The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
EDITED
Every theory that the scientists of the world had put forward during the 15th to 19th century had witnessed a whirl wind of opposition from those who were conservatives. Most of these theories were proved right quite a long time before the 20th century. But, the theory of evolution was questioned by conservatives even in the 20th century.
Please note that we are talking here about the conservatives; those who want to say that evolution is impossible, or those who say that life originated in 4004 B.C.
One such person was REV. Father William A. Williams, D.D. (I’m quite unsure what does the D.D. here stands for). He had put forward 50 arguments against evolution of man in a systematic manner in his book "The evolution of man scientifically disproved in 50 arguments". (Yes, he accepts plants and animals might have evolved, but man did not)
I have started this thread for two reasons: -
A record attempt for the world's longest thread dealing with arguments (this one is not a much serious reason), and more importantly for counter-attacking some wild arguments as well as the savage use of scientific principles by the author and to share them with people on ukchatforums.com
Now, first off I am posting the summary of the introduction of this book. Please note that this book is now public domain, and no copyright law is being infringed by discussing or summarizing this book on ukchatforums. You can check out the details on www.gutenberg.org
The summary of this introduction can be used to prove the author wrong in his own tracks. After this, I would regularly post his summarized arguments and the contradictions that I find to them, as and when I get time. Do remember that the contradictions that I post here are my own and not borrowed. The things that I'll be using would be common logic and some basic principles, so that every body can argue and understand it. Also note that we are not proving the theory of evolution (most of it is universally accepted), but disproving the contents of Father’s book.
So here we commence-----
Summary of the introduction of Evo. Of Man disproved
(Here "we" means the readers of Father’s book. Treat the text as if you were reading Father Williams' book; and not his summary by me)
This book is designed,
(1) As an up-to-date text book, and a companion to all other text books on evolution; and
(2) As an antidote to books in libraries teaching evolution, infidelity and atheism; and
(3) As an aid to all students, parents, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, and all other lovers of the truth.
Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of science is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and the maddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions of science. Every theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved or disproved by this acid test. Gravitation is proved a true theory by numerous calculations, some of them the most abstruse. The Copernican theory is proved true and the Ptolemaic theory false, by mathematical calculations. The evolution theory, especially as applied to man, likewise is disproved by mathematics. True theories, such as the gravitation and Copernican theories, harmonize with each other as every branch of mathematics harmonizes with every other.
One theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which teaches that all species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or spontaneous generation
Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be reconcilable with many facts; to be a probable theory, it must be reconcilable with many more; to be a certain and proven theory, it must be reconcilable with all the facts. Every true theory passes through these three stages,--possibility, probability, and certainty.
We really have a right to demand the proof of a theory, and to refuse consent until proved. Even if it should ever be proved that all plant and animal life came by evolution from one primordial germ, it would not follow that either the body or the soul (note the usage of abstract term “Soul” in a scientific discussion” – entered by The Winster) of man came by evolution.
All the arguments against evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man. There are many other arguments, that prove the evolution of man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals can be proved possible.
Even if every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that one valid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory must be reconcilable with all the facts (Note how Father is reacting to the authenticity of his own facts. Guilty conscience – Added by The Winster). One irreconcilable fact is sufficient to overthrow evolution.
The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing (!) arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common.
End of the summary
The first argument concerns the human population of earth, where the author has quite childishly used indexes (powers) of 2 to prove that the current population is insufficient if man existed since one million years.
I'll post two things: -
(1)a summary of whatever Rev. Father Williams has to say in his first argument
(2)and a logical proof (by me) that it is not a valid argument
in the next two or three days in this very thread.
I hope you would like this topic, and not make fun of it. After all we are in the "Life and all things serious" forum.
P.S. - Please bear with me the repetition of the word argument too often in this thread. If possible do post a good synonym to it with your replies, if any. Keep the synonym in P.S. Also, please don't start discussing the last 3 sentences in this thread. After all, the topic is evolution!
Every theory that the scientists of the world had put forward during the 15th to 19th century had witnessed a whirl wind of opposition from those who were conservatives. Most of these theories were proved right quite a long time before the 20th century. But, the theory of evolution was questioned by conservatives even in the 20th century.
Please note that we are talking here about the conservatives; those who want to say that evolution is impossible, or those who say that life originated in 4004 B.C.
One such person was REV. Father William A. Williams, D.D. (I’m quite unsure what does the D.D. here stands for). He had put forward 50 arguments against evolution of man in a systematic manner in his book "The evolution of man scientifically disproved in 50 arguments". (Yes, he accepts plants and animals might have evolved, but man did not)
I have started this thread for two reasons: -
A record attempt for the world's longest thread dealing with arguments (this one is not a much serious reason), and more importantly for counter-attacking some wild arguments as well as the savage use of scientific principles by the author and to share them with people on ukchatforums.com
Now, first off I am posting the summary of the introduction of this book. Please note that this book is now public domain, and no copyright law is being infringed by discussing or summarizing this book on ukchatforums. You can check out the details on www.gutenberg.org
The summary of this introduction can be used to prove the author wrong in his own tracks. After this, I would regularly post his summarized arguments and the contradictions that I find to them, as and when I get time. Do remember that the contradictions that I post here are my own and not borrowed. The things that I'll be using would be common logic and some basic principles, so that every body can argue and understand it. Also note that we are not proving the theory of evolution (most of it is universally accepted), but disproving the contents of Father’s book.
So here we commence-----
Summary of the introduction of Evo. Of Man disproved
(Here "we" means the readers of Father’s book. Treat the text as if you were reading Father Williams' book; and not his summary by me)
This book is designed,
(1) As an up-to-date text book, and a companion to all other text books on evolution; and
(2) As an antidote to books in libraries teaching evolution, infidelity and atheism; and
(3) As an aid to all students, parents, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, and all other lovers of the truth.
Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of science is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and the maddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions of science. Every theory to which mathematics can be applied will be proved or disproved by this acid test. Gravitation is proved a true theory by numerous calculations, some of them the most abstruse. The Copernican theory is proved true and the Ptolemaic theory false, by mathematical calculations. The evolution theory, especially as applied to man, likewise is disproved by mathematics. True theories, such as the gravitation and Copernican theories, harmonize with each other as every branch of mathematics harmonizes with every other.
One theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which teaches that all species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or spontaneous generation
Any scientific theory or hypothesis must be proved first possible, then probable, then certain. To be a possible theory, it must be reconcilable with many facts; to be a probable theory, it must be reconcilable with many more; to be a certain and proven theory, it must be reconcilable with all the facts. Every true theory passes through these three stages,--possibility, probability, and certainty.
We really have a right to demand the proof of a theory, and to refuse consent until proved. Even if it should ever be proved that all plant and animal life came by evolution from one primordial germ, it would not follow that either the body or the soul (note the usage of abstract term “Soul” in a scientific discussion” – entered by The Winster) of man came by evolution.
All the arguments against evolution in general are valid against the evolution of man. There are many other arguments, that prove the evolution of man impossible, even if the evolution of plants and animals can be proved possible.
Even if every argument in this book were invalid, save one, that one valid argument would overthrow evolution, since every true theory must be reconcilable with all the facts (Note how Father is reacting to the authenticity of his own facts. Guilty conscience – Added by The Winster). One irreconcilable fact is sufficient to overthrow evolution.
The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing (!) arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common.
End of the summary
The first argument concerns the human population of earth, where the author has quite childishly used indexes (powers) of 2 to prove that the current population is insufficient if man existed since one million years.
I'll post two things: -
(1)a summary of whatever Rev. Father Williams has to say in his first argument
(2)and a logical proof (by me) that it is not a valid argument
in the next two or three days in this very thread.
I hope you would like this topic, and not make fun of it. After all we are in the "Life and all things serious" forum.
P.S. - Please bear with me the repetition of the word argument too often in this thread. If possible do post a good synonym to it with your replies, if any. Keep the synonym in P.S. Also, please don't start discussing the last 3 sentences in this thread. After all, the topic is evolution!
Page:
Of course I believe in evolution, its obvious, maybee not the evolution of species but certainly if you take the things we know now compared to even 200 hundred years ago its obvious we have evolved into brainier people. I believe in princible that we could have originated from ape but accept they are still flaws in the theory, but just because theres flaws it doesn't mean that it doesn't exsist. Science will tell us in time, untill then we just have to put up with the same old debates, with the same old questions, with the same old answers.
You can view the summary of all the posts uptil now in The General Chat Forum.
kevstar wrote:
> Not sure if I undersood all that but dictionarys only use words that
> apply to us in this day and age, and things like pc etc are only
> there in the dictionary because its something that someone had to
> name when it got invented. At the same time, theres loads of words
> what would have been used in earlier days but arn't in the dictionary
> now.
Well, that's a good logic.
> I also think that anyone trying to say that we were here earlier
> than what we think just because the size of a language is nonsense,
> where's the skulls of theese people so they can be dated in the
> scientific way?
I think you misunderstood the concept. Are you supporting evolution or creationism by this statement?
> Not sure if I undersood all that but dictionarys only use words that
> apply to us in this day and age, and things like pc etc are only
> there in the dictionary because its something that someone had to
> name when it got invented. At the same time, theres loads of words
> what would have been used in earlier days but arn't in the dictionary
> now.
Well, that's a good logic.
> I also think that anyone trying to say that we were here earlier
> than what we think just because the size of a language is nonsense,
> where's the skulls of theese people so they can be dated in the
> scientific way?
I think you misunderstood the concept. Are you supporting evolution or creationism by this statement?
Not sure if I undersood all that but dictionarys only use words that apply to us in this day and age, and things like pc etc are only there in the dictionary because its something that someone had to name when it got invented. At the same time, theres loads of words what would have been used in earlier days but arn't in the dictionary now. I also think that anyone trying to say that we were here earlier than what we think just because the size of a language is nonsense, where's the skulls of theese people so they can be dated in the scientific way?
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ----------------- ------------------------
Argument Two : - THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- ----------------- ------------------------
Prof. Max Muller, and other renowned linguists, declared that all languages are derived from one.
This is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words, the grammatical construction and accidents, the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc.
The words for father and mother similar in form, for example, are found in many languages in all the five great groups, the Aryan, the Semitic, the Hamitic the Turanian and Chinese groups, showing a common original language and proving the early existence of the home and civilization.
The similarity of these and many other words in all of the great Aryan or Indo-European family of languages, spoken in all continents is common knowledge. Lord Avebury names 85 Hamitic languages in Africa in which the names of father and mother are similar; 29 non-Aryan languages in Asia and Europe, including Turkish, Thibetan, and many of the Turanian and Chinese groups; 5 in New Zealand and other Islands; 8 in Australia; and 20 spoken by American Indians.
The French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese are daughters of the Latin; Latin is a daughter of the Aryan; and the Aryan, together with the other sister languages is, no doubt, the daughter of the original language spoken by Noah and his immediate descendants. There can not well be more than 4 generations of languages, and the time since Noah is sufficient for the development of the 1000 languages and dialects.
The American Indians have developed about 200 in 3,000 or 4,000 years. The life of a language roughly speaking seems to range from 1000 to 3,000 years. The time since Noah is sufficient for the development of all the languages of the world. But if man has existed for 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 years, with a brain capacity ranging from 96% to normal, there would have been multiplied thousands of languages bearing little or no resemblance. There is not a trace of all these languages. They were never spoken because no one lived to speak them.
Many linguists insist that the original language of mankind consisted of a few short words, possibly not over 200, since many now use only about 300. The Hebrew has only about 500 root words of 3 letters; the stagnant Chinese, 450; the Sanscrit (see the spelling! - added by The Winster), about the same. All the Semitic languages have tri-literal roots. As the tendency of all languages is to grow in the number and length of words, these consisting of a few small words must have been close to the original mother tongue.
No language could have come down from the great antiquity required by evolution and have so few words. Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000. The evidence points to the origin and unity of languages in the days of Noah, and proves the great antiquity of man an impossibility and his evolution a pitiful absurdity.
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Proving Argument Two : - THE UNITY OF LANGUAGES Wrong
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Father Williams wrote
>It is abundantly proven by the similarity of roots and words,
>the grammatical construction and accidents,
>the correspondence in the order of their alphabets, etc. that
>all languages are derived from one.
Yes, all the living languages now are derived from one, Sanskrit (pronounced Sanskroot); but there are many languages that have no correspondence with each other. For example, there are those thousands of tribal languages that don’t have a script. Er, have you seen the Discovery channel interstitial in which a man flips through pages of a library which are all blank? This interstitial tells you that almost 95% of languages don’t have a script. They are never heard of, they are not the major languages, and so you never get to observe whether they are derived from any generation of Sanskrit or Latin or completely independent or not?
And then, compare the grammatical structure of Hindi & Indian languages with that of English & French. Hindi and other languages have a phonetic script; others don’t. Anyways, it doesn't have anything to do with the evolution of man yet.
Father Williams wrote
>...and 20 languages spoken by American Indians.
If you accept that Red Indians exist, then you'll have to accept that they migrated 12000 years ago from Russia to America when the Bering strait (I guess it’s the Bering strait, it might be some other strait also) disappeared and land appeared during the ice age. That automatically proves that man is more than 12000 years old. So, you can come to the conclusion that Creationism is not a literal truth.
There is not much more to be disproved in this argument. But the interpretation of the age of languages is wrong. Languages were not born with the birth of man. They took time to develop. The languages developed, and their rate of development also increased. I repeat, their rate of development also increased. This means, that the development of languages was not linear.
Father Williams wrote
>No language could have come down from the great antiquity required
>by evolution and have so few words.
>Johnson's Eng. Dictionary had 58,000 words; modern Dictionaries over 300,000.
In a nutshell, what Father means here is that languages develop over a time span and if languages were 2 million years old, we would had many a times stronger vocabulary than the current one.
But, as I said languages, didn't come along with humans. They developed.
Also, father believes that their growth is linear. No. Take the example of the maximum speed man could gain. When he ran right from the primitive ages, his speed could be 10-30 kmph, when he started using cycles, he could get a consistent speed of 30 kmph and then even more. Then came the vehicles that operated on Internal Combustion Engines, speed was about 200-300 kmph using airplanes (increased 10 times). Then jet engines and the speed reached supersonic level (increased six times more). Then with rockets, he reached speeds of 20000-30000 kmph (hundred times more). I know these figures are not accurate, but they give you an acute idea that the rate of development (repeat, rate of development) increased with the development of technology.
Same is with the number of words in a dictionary. There are thousands of words in a dictionary whose origins are in computers (like PC, internet, e-mail etc.) or in other languages (Sardar, Kismet) etc.
So, the essence of the whole post is, languages don’t go to prove whether man evolved or he was created. This is only regards to the arguments put forward by Father Williams. If you have more arguments regarding languages, you can post them here.
The Winster wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
>
> Neither is 100% right or wrong.
> But what's the point, because this will crop up again in Feb. And
> March. And April. And so on so forth.
>
> Hey, some of us enjoy this argument...
>
> Personally, I find pro-science types who try to claim that science
> shows God cannot possibly exist to be just as blinkered and
> fundamentalist in outlook as any Southern Baptist.
>
> BTW, what do you exactly mean by a Baptist?
Southern Baptists of the USA have become a byword for foaming Evangelical Christianity. Anyway...
> This may seem a bit ridiculous thing, but if you observe things, God
> wants simplicity in and balance of things.
Which is just your belief, is it not? Based on your own observations? And therefore not indisputable fact, right?
> Anyways, what we mean by evolution is usually what Darwin wrote in
> his book "On the Origin of Species". But have none of you
> guys heard of Neo-Darwinism? Evolution is not a single theory,
> it is a set of theories that define systematically the development of
> species. Leave that, but Darwin was unable to mmake a perfect theory,
> just because he was the first one to do so, and he certainly didn't
> have those scientific inventions which could have helped him advance
> in his tracks.
>
> As a matter of fact, Darwin wasn't convinced with some parts of his
> own theories. That is why he post-poned publishing his work for some
> 20 odd years. And when he published the book, it was only because
> another youngster was to publish a similiar theory. Thank God that
> Darwin still got the credit for that.
Y'know, you sound as fervent about Darwin as Forest Fan is about Jesus....
> Light wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
>
> Neither is 100% right or wrong.
> But what's the point, because this will crop up again in Feb. And
> March. And April. And so on so forth.
>
> Hey, some of us enjoy this argument...
>
> Personally, I find pro-science types who try to claim that science
> shows God cannot possibly exist to be just as blinkered and
> fundamentalist in outlook as any Southern Baptist.
>
> BTW, what do you exactly mean by a Baptist?
Southern Baptists of the USA have become a byword for foaming Evangelical Christianity. Anyway...
> This may seem a bit ridiculous thing, but if you observe things, God
> wants simplicity in and balance of things.
Which is just your belief, is it not? Based on your own observations? And therefore not indisputable fact, right?
> Anyways, what we mean by evolution is usually what Darwin wrote in
> his book "On the Origin of Species". But have none of you
> guys heard of Neo-Darwinism? Evolution is not a single theory,
> it is a set of theories that define systematically the development of
> species. Leave that, but Darwin was unable to mmake a perfect theory,
> just because he was the first one to do so, and he certainly didn't
> have those scientific inventions which could have helped him advance
> in his tracks.
>
> As a matter of fact, Darwin wasn't convinced with some parts of his
> own theories. That is why he post-poned publishing his work for some
> 20 odd years. And when he published the book, it was only because
> another youngster was to publish a similiar theory. Thank God that
> Darwin still got the credit for that.
Y'know, you sound as fervent about Darwin as Forest Fan is about Jesus....
Light wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
>
> Neither is 100% right or wrong.
> But what's the point, because this will crop up again in Feb. And
> March. And April. And so on so forth.
>
> Hey, some of us enjoy this argument...
>
> Personally, I find pro-science types who try to claim that science
> shows God cannot possibly exist to be just as blinkered and
> fundamentalist in outlook as any Southern Baptist.
BTW, what do you exactly mean by a Baptist? Anyways, it has so happened with all of us that we have taken it for granted that only one of evolution and creationism is true. If evolution is true, creationism is false, and vice-versa. But let me tell you one thing, God might have created matter and energy. But he might have never intended to go onto anythings larger than bosons or protons or electrons (in one word, say he never wanted to construct an atom). This may seem a bit ridiculous thing, but if you observe things, God wants simplicity in and balance of things.
Anyways, what we mean by evolution is usually what Darwin wrote in his book "On the Origin of Species". But have none of you guys heard of Neo-Darwinism? Evolution is not a single theory, it is a set of theories that define systematically the development of species. Leave that, but Darwin was unable to mmake a perfect theory, just because he was the first one to do so, and he certainly didn't have those scientific inventions which could have helped him advance in his tracks.
As a matter of fact, Darwin wasn't convinced with some parts of his own theories. That is why he post-poned publishing his work for some 20 odd years. And when he published the book, it was only because another youngster was to publish a similiar theory. Thank God that Darwin still got the credit for that.
> Goatboy wrote:
>
> Neither is 100% right or wrong.
> But what's the point, because this will crop up again in Feb. And
> March. And April. And so on so forth.
>
> Hey, some of us enjoy this argument...
>
> Personally, I find pro-science types who try to claim that science
> shows God cannot possibly exist to be just as blinkered and
> fundamentalist in outlook as any Southern Baptist.
BTW, what do you exactly mean by a Baptist? Anyways, it has so happened with all of us that we have taken it for granted that only one of evolution and creationism is true. If evolution is true, creationism is false, and vice-versa. But let me tell you one thing, God might have created matter and energy. But he might have never intended to go onto anythings larger than bosons or protons or electrons (in one word, say he never wanted to construct an atom). This may seem a bit ridiculous thing, but if you observe things, God wants simplicity in and balance of things.
Anyways, what we mean by evolution is usually what Darwin wrote in his book "On the Origin of Species". But have none of you guys heard of Neo-Darwinism? Evolution is not a single theory, it is a set of theories that define systematically the development of species. Leave that, but Darwin was unable to mmake a perfect theory, just because he was the first one to do so, and he certainly didn't have those scientific inventions which could have helped him advance in his tracks.
As a matter of fact, Darwin wasn't convinced with some parts of his own theories. That is why he post-poned publishing his work for some 20 odd years. And when he published the book, it was only because another youngster was to publish a similiar theory. Thank God that Darwin still got the credit for that.
Goatboy wrote:
> Neither is 100% right or wrong.
> But what's the point, because this will crop up again in Feb. And
> March. And April. And so on so forth.
Hey, some of us enjoy this argument...
Personally, I find pro-science types who try to claim that science shows God cannot possibly exist to be just as blinkered and fundamentalist in outlook as any Southern Baptist.
> Neither is 100% right or wrong.
> But what's the point, because this will crop up again in Feb. And
> March. And April. And so on so forth.
Hey, some of us enjoy this argument...
Personally, I find pro-science types who try to claim that science shows God cannot possibly exist to be just as blinkered and fundamentalist in outlook as any Southern Baptist.
Goatboy said
>"I believe"
Do you see the point?
You believe one thing, a creationist believes another. You'll discount his evidence, he'll discount yours.
It's an endless bloody argument that crops up here every single month without fail and the same old rubbish is spouted from both side.
Spot on Goatboy.
>"I believe"
Do you see the point?
You believe one thing, a creationist believes another. You'll discount his evidence, he'll discount yours.
It's an endless bloody argument that crops up here every single month without fail and the same old rubbish is spouted from both side.
Spot on Goatboy.
Very true goatboy. Also, i failed to notice i used "i believe" in my response, well spotted (grrr).
But religion is nothing more than a cover pulled over our eyes to hide us from the truth. Yes i quoted the matrix, but its true.
Dont you get the feeling, that as a race, we act like were indestructable? We could be wiped from the face of this planet in a second by the next asteriod/comet heading our way, and none would be the wiser...
Religion was evolved to try and answer the questions they could not answer (and some we still cant). However it became more of a cult etc and in some countries, you can get killed for not believeing in the right one.
The person/s who wrote the bible were smart, not genious. By using such bland unspecific phrases and meanings they can attach many sayings from the bible to virtually every situation, person, feeling in the world. The idea of the bible is very good, but i bet you my life it wasnt intended to be used the way it is. I bet you it was there to inspire and make men wiser, not to worship and become a slave too.
Yes it makes people wiser, but imprisons them in a way of life that they would say "F*** that" too if they begun a new life, not part of any religion. Also sometimes the most logical decision is the best one to make, and the wise decision the worst to make.
But religion is nothing more than a cover pulled over our eyes to hide us from the truth. Yes i quoted the matrix, but its true.
Dont you get the feeling, that as a race, we act like were indestructable? We could be wiped from the face of this planet in a second by the next asteriod/comet heading our way, and none would be the wiser...
Religion was evolved to try and answer the questions they could not answer (and some we still cant). However it became more of a cult etc and in some countries, you can get killed for not believeing in the right one.
The person/s who wrote the bible were smart, not genious. By using such bland unspecific phrases and meanings they can attach many sayings from the bible to virtually every situation, person, feeling in the world. The idea of the bible is very good, but i bet you my life it wasnt intended to be used the way it is. I bet you it was there to inspire and make men wiser, not to worship and become a slave too.
Yes it makes people wiser, but imprisons them in a way of life that they would say "F*** that" too if they begun a new life, not part of any religion. Also sometimes the most logical decision is the best one to make, and the wise decision the worst to make.
Page: