The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
While I was browsing the site you can find if you [URL]http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14510&page=2&pp=15[/URL] , I came across this interesting story.
Some people were arguing over which version of Taoism was the best (Taoism was an alternative to Buddhism in China) and also what was best out of Buddhism and Taoism (which was silly considering that they're both so similar and a proper Taoist/Buddhist wouldn't be bothered by who's belief is best...) and a guy came out with this analogy:
It's like in the old story of the blind guys all grabbing an elephant on a different part and then trying to describe to each other what an elephant really is based on the one part they have in their hands. One guy has an ear, one guy has the tail, one guy has the torso, one guy has a leg, another guy has a tusk. They all have a real part of the elephant, but they also all have completely different descriptions and end up getting mad and yelling at each other about what an elephant is really like. It isn't because they are stupid or wrong, it is because they can't see the rest of the elephant.
Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, you name it, they all have dozens, if not hundreds, of sects just because of "blindness" regarding their other parts. If you dig into the roots of the traditions you'll see that most of the founders of different religions all warned against this happening. But, people being who they are, everyone wants their part of the elephant to be the best one and don't give a monkey's (or an elephant's) butt about the other parts (if they even admit that other parts exist) and spend all day yelling about their own.
Do you think that God has revealed EVERYTHING there is to know about him in your Bible?
Even if you were to be right, that would not necessarily make over religions and beliefs wrong?
What do you think? :-)
Some people were arguing over which version of Taoism was the best (Taoism was an alternative to Buddhism in China) and also what was best out of Buddhism and Taoism (which was silly considering that they're both so similar and a proper Taoist/Buddhist wouldn't be bothered by who's belief is best...) and a guy came out with this analogy:
It's like in the old story of the blind guys all grabbing an elephant on a different part and then trying to describe to each other what an elephant really is based on the one part they have in their hands. One guy has an ear, one guy has the tail, one guy has the torso, one guy has a leg, another guy has a tusk. They all have a real part of the elephant, but they also all have completely different descriptions and end up getting mad and yelling at each other about what an elephant is really like. It isn't because they are stupid or wrong, it is because they can't see the rest of the elephant.
Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, you name it, they all have dozens, if not hundreds, of sects just because of "blindness" regarding their other parts. If you dig into the roots of the traditions you'll see that most of the founders of different religions all warned against this happening. But, people being who they are, everyone wants their part of the elephant to be the best one and don't give a monkey's (or an elephant's) butt about the other parts (if they even admit that other parts exist) and spend all day yelling about their own.
Do you think that God has revealed EVERYTHING there is to know about him in your Bible?
Even if you were to be right, that would not necessarily make over religions and beliefs wrong?
What do you think? :-)
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> The belief that random cells, could arrange themselves as evolution
> states is near enough impossible.
Ah, but it isn't impossible, and as such give time it will happen. E.G., the first creature with eyes. It will have survived better than the other crappy blobs as it could see to avoid the lava etc, whereas the others would blunder into it and die. Survival of the fittest.
Still, current human situation is stopping evolution in all but the brain. For example, genetic desises in a natural enviroment (caveman style) would be wiped out over time as all the people with them would die before they could breed, and evetually the carriers would be pushed into a smaller and smaller amount of the population until no one was a carrier either. So in that respect modern medican is stopping evolution. Same applies to the imune system.
> The belief that random cells, could arrange themselves as evolution
> states is near enough impossible.
Ah, but it isn't impossible, and as such give time it will happen. E.G., the first creature with eyes. It will have survived better than the other crappy blobs as it could see to avoid the lava etc, whereas the others would blunder into it and die. Survival of the fittest.
Still, current human situation is stopping evolution in all but the brain. For example, genetic desises in a natural enviroment (caveman style) would be wiped out over time as all the people with them would die before they could breed, and evetually the carriers would be pushed into a smaller and smaller amount of the population until no one was a carrier either. So in that respect modern medican is stopping evolution. Same applies to the imune system.
The belief that random cells, could arrange themselves as evolution states is near enough impossible.
Forest Fan wrote:
> First no = Lack of science in evolution
Alright, explain fully how evolution lacks science.
> First no = Lack of science in evolution
Alright, explain fully how evolution lacks science.
Just to add to that, I have relatives who have emigrated to America.
First no = Lack of science in evolution
Second no = Not American
Second no = Not American
Forest Fan wrote:
> Allred wrote:
> Yes, but he used fact within the theroy. By the by, are you
> American?
>
> No and no.
Whats the other no for?
> Allred wrote:
> Yes, but he used fact within the theroy. By the by, are you
> American?
>
> No and no.
Whats the other no for?
Allred wrote:
> Yes, but he used fact within the theroy. By the by, are you
> American?
No and no.
> Yes, but he used fact within the theroy. By the by, are you
> American?
No and no.
Because no one knows for sure how anything happened.
But he induced the theory through scientific thinking.
It's the theory that fits modern science the best.
Most creationist evidence I've seen is clearly people clutching at straws and trying to find anything that might make their religion look more scientific than mythic.
But he induced the theory through scientific thinking.
It's the theory that fits modern science the best.
Most creationist evidence I've seen is clearly people clutching at straws and trying to find anything that might make their religion look more scientific than mythic.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Actually evolution was created as a 'theory', Charles Darwin was
> stating a 'theory', one way it 'could' have happened.
Yes, but he used fact within the theroy. By the by, are you American?
> Actually evolution was created as a 'theory', Charles Darwin was
> stating a 'theory', one way it 'could' have happened.
Yes, but he used fact within the theroy. By the by, are you American?
Actually evolution was created as a 'theory', Charles Darwin was stating a 'theory', one way it 'could' have happened.
Page: