The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
To all those who insist in following the Cult that is "evolution" here are yet more of the infinite flaws in the fairy tale. This is the side the evolutionist scientists of course don't tell you.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
Page:
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Adaptation is NOT the same as evolution. Even evolutionist
> scientists
> agree with me, "The molecular basis of adaptation is a major
> focus of evolutionary biology, yet the dynamic process of adaptation
> has been explored only piecemeal. Experimental evolution of two
> bacteriophage lines under strong selection led to over a dozen
> nucleotide changes genomewide in each replicate. At least 96 percent
> of the amino acid substitutions appeared to be adaptive, and half
> the
> changes in one line also occurred in the other. However, the order
> of
> these changes differed between replicates, and parallel
> substitutions
> did not reflect the changes with the largest beneficial effects or
> indicate a common trajectory of adaptation." Source: National
> Library of Medicine
>
>
> Lol :^D
> Did you even read that? All it says is that in an experiment designed
> to force organisms to change generation on generation, some of the
> changes were the same, but they occured in different orders in the
> two experiments.
>
> Not only does it not even attempt to distinguish adaptation and
> evolution, it doesn't even say anything to suggest evolution doesn't
> happen. It just shows that genetic changes occur at random in the
> reproduction of organisms. That's one of the fundamental principles
> for how evolution works!
>
> And as you've accepted below, changes like this which are beneficial
> will enable some organisms to have a better chance of survival than
> the unchanged counterparts, and will then pass on these genetic
> variations to their offspirng, securing the existence of a new form
> of organism, born of a different one.
>
> Your own example, coupled with your own admissions, has proven you
> agree that the process of evolution takes place!
>
> You just haven't realised it yet :^S
>
> Made me smile :^)
Glad I made you happy, I am working on an article on evolution, I will post it up later.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Adaptation is NOT the same as evolution. Even evolutionist
> scientists
> agree with me, "The molecular basis of adaptation is a major
> focus of evolutionary biology, yet the dynamic process of adaptation
> has been explored only piecemeal. Experimental evolution of two
> bacteriophage lines under strong selection led to over a dozen
> nucleotide changes genomewide in each replicate. At least 96 percent
> of the amino acid substitutions appeared to be adaptive, and half
> the
> changes in one line also occurred in the other. However, the order
> of
> these changes differed between replicates, and parallel
> substitutions
> did not reflect the changes with the largest beneficial effects or
> indicate a common trajectory of adaptation." Source: National
> Library of Medicine
>
>
> Lol :^D
> Did you even read that? All it says is that in an experiment designed
> to force organisms to change generation on generation, some of the
> changes were the same, but they occured in different orders in the
> two experiments.
>
> Not only does it not even attempt to distinguish adaptation and
> evolution, it doesn't even say anything to suggest evolution doesn't
> happen. It just shows that genetic changes occur at random in the
> reproduction of organisms. That's one of the fundamental principles
> for how evolution works!
>
> And as you've accepted below, changes like this which are beneficial
> will enable some organisms to have a better chance of survival than
> the unchanged counterparts, and will then pass on these genetic
> variations to their offspirng, securing the existence of a new form
> of organism, born of a different one.
>
> Your own example, coupled with your own admissions, has proven you
> agree that the process of evolution takes place!
>
> You just haven't realised it yet :^S
>
> Made me smile :^)
Glad I made you happy, I am working on an article on evolution, I will post it up later.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> FF, that whole piece could have been written on you.
Another person who is offended by the one way to the KINGDOM of GOD.
> FF, that whole piece could have been written on you.
Another person who is offended by the one way to the KINGDOM of GOD.
One of the main arguments used by creationists against evolutionists is the evolution of the eyeball. How did such a complex organ evolve from a single cell?
Two scientists tried to model evolution of the eyeball using a computer simulation. They started with one photo-sensitive cell and applied a random mutation to it. They then took the original cell and applied a different random mutation. Repeat 50 times. They now had 50 results that had had one mutation applied to each. The simulation then tested every result to see which was the best at detecting light. They took this 'best result' and used it as the basis for the next generation. Rinse and repeat.
After a hell of a lot of generations (can't remember exact figure), taking the 'best' each time, they ended up with, you guessed it, an eyeball! Only this eyeball was infact slightly better than ours, the lens it had evolved was better (I think there were actually 2 lenses), which goes to show that evolution is an entirely feasible proposition. It also demonstrates that evolution will do the best it needs to do for a certain job, not the best it can do period.
{Oh yes, black holes have been observed, not directly as this is an imposibility, but indirectly using other stars and maths and stuff.}
Two scientists tried to model evolution of the eyeball using a computer simulation. They started with one photo-sensitive cell and applied a random mutation to it. They then took the original cell and applied a different random mutation. Repeat 50 times. They now had 50 results that had had one mutation applied to each. The simulation then tested every result to see which was the best at detecting light. They took this 'best result' and used it as the basis for the next generation. Rinse and repeat.
After a hell of a lot of generations (can't remember exact figure), taking the 'best' each time, they ended up with, you guessed it, an eyeball! Only this eyeball was infact slightly better than ours, the lens it had evolved was better (I think there were actually 2 lenses), which goes to show that evolution is an entirely feasible proposition. It also demonstrates that evolution will do the best it needs to do for a certain job, not the best it can do period.
{Oh yes, black holes have been observed, not directly as this is an imposibility, but indirectly using other stars and maths and stuff.}
Strafio wrote:
"Sorry Grix, but it's not just survival, it requires reproduction too! ;-P"
If you just wanted to say "You need to get laid" you should have just said, jeez...
:D
"Sorry Grix, but it's not just survival, it requires reproduction too! ;-P"
If you just wanted to say "You need to get laid" you should have just said, jeez...
:D
Forest Fan wrote:
> So your piece above, do you agree the world was created?
Didn't you read it? :-)
He said that we haven't evolved because people are still too stupidly narrow minded to think that there is only ONE way of seeing things and only ONE way of living a good life and think that EVERYONE should see the world THEIR way.
Ah, but Grix, if you see that as something wrong then you've mutated!
So now we have variance in the species.
Grix, who thinks of freedom, and the world of power hungry megalomaniacs, who will survive the generations to dominate the species?
Sorry Grix, but it's not just survival, it requires reproduction too! ;-P
> So your piece above, do you agree the world was created?
Didn't you read it? :-)
He said that we haven't evolved because people are still too stupidly narrow minded to think that there is only ONE way of seeing things and only ONE way of living a good life and think that EVERYONE should see the world THEIR way.
Ah, but Grix, if you see that as something wrong then you've mutated!
So now we have variance in the species.
Grix, who thinks of freedom, and the world of power hungry megalomaniacs, who will survive the generations to dominate the species?
Sorry Grix, but it's not just survival, it requires reproduction too! ;-P
Loquacious Duck wrote:
>
> Lol :^D
> Did you even read that? All it says is that in an experiment designed
> to force organisms to change generation on generation, some of the
> changes were the same, but they occured in different orders in the
> two experiments.
>
> Not only does it not even attempt to distinguish adaptation and
> evolution, it doesn't even say anything to suggest evolution doesn't
> happen. It just shows that genetic changes occur at random in the
> reproduction of organisms. That's one of the fundamental principles
> for how evolution works!
>
Heh, I was thinking that as I read it earlier! Glad you pointed it out Loquacious Duck!
>
> Lol :^D
> Did you even read that? All it says is that in an experiment designed
> to force organisms to change generation on generation, some of the
> changes were the same, but they occured in different orders in the
> two experiments.
>
> Not only does it not even attempt to distinguish adaptation and
> evolution, it doesn't even say anything to suggest evolution doesn't
> happen. It just shows that genetic changes occur at random in the
> reproduction of organisms. That's one of the fundamental principles
> for how evolution works!
>
Heh, I was thinking that as I read it earlier! Glad you pointed it out Loquacious Duck!
Forest Fan wrote:
> Adaptation is NOT the same as evolution. Even evolutionist scientists
> agree with me, "The molecular basis of adaptation is a major
> focus of evolutionary biology, yet the dynamic process of adaptation
> has been explored only piecemeal. Experimental evolution of two
> bacteriophage lines under strong selection led to over a dozen
> nucleotide changes genomewide in each replicate. At least 96 percent
> of the amino acid substitutions appeared to be adaptive, and half the
> changes in one line also occurred in the other. However, the order of
> these changes differed between replicates, and parallel substitutions
> did not reflect the changes with the largest beneficial effects or
> indicate a common trajectory of adaptation." Source: National
> Library of Medicine
Lol :^D
Did you even read that? All it says is that in an experiment designed to force organisms to change generation on generation, some of the changes were the same, but they occured in different orders in the two experiments.
Not only does it not even attempt to distinguish adaptation and evolution, it doesn't even say anything to suggest evolution doesn't happen. It just shows that genetic changes occur at random in the reproduction of organisms. That's one of the fundamental principles for how evolution works!
And as you've accepted below, changes like this which are beneficial will enable some organisms to have a better chance of survival than the unchanged counterparts, and will then pass on these genetic variations to their offspirng, securing the existence of a new form of organism, born of a different one.
Your own example, coupled with your own admissions, has proven you agree that the process of evolution takes place!
You just haven't realised it yet :^S
Made me smile :^)
> Adaptation is NOT the same as evolution. Even evolutionist scientists
> agree with me, "The molecular basis of adaptation is a major
> focus of evolutionary biology, yet the dynamic process of adaptation
> has been explored only piecemeal. Experimental evolution of two
> bacteriophage lines under strong selection led to over a dozen
> nucleotide changes genomewide in each replicate. At least 96 percent
> of the amino acid substitutions appeared to be adaptive, and half the
> changes in one line also occurred in the other. However, the order of
> these changes differed between replicates, and parallel substitutions
> did not reflect the changes with the largest beneficial effects or
> indicate a common trajectory of adaptation." Source: National
> Library of Medicine
Lol :^D
Did you even read that? All it says is that in an experiment designed to force organisms to change generation on generation, some of the changes were the same, but they occured in different orders in the two experiments.
Not only does it not even attempt to distinguish adaptation and evolution, it doesn't even say anything to suggest evolution doesn't happen. It just shows that genetic changes occur at random in the reproduction of organisms. That's one of the fundamental principles for how evolution works!
And as you've accepted below, changes like this which are beneficial will enable some organisms to have a better chance of survival than the unchanged counterparts, and will then pass on these genetic variations to their offspirng, securing the existence of a new form of organism, born of a different one.
Your own example, coupled with your own admissions, has proven you agree that the process of evolution takes place!
You just haven't realised it yet :^S
Made me smile :^)
FF, that whole piece could have been written on you.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> There's a simple way to prove evolution doesn't exist.
>
> There are still people around today that selfishly desire comfort
> above all else, even above human life. People who desire such
> soothing by shooting down any change around them, any challenge or
> difference to their lives, and basically become the basic forms of
> animal instinct.
>
> The fact there are still humourless fools, people without a true
> sense of justice or compassion for human life that, even finding it
> hard to believe they're allowed to affect the course of things,
> actually run some of the most powerful countries in the world. People
> who would spark drama and controversy in a crushing and trapping way
> of controlling the common man and woman. What's even worse, there are
> still people who put faith in such ludicrousy when such interest
> could be easily diverted to genuinely making this world a stronger
> and better place to be part of.
>
> And while I would say most of us may fall into the trap and thought
> of denying freedom to others for sake of our own selfishness, I
> believe fully in the strength of people to see through that inner
> fear, and realise that this world can posess the freedom it
> deserves.
>
> I would love to say we as a species are capable of both freedom and
> peace, but we are not. Because of the fear in mankind of difference,
> which must appear so late into childhood, we cannot be part of a
> world that can easily accept whatever beauty and interest anyone can
> take.
>
> And if I can blame a factor in pushing fear into people of change, I
> would say it is the so called adults, the people who are teaching the
> children of today what the world is about. I fear seriously for the
> teachings to children that there is only one true 'way' of life, only
> one true following. I am terrified of the thought that people can be
> so bigoted and close minded, and if human beings indeed are raised in
> this manner, then I am keen to wonder if indeed, evolution does
> exist.
>
> I think a range of opinions in different people is fantastic, but I
> don't believe in the forcing and raising of people into a certain
> viewpoint, because I think it's the comfort that people that in that,
> that lead to destruction and war.
>
> Just my opinion. :P
So your piece above, do you agree the world was created?
> There's a simple way to prove evolution doesn't exist.
>
> There are still people around today that selfishly desire comfort
> above all else, even above human life. People who desire such
> soothing by shooting down any change around them, any challenge or
> difference to their lives, and basically become the basic forms of
> animal instinct.
>
> The fact there are still humourless fools, people without a true
> sense of justice or compassion for human life that, even finding it
> hard to believe they're allowed to affect the course of things,
> actually run some of the most powerful countries in the world. People
> who would spark drama and controversy in a crushing and trapping way
> of controlling the common man and woman. What's even worse, there are
> still people who put faith in such ludicrousy when such interest
> could be easily diverted to genuinely making this world a stronger
> and better place to be part of.
>
> And while I would say most of us may fall into the trap and thought
> of denying freedom to others for sake of our own selfishness, I
> believe fully in the strength of people to see through that inner
> fear, and realise that this world can posess the freedom it
> deserves.
>
> I would love to say we as a species are capable of both freedom and
> peace, but we are not. Because of the fear in mankind of difference,
> which must appear so late into childhood, we cannot be part of a
> world that can easily accept whatever beauty and interest anyone can
> take.
>
> And if I can blame a factor in pushing fear into people of change, I
> would say it is the so called adults, the people who are teaching the
> children of today what the world is about. I fear seriously for the
> teachings to children that there is only one true 'way' of life, only
> one true following. I am terrified of the thought that people can be
> so bigoted and close minded, and if human beings indeed are raised in
> this manner, then I am keen to wonder if indeed, evolution does
> exist.
>
> I think a range of opinions in different people is fantastic, but I
> don't believe in the forcing and raising of people into a certain
> viewpoint, because I think it's the comfort that people that in that,
> that lead to destruction and war.
>
> Just my opinion. :P
So your piece above, do you agree the world was created?
There's a simple way to prove evolution doesn't exist.
There are still people around today that selfishly desire comfort above all else, even above human life. People who desire such soothing by shooting down any change around them, any challenge or difference to their lives, and basically become the basic forms of animal instinct.
The fact there are still humourless fools, people without a true sense of justice or compassion for human life that, even finding it hard to believe they're allowed to affect the course of things, actually run some of the most powerful countries in the world. People who would spark drama and controversy in a crushing and trapping way of controlling the common man and woman. What's even worse, there are still people who put faith in such ludicrousy when such interest could be easily diverted to genuinely making this world a stronger and better place to be part of.
And while I would say most of us may fall into the trap and thought of denying freedom to others for sake of our own selfishness, I believe fully in the strength of people to see through that inner fear, and realise that this world can posess the freedom it deserves.
I would love to say we as a species are capable of both freedom and peace, but we are not. Because of the fear in mankind of difference, which must appear so late into childhood, we cannot be part of a world that can easily accept whatever beauty and interest anyone can take.
And if I can blame a factor in pushing fear into people of change, I would say it is the so called adults, the people who are teaching the children of today what the world is about. I fear seriously for the teachings to children that there is only one true 'way' of life, only one true following. I am terrified of the thought that people can be so bigoted and close minded, and if human beings indeed are raised in this manner, then I am keen to wonder if indeed, evolution does exist.
I think a range of opinions in different people is fantastic, but I don't believe in the forcing and raising of people into a certain viewpoint, because I think it's the comfort that people that in that, that lead to destruction and war.
Just my opinion. :P
There are still people around today that selfishly desire comfort above all else, even above human life. People who desire such soothing by shooting down any change around them, any challenge or difference to their lives, and basically become the basic forms of animal instinct.
The fact there are still humourless fools, people without a true sense of justice or compassion for human life that, even finding it hard to believe they're allowed to affect the course of things, actually run some of the most powerful countries in the world. People who would spark drama and controversy in a crushing and trapping way of controlling the common man and woman. What's even worse, there are still people who put faith in such ludicrousy when such interest could be easily diverted to genuinely making this world a stronger and better place to be part of.
And while I would say most of us may fall into the trap and thought of denying freedom to others for sake of our own selfishness, I believe fully in the strength of people to see through that inner fear, and realise that this world can posess the freedom it deserves.
I would love to say we as a species are capable of both freedom and peace, but we are not. Because of the fear in mankind of difference, which must appear so late into childhood, we cannot be part of a world that can easily accept whatever beauty and interest anyone can take.
And if I can blame a factor in pushing fear into people of change, I would say it is the so called adults, the people who are teaching the children of today what the world is about. I fear seriously for the teachings to children that there is only one true 'way' of life, only one true following. I am terrified of the thought that people can be so bigoted and close minded, and if human beings indeed are raised in this manner, then I am keen to wonder if indeed, evolution does exist.
I think a range of opinions in different people is fantastic, but I don't believe in the forcing and raising of people into a certain viewpoint, because I think it's the comfort that people that in that, that lead to destruction and war.
Just my opinion. :P
Page: