal. So in fact, humans are advanced animals, not made for a purpose as the Bible would indicate.

Again, this is just at odds with a particular theology. And who is to say that god didn't, in its infinite wisdom, set things up so that exactly this would happen, and that in that way man is made in god's image. Besides, apes and man are so similar, does it mean that apes are made in god's image? Heck, man is a type of ape, so i guess it would have to mean that.


Thirdly, you are limiting God's power by saying that there is 'no way' he could have created the earth and man in 7 days, so you cease to be worshipping an all-powerful God.

Anyone who puts any limit on an allpowerful thing is kidding themselves, yes.


Fourthly, your faith is now divided between man and God. Who do you belive now.. science or God? 50% - 50%? Which is more powerful?

Why would there have to be a choice? Science isn't somethign one beleives in, its just a way of figuring stuff out, there's no 'theology' there. One can accept that science works and use it succesfully and still have 100% beleif in god. Besides, what would '50% beleif' be anyway?


I'm sure there are more reasons why evolution and the Bible can not mix.

Since the bible is a text, a document, it is open to various interpretations. Some interpretations don't mix with science, others do, and others make it known that they are untouched and outside of science.

If your church is preaching that it can, then I would be arguing that what they teach is contrary to the message in the Bible.

Ok, argue it.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Thanks Nygdan, you saved me a post!



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by StarBreather
Is there any known minimal self-reproducing life-form? What is the simplest known life-form?


Bacteria?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 03:15 AM
link   
First off, i did not read this whole thread so if i resate some things dont bite my head off.

The main thing about eveolution theory is that you must understand that individuals dont evolove. Populations evolove. This is misunderstood by all the naysayers, i think if they understood this they would relaise how foolish they sound,

My first clue to eveloution was when i was in the 2nd grade and my class went on a feild trip. We visted pueblos in california that dated back quite some years (400-500, not sure), all of the door ways were much lower. I remember asking at the time why the were so short, the guide said a long time a ago people were shorter. Now we are taller, it seemed to me that this would make sense it is better to be taller, you are up higher, see farther, reach higher things, thus better to be tall.

Also as you observe types of animals in the nature, the giraff. Its long neck alows it to reach the high leaves in trees. But in certin places in africa giaraffs necks are longer that other places, in the places that have mostly shrubary they gave mush shorted necks, and where the trees are taller, longer neck, and as for survival of the fittest, the longer the neck the higher they reach. thus alowing them to get food, those that did not have as long of necks died out.

They clues for evolution are all around us, in every orginism.
Fact: We have 90% the same DNA as WHEAT
Fact: our DNA is more similar to a Chimpansse, than a CHipanse to a gorilla

A couple of years ago in My AP Biology II classs in high school there was a mathimatical equation... Heirtz-Vanderwall or something like that, but it would track the rate of evolution on a population with a number... ok found it it is called the Hardy-Weinberg therom. Here is a link to a page www.biology87.org...

Evolution is a theroy, gravity is a theroy.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 04:26 AM
link   
What I said makes many assumptions, I would agree. My point is, the God I worship is a God that created the earth in 6 days / rested on the 7th. He is a God that created man in his image not apes. He is all powerful. That is the God the Bible talks about.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25
What I said makes many assumptions, I would agree. My point is, the God I worship is a God that created the earth in 6 days / rested on the 7th. He is a God that created man in his image not apes. He is all powerful. That is the God the Bible talks about.


I'm good to go with this but have a question/perspective. Is God not the creator of science? Could His 6 days be a few millenia for all we know? Could He not make these evolutionary changes to work us into the environment? Truly interested, not sure what to go with other than to say I'll find out some day. I'm sure if it really mattered, Jesus would've said "Now this is important. You and all creatures were made as you were since the beginning..." or "...God worked slowly to make you the masterpiece you are over many generations..." I don't recall hearing either one.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by shmick25
What I said makes many assumptions, I would agree. My point is, the God I worship is a God that created the earth in 6 days / rested on the 7th. He is a God that created man in his image not apes. He is all powerful. That is the God the Bible talks about.


I'm good to go with this but have a question/perspective. Is God not the creator of science? Could His 6 days be a few millenia for all we know? Could He not make these evolutionary changes to work us into the environment? Truly interested, not sure what to go with other than to say I'll find out some day. I'm sure if it really mattered, Jesus would've said "Now this is important. You and all creatures were made as you were since the beginning..." or "...God worked slowly to make you the masterpiece you are over many generations..." I don't recall hearing either one.


Yes well heres a quote from "the good book" for you freind..........

"Doth the clay ask of the potter, why maketh me so"? (or how)


Why then should God tell you how you were "created". What difference to God 6 days or 6 billion years? This must be the seventh day, cause look whats going on while he sleeps!



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Yes well heres a quote from "the good book" for you freind..........

"Doth the clay ask of the potter, why maketh me so"? (or how)


Why then should God tell you how you were "created". What difference to God 6 days or 6 billion years? This must be the seventh day, cause look whats going on while he sleeps!


I'm down with it, but trying to give possibilities to those who do not believe. Nice quote, I like it.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25
What I said makes many assumptions, I would agree. My point is, the God I worship is a God that created the earth in 6 days / rested on the 7th.

Ah, then yes evolution, biology, geology, physics, history, yes, all of that is contradictory to your god.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I don't understand why so many people trust the word of a book written by men a few thousand years ago more than solid scientific proof and observations. No one alive today witnessed anything that happened in the Bible. As far as I'm concerned it's just a book of myths.

Evolution on the other hand is something we can witness every day. There's no guilt or fear, just facts and observations drawn together in a logical conclusion. Someday we may prove this wrong and find a better explanation, but until then, this is the best answer we have. It is better than what a book tells us without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

Tell me - what makes the Bible any different from ancient Roman and Norse mythos? It was written around the same time period, what sets it apart?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Two things I do not understand:


  • Why don't people LEARN about something before they argue it? - Almost every argument against evolution I've seen here is based on a common fallacy that "evolution = men descended from apes". This is so incorrect it makes the debator look uneducated in all but the eyes of his or her fellow anti-evolutionists. Evolution does not mean men descended from apes. Far from it. Evolution means nothing more than the fact that all living things adapt to their environment. Bugs develop resistance to toxins. Bacteria develops resistance to anti-biotics. Virus develop new strains to attack new hosts. This is inarguable and well-documented fact, just as it is fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, and that the moon revolves around the Earth. It's not something you can argue against because it's simply true, and no amount of righteous indignation will change that fact.

  • How does REAL Evolution go against Christianity? - It is inarguable that living organisms adapt to the environment. Assuming this, how does it remotely go against Christianty to agree? Could not God have enacted the change to help his creation? Could God have not had enough foresight to assume that things change, and sometimes a life form will need to operate outside it's pre-defined parameters? To me the idea that a Christian would think that God would make a static creation incapable of growth, change, and adaptation is far more sacriligious than admitting to the truth. Who are you to define what God did and did not do? How arrogant has the average Christian become that they dare to think they know the mind of the Almighty! It makes me sick! Sick! I'm not even a Christian and I treat my God with far more respect and credit than that. If God created the Earth, then everything that occurs, including evolution occurred according to His/Her plan.

    [edit on 12/14/2004 by thelibra]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25
Well.. Yes, it does counter-God. By saying evolution and God worked together to create the Earth means that you do not credit the Bible's take on creation.


The Bible's take on creation is very similar to, and perhaps derived from, the early Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths. Consider, in the book of Genesis, where the Spirit of God "moved upon the face of the deep" before creation. This indicates a belief identical to the ancient Sumerians, i.e., that the original Universe consisted of a primeval ocean that already existed. Now, we know that the ocean is not primeval, and that space, not water, is the starting point.


So firstly, you are saying that the Bible is NOT the inspired word of God.


The Bible being considered the inspired word of God is a cultural phenomenon, not an absolute truth. Had it been the Muslims, instead of Christians, who conquered Europe in the 3rd century, everyone here would be talking about how the Qu'ran is the inspired word of God. If it had been Hindu warriors who conquered Europe and initiated modern culture, I would wager you would now be defending the Rig Veda.


Secondly, you are saying that man wasnt made in Gods image, he actually evolved from an animal. So in fact, humans are advanced animals, not made for a purpose as the Bible would indicate.


I think it is absolutely correct that humans are "advanced animals." The species homo sapien is a primate, and is closely related to the chimpanzee, as we see through DNA. In fact, the chimpanzee is much more closely related to us than he is to the gorilla, another primate which we too are closely related to.

Furthermore, we can't even say that we are alone as being "rational animals." Behavioral psychologists have long since admitted that non-human primates have and utilize reason, logic, emotion, and problem-solving capabilities. We also now know that the central nervous systems of non-human primates operate so closely to our own that many of the perceived differences between us and them are actually pure fiction. In experiments, over and over, they have demonstrated the ability of understanding language, understanding morality, and possess the capability of abstract thought. The difference between us and them is one of degree, not of kind.


Thirdly, you are limiting God's power by saying that there is 'no way' he could have created the earth and man in 7 days, so you cease to be worshipping an all-powerful God.


Not at all. God, being Almighty, could have created the Universe in any way He wanted. The argument here is that evidence indicates He chose to create according to natural laws that He Himself set in motion. The fact that God chose evolution to develop modern life gradually has nothing to do with not being "All-Powerful"; on the contrary, it demonstrates the divine order and classifications of His creations.


Fourthly, your faith is now divided between man and God. Who do you belive now.. science or God? 50% - 50%? Which is more powerful?


As the gentleman posted above, science is not "believed"; science is simply the study of nature. "Belief" in it is irrelevant. For example, 2 plus 2 will always equal 4, regardless if I believe that it equals 5.
I do not think for a second that God gave us the gifts of reason, logic, and language just to ignore it because a book makes unverified claims.

Also, your claim that our "faith is divided between man and God" could be shown to be self-defeating. After all, we do not look to the creations of man for an explanation, but to nature itself, which is the Creation of God. But you look to a book written by men as the ultimate authority, regardless of what the unbiased, empirical studies of God's Creation indicate. Therefore, here, you could be accused of the same fallacy that you level at us who accept what Nature tells us through study and experiment.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Masoniclight, incredibly eloquent and beautifully expressed and well thought out, Im very impressed, I wish I had your gift of the gab. Thankyou, I enjoyed reading that!



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Ok Ok. Me against the rest. Here goes!! :duh



saint4God

I'm good to go with this but have a question/perspective. Is God not the creator of science? Could His 6 days be a few millenia for all we know? Could He not make these evolutionary changes to work us into the environment? Truly interested, not sure what to go with other than to say I'll find out some day. I'm sure if it really mattered, Jesus would've said "Now this is important. You and all creatures were made as you were since the beginning..." or "...God worked slowly to make you the masterpiece you are over many generations..." I don't recall hearing either one.


So with this Logic, you are saying that because Christ didnt say "Now this is important. You and all creatures were made as you were since the beginning..." or "...God worked slowly to make you the masterpiece you are over many generations..." then it has no importance?

Christ didnt say anything about a lot of things, including invading oil rich countries. Does that mean then we can do anything we want outside of what we were specifically told what to do?

Contrary to this Christ on earth continued to quote scriptures 'from the old testiment' validating their authenticity. If he thought they were a bunch of stories then why quote from them?

But I know you are putting the other pov across so that is my reply.




Nygdan
Ah, then yes evolution, biology, geology, physics, history, yes, all of that is contradictory to your god.


Can you generalize some more? The Bible is one of the greatest sources of history you will find. Care to argue against it?

Physics. I don't believe the Bible attempts to address this at all. Besides, I have no real issue with it. Biology and geology? What about them? How are they contrary to god if he created them?




I don't understand why so many people trust the word of a book written by men a few thousand years ago more than solid scientific proof and observations.


And scientists still cant agree on the theories of evolution. Must be solid proof.




No one alive today witnessed anything that happened in the Bible. As far as I'm concerned it's just a book of myths.


Umm, last time I checked, I dont think too many humans watched the Big Bang either. Must be a myth as well.



Evolution on the other hand is something we can witness every day.


Show me.



Someday we may prove this wrong and find a better explanation, but until then, this is the best answer we have.


So your saying that evolution may be wrong but we will call it the truth because we are ignorant and need something to believe in for the time being. Hmmm nice one.



It is better than what a book tells us without any supporting evidence whatsoever.


I wouldnt say that. Historically speaking it has been found to be very accurate. Why suddenly start lying about the start of time. Seems a bit strange to me.



The Bible's take on creation is very similar to, and perhaps derived from, the early Sumerian and Babylonian creation myths. Consider, in the book of Genesis, where the Spirit of God "moved upon the face of the deep" before creation. This indicates a belief identical to the ancient Sumerians, i.e., that the original Universe consisted of a primeval ocean that already existed. Now, we know that the ocean is not primeval, and that space, not water, is the starting point.


Genesis was written before the Jews were led into captivity by the Babylonians.



The Bible being considered the inspired word of God is a cultural phenomenon, not an absolute truth. Had it been the Muslims, instead of Christians, who conquered Europe in the 3rd century, everyone here would be talking about how the Qu'ran is the inspired word of God. If it had been Hindu warriors who conquered Europe and initiated modern culture, I would wager you would now be defending the Rig Veda.


Fact. The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. You either accept it or you dont, it does not change what is written in the pages. Better Still, Christ said while on earth, that he was God. So if people wrote about Christ while he is on earth, wouldnt that story have been inspired by 'Christ' who = God?



I think it is absolutely correct that humans are "advanced animals." The species homo sapien is a primate, and is closely related to the chimpanzee, as we see through DNA. In fact, the chimpanzee is much more closely related to us than he is to the gorilla, another primate which we too are closely related to.


The difference between chimps and us is MASSIVE even if the DNA is similar. Show me an example of our close relatives that have a belief in something. Show me how they demonstrate they primitive 'beliefs' with little idols and temples that they worship. Oh, you cant? Why not? If we are so close, and they are so intelligent (as you would insinuate) why dont they begin to Worship man or trees or anything else? Observation.



Not at all. God, being Almighty, could have created the Universe in any way He wanted. The argument here is that evidence indicates He chose to create according to natural laws that He Himself set in motion. The fact that God chose evolution to develop modern life gradually has nothing to do with not being "All-Powerful"; on the contrary, it demonstrates the divine order and classifications of His creations.


Yes. He could have created it anyway he wished but the Bible says he did it in 7 days. I believe that.



After all, we do not look to the creations of man for an explanation, but to nature itself, which is the Creation of God. But you look to a book written by men as the ultimate authority, regardless of what the unbiased, empirical studies of God's Creation indicate. Therefore, here, you could be accused of the same fallacy that you level at us who accept what Nature tells us through study and experiment.


interesting observation and I agree. I don't make a habit of worshiping the Book. I'm undecided on a few things still, (not in regards to evolution vs creation). But there are more important things to worry about on earth than trying to figure out where we came from. This includes trying to sort out our current environments.

Happy responses!



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
how do we get conscience material from non conscience material in evolution? and how do we get intelligence from non-intelligence in evolution?

evolution is scientifically impossible. It has way to many flaws, and way to much faith to belive in it, it has no more than a hypothesis with supposive "facts". all a hypothesis is a guess on what happened, then checked to see if its true. yeah, its been checked, but theres also evidence to say it didnt happen. I dont see any reason to belive in this garbage like evolution and the big bang.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shmick25


Genesis was written before the Jews were led into captivity by the Babylonians.


Indeed it was; but we see from biblical history itself that the early Hebrews even before Moses had many dealings with surrounding Semitic and Canaanite nations, and that they were influenced by cultural diffusion.


Fact. The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. You either accept it or you dont, it does not change what is written in the pages.


You are correct that the Bible claims to be the word of God. So does the Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, and Book of Mormon. But I do not accept these other books on the face value of their claims either.

I'm not degrading your religious beliefs here, and I respect them. I'm only pointing out why your beliefs do not always reconcile with my own.


Better Still, Christ said while on earth, that he was God. So if people wrote about Christ while he is on earth, wouldnt that story have been inspired by 'Christ' who = God?


The record of what Christ may and may not have said is found in the Bible alone (although a few apocryphal books that make claims about Christ's words are around also). From a completely neutral standpoint, it is impossible to state as fact what Christ actually said, as to our knowledge He never wrote anything Himself, and the Gospels are records of oral tradition.


The difference between chimps and us is MASSIVE even if the DNA is similar. Show me an example of our close relatives that have a belief in something. Show me how they demonstrate they primitive 'beliefs' with little idols and temples that they worship. Oh, you cant? Why not? If we are so close, and they are so intelligent (as you would insinuate) why dont they begin to Worship man or trees or anything else? Observation.


Do chimps have a belief in God and/or an afterlife? I do not know, and if they did, such a belief would indeed be very primitive. We do know, however, that some of our non-human ancestors did have such beliefs...fossils of our early pre-human ancestors have been found buried with tools. This demonstrates both that they paid respect to their dead by burial, and also a belief in the afterlife, i.e., that the soul would be in need of tools.

As for chimps, the jury is still out. We do know, however, that chimps understand death, and that they mourn their dead. This is not unique with primates: elephants regularly return to the bones of their parents and elders, and mourn. This behavior in elephants is what led to modern animal psychology, and when it was first discovered it caused an uproar in classical Cartesian science. It seemed to throw a monkey wrench into the theory that non-human animals were just "things".

I do not here intend to anthropomorphize non-human animals by turning them into "little humans", since they are certainly not. But on the other hand, we also err if we ignore what they really are out of dogma. The brain of the primate is so very much like our own that the similarities in ontology should be carefully considered. We know that they think, are self-aware, are aware of mortality and morality, and emotion. Even though we are not the same as they, they too seem to be persons.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Hi Masonic Light.



Indeed it was; but we see from biblical history itself that the early Hebrews even before Moses had many dealings with surrounding Semitic and Canaanite nations, and that they were influenced by cultural diffusion.


If you read the account of the Jews and mosses you will that God did not tolerate any of the 'pagan' influences at all. As a mater of fact, he gave the Israelites a mandate to 'wipe out' other pagan tribes. When mosses came down from the mountain with the 10 commandments and found them worshiping a bull (a belief from their Egyptian exile) he went wild. I would agree with you that they had a lot of influences from the surrounding cultures, however, God made it clear that they were to have nothing to do with these beliefs and were therefore discarded.



You are correct that the Bible claims to be the word of God. So does the Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, and Book of Mormon. But I do not accept these other books on the face value of their claims either. I'm not degrading your religious beliefs here, and I respect them. I'm only pointing out why your beliefs do not always reconcile with my own.


Exactly. Just like your belief in evolution is contrary to what I believe.




The record of what Christ may and may not have said is found in the Bible alone (although a few apocryphal books that make claims about Christ's words are around also). From a completely neutral standpoint, it is impossible to state as fact what Christ actually said, as to our knowledge He never wrote anything Himself, and the Gospels are records of oral tradition.


Well, there have been something like 25,000 ancient scrolls found of the new testament. Better still, 4 different eye witness accounts of Christ were recorded. The authenticity of the Bible has been proven time and time again.



We do know, however, that some of our non-human ancestors did have such beliefs in something


Non-human ancestors? The missing link? Beliefs in what? Classic case assumptions



fossils of our early pre-human ancestors have been found buried with tools. This demonstrates both that they paid respect to their dead by burial, in the afterlife, i.e., that the soul would be in need of tools.


Assumption again.



As for chimps, the jury is still out. We do know, however, that chimps understand death


Even cows understand the notion of death, not to mention your domestic cat or dog. This does not prove anything about from the fact that animals have feelings. Just like they have feelings to nurture the young or protect each other.

By the way, if we kept going down this path and assume that chimps 'do' worship a God, wouldnt that give more evidence to propose that there is a God or Gods? Bizarre Planet of the apes!



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I feel sorry for the people that depend on religion, from the time was in 2nd grade i had no reason to belive that GOd existed, i threw all of those thoughs out along with Santa Cluas and the easter bunny. After that i moved to venezulea and went to an international school, and religion was never brought up, we talked about darwin alot and read bits of the orgin of species. It just made perfect sense. There was no other way(by best friend there now goes to MIT). THey i returned back to the US for the 8th grade. I did not know what religion realy was, it was never pushed upon me like it is to so many other people. My girlfriend said she wanted me to go to church with her, i realu didnt know what is was so i went. Words cant describe how i felt in there. It was pathetic, people were saying horrible things and thanking god for looking out after them. I made a comment that they are suposed to die, that is how our species will continue, we weed out the weak, if we carry along the bad we will all fall, survial of the fittest.

Goes without saying that they did not like people to think logicaly in church, so they kicked me out. I have alwas made decitions on my own, about all kind of things, i had always htought the storey of jeasus was just that, same as all other lititure from that time period, not supose to be taken serisoly. From the time i can remember to that day, i did not know that people belived in this, it wasnt logical.

To this day i hace to go to church once a year with my family on christmas or easter, and everytime i go i feel so sad, i feel sad for all the people there. Are these people brain-dead? Have they been brain washed? Is this a form of goverment control to keep order? Mabye it is true that i will vever understand how the mind of a religious fanatic works, but i think it is a perminent system, they have been trained to belive, trained to except a way of life, a way of thought, and discuraged to think on their own.

I belive it is like Platos alagory of the cave, heres a link faculty.washington.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join