Evolution
- Thread starter BaSICCally
- Start date
It didnt boost my ego, but it sure brought you back....
As for your being close minded heres why...YOU ASK QUESTIONS NOT FOR YOUR LEARNING. Its more like a ridicule. You already stated that you dont believe in the source for some of the information, and you dont believe in evolution. So you ask questions about it. Mainly to get an answer that you can try and twist around, not answers you can use to understand what we are saying.
You already have your own answers. There is no point of you even asking more, when all your gonna do is turn more of my answers into 100 questions to try and make what im saying wrong to you, Heresy.
And about the liar thing, your lying if you deny you always mentioned stuff about prophecies.
----
Lol @ EDJ, that weights comment.
Lol @ Snubnoses birdgirraffe, seems like it is gettin to that.
-------
No swearing? How did i know that was coming.
You do not proove anything with your simple questions. I answer you, you ridicule it or clal it hippocritical and then ask basically a question that youve asked a hundred times already.
Finally in this post...
Am i wrong or is Snubnose wrong?
Are you wrong or is a Muslim or a Jewish man wrong?
------
Ill check your part HTB when im back.
Im off to work, see ya Saturday (or Sunday).
As for your being close minded heres why...YOU ASK QUESTIONS NOT FOR YOUR LEARNING. Its more like a ridicule. You already stated that you dont believe in the source for some of the information, and you dont believe in evolution. So you ask questions about it. Mainly to get an answer that you can try and twist around, not answers you can use to understand what we are saying.
You already have your own answers. There is no point of you even asking more, when all your gonna do is turn more of my answers into 100 questions to try and make what im saying wrong to you, Heresy.
And about the liar thing, your lying if you deny you always mentioned stuff about prophecies.
----
Lol @ EDJ, that weights comment.
Lol @ Snubnoses birdgirraffe, seems like it is gettin to that.
-------
No swearing? How did i know that was coming.
You do not proove anything with your simple questions. I answer you, you ridicule it or clal it hippocritical and then ask basically a question that youve asked a hundred times already.
Finally in this post...
Am i wrong or is Snubnose wrong?
Are you wrong or is a Muslim or a Jewish man wrong?
------
Ill check your part HTB when im back.
Im off to work, see ya Saturday (or Sunday).
E
The explaination you all want to hear----------------------->///////
VVVVV
Evolution/Natural selection is the result of compatition for limited resources. In a given area there is a limited amount of stuff no matter if its water, space, specific nourishment(food). Animals and plants compete with members of their own species and members of other species for these resources. In doing so they gradually die off as individuals or groups or adapt to their changing surroundings and carve out for themselves what is called a NICHE (this is a position in the web of life that is the culmination of an expansive quanta of factors). If conditions change the given animal or plant must adapt its niche along with the environment. If their is not enough foliage on the groud for a grazing animal because of compotition for it then animals who can graze from trees will be at an advantage and so through selective breeding the trait is brought to the surface and through genetic mutation (a chance factor) it is inhanced and expanded and at some point a new species may be born. This does not nessisarily eliminate the animal that grazes on the ground because without the compotition of those animals of its own species that were able to graze on foliage in higher elivations there is more food for the ones who graze on the ground. As for the question as to why there are no scorpion lizards its simple the conditions have not called for them and chaos has not selected for their evolution.
If you want to understand evolution I recommend a collage course on Ecology not competitive rehtoric and antagonistic banter.
VVVVV
Evolution/Natural selection is the result of compatition for limited resources. In a given area there is a limited amount of stuff no matter if its water, space, specific nourishment(food). Animals and plants compete with members of their own species and members of other species for these resources. In doing so they gradually die off as individuals or groups or adapt to their changing surroundings and carve out for themselves what is called a NICHE (this is a position in the web of life that is the culmination of an expansive quanta of factors). If conditions change the given animal or plant must adapt its niche along with the environment. If their is not enough foliage on the groud for a grazing animal because of compotition for it then animals who can graze from trees will be at an advantage and so through selective breeding the trait is brought to the surface and through genetic mutation (a chance factor) it is inhanced and expanded and at some point a new species may be born. This does not nessisarily eliminate the animal that grazes on the ground because without the compotition of those animals of its own species that were able to graze on foliage in higher elivations there is more food for the ones who graze on the ground. As for the question as to why there are no scorpion lizards its simple the conditions have not called for them and chaos has not selected for their evolution.
If you want to understand evolution I recommend a collage course on Ecology not competitive rehtoric and antagonistic banter.
THE LOOPHOLES I SPEAK OFF ARE THE VERY MANY THAT ARE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, MISSIN' LINKS, THE CONTRADICTIONS, AND SO FORTH.
WHAT KILLS ME IS THAT ALOT ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS A FACT WHEN IT IS JUST A THEORY. WHY BELIEVE IN A THEORY? WHY HAVE FATIH IN SOME SUPPOSITIONS?
EVEN FOSSILS HAVE BEEN READ AND INTERPRETED WRONg. I REMEMBER WATCHIN' THIS DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THE FOSSIL REMAINS FOUND OF A BEIN' BELIEVED TO BE A LINK FROM HOMOSAPIEN TO NEONDERTHAL. AND PEOPLE BELIEVED THAT SHIT UNTIL CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AND FURTHER INVESTIgATION REVEALED 50 YEARS LATER THAT IT WAS MAN WHO WAS SIK AND DEFORMED.
WHAT KILLS ME IS THAT ALOT ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS A FACT WHEN IT IS JUST A THEORY. WHY BELIEVE IN A THEORY? WHY HAVE FATIH IN SOME SUPPOSITIONS?
EVEN FOSSILS HAVE BEEN READ AND INTERPRETED WRONg. I REMEMBER WATCHIN' THIS DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THE FOSSIL REMAINS FOUND OF A BEIN' BELIEVED TO BE A LINK FROM HOMOSAPIEN TO NEONDERTHAL. AND PEOPLE BELIEVED THAT SHIT UNTIL CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AND FURTHER INVESTIgATION REVEALED 50 YEARS LATER THAT IT WAS MAN WHO WAS SIK AND DEFORMED.
ILLUSION QUOTED:
History was not taught in western or eastern Europe until the 16th century. Historical data can be processed and pinpointed for its authencity... but the process is very rigorous as one has to extract the propaganda and prejudices from within it. History can be a very cloudy subject. After all humans are responsible for the creation and "preservation" of history. It is important to question and constantly reanalyze historical data and agendas.
TRUE^. SO IT'S UP TO WHO IS STUDYIN' AND RESEARCHIN' TO DECIPHER WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS PROPAgANDA AND PREJUDICES. SAME WITH FOSSILS AND REMAINS FOUND. YOU HAVE TO DECIPHER WHAT IS TRUE.
History was not taught in western or eastern Europe until the 16th century. Historical data can be processed and pinpointed for its authencity... but the process is very rigorous as one has to extract the propaganda and prejudices from within it. History can be a very cloudy subject. After all humans are responsible for the creation and "preservation" of history. It is important to question and constantly reanalyze historical data and agendas.
TRUE^. SO IT'S UP TO WHO IS STUDYIN' AND RESEARCHIN' TO DECIPHER WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT IS PROPAgANDA AND PREJUDICES. SAME WITH FOSSILS AND REMAINS FOUND. YOU HAVE TO DECIPHER WHAT IS TRUE.
The first Hominid to Evolve was Orrotugenisis, this is what we know from fossils and Orrentugensis existed 6 million years ago. But Orrentugenisis died out because it was only 3 feet tall..LOL!! And had a brain the size of a pea. They got tore up in Africa. Then 4.4 million years ago Andipticus Ramidus came which evolved from Orrentugenis. Ramidus had a bigger brain not much bigger but it was smarter, but it eventually died out and then MILLIONS years later, Australapithecus, Africana Gari, Austra Africanus, Homohablas blah blah blah came along.
But your question was, why aren't we seeing any evolution currently with humans? Well thats because we haven't been around long enough. Just look at what I posted up, it took 1.6 million years for one species to evolve into another. Us homosapiens are fairly new compared to the other hominids. We've only been around for 200,000 years. Not nearly enough time.
But your question was, why aren't we seeing any evolution currently with humans? Well thats because we haven't been around long enough. Just look at what I posted up, it took 1.6 million years for one species to evolve into another. Us homosapiens are fairly new compared to the other hominids. We've only been around for 200,000 years. Not nearly enough time.
Sure their are a few gaps here and their, but that in no way is a loophole. given time fossils will be found, and their are enough proof with fossils that show evolution is logical. If you got a stair case of 50 and say 3 of the steps are missing, does that make the other 47 steps worth nothin? c'mon now...
i like how people word smith and change up what they say.
im glad we went from one celled animals to sponges to fish to frogs to lizards to snakes.
im glad that the animals didnt have legs,saw a need for legs and all of a sudden saw no need for legs.
WHY ARE ALL OF THESE ANIMALS FOUND IN THE SAME ENVIRONMENT???????? so the dodo died out because it couldnt evolve?
you have a SHORT NECK species of giraffe living in africa. why is this short neck species around?
heresy
ps i LOVE the typical CUT&PASTE from an encyclopedia technique!!!! lol keep up the bad work.
@snub think long and hard on teh four year thread and SEVERAL threads after that in which i said i wont even use the bible. i will rely on history.
keep up the bad work funny bones.
im glad we went from one celled animals to sponges to fish to frogs to lizards to snakes.
im glad that the animals didnt have legs,saw a need for legs and all of a sudden saw no need for legs.
WHY ARE ALL OF THESE ANIMALS FOUND IN THE SAME ENVIRONMENT???????? so the dodo died out because it couldnt evolve?
you have a SHORT NECK species of giraffe living in africa. why is this short neck species around?
heresy
ps i LOVE the typical CUT&PASTE from an encyclopedia technique!!!! lol keep up the bad work.
@snub think long and hard on teh four year thread and SEVERAL threads after that in which i said i wont even use the bible. i will rely on history.
keep up the bad work funny bones.
Give me the name of these small neck Giraffes and let me do some proper research on them. How many of them are around? Maybe not all but a large population of small neck giraffes died out.
But I gave you an analysis of the hominids. And how do you explain them dying out and others hominids living? Lucy or Orrentugenisis eventually died out then came the rest.
But I gave you an analysis of the hominids. And how do you explain them dying out and others hominids living? Lucy or Orrentugenisis eventually died out then came the rest.
Oh I really like epitaph's last post (sarcasim intended). If anybody didn't know those basic ideas behind the idea of evolution I don't think they should have been posting in the first place. That's high school text book type material there epitaph. What I really like was this at the end.
"If you want to understand evolution I recommend a collage course on Ecology not competitive rehtoric and antagonistic banter."
Wow. Don't make everyone run to enroll in that enlighting class at your college....your prof must be highly educated to give you that info. But really though I would not recommend a college ecology class for this subject. You will not learn anything about the ideas of evolution then you probably already did in highschool--I mean take that last post for proof of that.
"If you want to understand evolution I recommend a collage course on Ecology not competitive rehtoric and antagonistic banter."
Wow. Don't make everyone run to enroll in that enlighting class at your college....your prof must be highly educated to give you that info. But really though I would not recommend a college ecology class for this subject. You will not learn anything about the ideas of evolution then you probably already did in highschool--I mean take that last post for proof of that.
Some reading. All sources are 'Science' and 'Nature'.
----------------------------------------------------------
Origin of Large, Beneficial Mutations
Recent evolutionary studies "show how important large beneficial mutations are in the first stages of an adaptation," according to evolutionary biologist Doug Schemske of the University of Washington, Seattle. According to evolutionary theory, a new adaptation must be acquired fairly quickly, or else organisms will be poorly adapted to both the new and the old conditions and will not survive. Therefore, it seems logical that the first genetic changes must have large effects or else the changes will not be selected.
However, the observation that large beneficial mutations seem to occur (of course de novo creation is eliminated as a possibility) poses a problem, since these mutations are thought to be mostly rare and mostly disadvantageous when they do happen so "they contradict theory," according to Dr. H. Allen Orr, an evolutionary geneticist at University of Rochester in New York. "We're in a funny situation - we're about to have a wave of data crash down on us and no theory to hang it on." Dr. Orr has proposed a mathematical model to attempt to explain these data, although it is yet to be confirmed. It is remarkable how much data doesn't fit evolutionary theories, requiring the proposal of yet more new theories.
Morell, V. 1999. Size Matters: The Genes Behind Adaptation. Science 284: 2106.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although molecular biology has been used to hasten research in many fields of biology, it has failed to confirm the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwinian theory. According to Dr. Paul Sharp, "Attempt to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success." Although the study described one of the few molecular successes of evolutionary theory, the trend has been that molecular biology contradicts much of evolutionary theory. (Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular Darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Little or no evolution in ecological niches at the species level
S recent scientific study suggests that ecological niches evolve little or not at all at the time of a speciation event. The study shows ecological niche differences suddenly appear at the level of biological families. These results confirm the creation model seen in the Bible, which describes God's creative activities occurring at the level of "kinds" (which are similar to the biological classification of families). See page Naturalistic Biological Change and the Bible.
Peterson, A.T., J. Soberón, and V. Sánchez-Cordero. 1999. Conservatism of Ecological Niches in Evolutionary Time. Science 285: 1265-1267.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interdependent genes demonstrate limits to evolution
Irreducible complexity is something many evolutionists say does not exist in nature. The "reductionists" believe that there are no limits to an organism's variability and its ability to evolve. However, a new report demonstrates that when three characters are affected by a gene, the gene cannot change, but is constrained by the dependency of the other characteristics. Therefore, evolution is now falsifiable if organisms can be found that have broken this principle. In addition, this study demonstrates that the ability of organisms to evolve is limited. (Gunter Wagner. 1998. EVOLUTION: Complexity Matters Science 279:1158) and David Waxman, Joel R. Peck. 1998. Pleiotropy and the Preservation of Perfection Science 279: 1210.)
----------------------------------------------------------
Origin of Large, Beneficial Mutations
Recent evolutionary studies "show how important large beneficial mutations are in the first stages of an adaptation," according to evolutionary biologist Doug Schemske of the University of Washington, Seattle. According to evolutionary theory, a new adaptation must be acquired fairly quickly, or else organisms will be poorly adapted to both the new and the old conditions and will not survive. Therefore, it seems logical that the first genetic changes must have large effects or else the changes will not be selected.
However, the observation that large beneficial mutations seem to occur (of course de novo creation is eliminated as a possibility) poses a problem, since these mutations are thought to be mostly rare and mostly disadvantageous when they do happen so "they contradict theory," according to Dr. H. Allen Orr, an evolutionary geneticist at University of Rochester in New York. "We're in a funny situation - we're about to have a wave of data crash down on us and no theory to hang it on." Dr. Orr has proposed a mathematical model to attempt to explain these data, although it is yet to be confirmed. It is remarkable how much data doesn't fit evolutionary theories, requiring the proposal of yet more new theories.
Morell, V. 1999. Size Matters: The Genes Behind Adaptation. Science 284: 2106.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although molecular biology has been used to hasten research in many fields of biology, it has failed to confirm the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwinian theory. According to Dr. Paul Sharp, "Attempt to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success." Although the study described one of the few molecular successes of evolutionary theory, the trend has been that molecular biology contradicts much of evolutionary theory. (Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular Darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Little or no evolution in ecological niches at the species level
S recent scientific study suggests that ecological niches evolve little or not at all at the time of a speciation event. The study shows ecological niche differences suddenly appear at the level of biological families. These results confirm the creation model seen in the Bible, which describes God's creative activities occurring at the level of "kinds" (which are similar to the biological classification of families). See page Naturalistic Biological Change and the Bible.
Peterson, A.T., J. Soberón, and V. Sánchez-Cordero. 1999. Conservatism of Ecological Niches in Evolutionary Time. Science 285: 1265-1267.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interdependent genes demonstrate limits to evolution
Irreducible complexity is something many evolutionists say does not exist in nature. The "reductionists" believe that there are no limits to an organism's variability and its ability to evolve. However, a new report demonstrates that when three characters are affected by a gene, the gene cannot change, but is constrained by the dependency of the other characteristics. Therefore, evolution is now falsifiable if organisms can be found that have broken this principle. In addition, this study demonstrates that the ability of organisms to evolve is limited. (Gunter Wagner. 1998. EVOLUTION: Complexity Matters Science 279:1158) and David Waxman, Joel R. Peck. 1998. Pleiotropy and the Preservation of Perfection Science 279: 1210.)
AFRICA,
YOU ALREADY SAID THAT. COME ON BROTHA, NOW YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY TO TRY TO USE SCIENCE TO DISPROVE A CREATOR. YET AND STILL, THERE'S MULTITITUDES OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH ACTUAL FINDINgS. SO YOU ALSO HAVE TO RELY ON LOgIC. YOU CAN PUT TIMELINES ON THANgS BUT HOW ACCURATE IS THE HYPOTHESIS OF WHAT THE REMAINS WERE AND WHAT THAT BEIN' ACTUALLY DID, LOOK, AND EXISTED AS?
HITHEBLUNT,
THANK YOU FOR THE INCERPTS. SEE EVEN SCIENTISTS AKNOWLEDgE THAT THEY MAKE THINgS UP AND TRY TO FIND PIECES OF A PUZZLE THAT'S NOT EVEN THERE.
YOU ALREADY SAID THAT. COME ON BROTHA, NOW YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY TO TRY TO USE SCIENCE TO DISPROVE A CREATOR. YET AND STILL, THERE'S MULTITITUDES OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH ACTUAL FINDINgS. SO YOU ALSO HAVE TO RELY ON LOgIC. YOU CAN PUT TIMELINES ON THANgS BUT HOW ACCURATE IS THE HYPOTHESIS OF WHAT THE REMAINS WERE AND WHAT THAT BEIN' ACTUALLY DID, LOOK, AND EXISTED AS?
HITHEBLUNT,
THANK YOU FOR THE INCERPTS. SEE EVEN SCIENTISTS AKNOWLEDgE THAT THEY MAKE THINgS UP AND TRY TO FIND PIECES OF A PUZZLE THAT'S NOT EVEN THERE.
Snub I'm not sure how to reword it any more without it losing something. I guess you could say... 'why is all life so well defined and distinct from one another rather then blend into one another without distinct boundaries.' If evolution were true one would only expect the latter.
I personally don't see how you could interpet what I posted before 5 different ways.
I personally don't see how you could interpet what I posted before 5 different ways.
I see what your saying about frog 1,2,3,4. Theres still an alligator prettymuch unchanged except for size. Their species will change size depending on what other preditors it has to compete with and what available food sources there are.
The frogs 2,3,4 were a result in some sort of need to change. If the need is met, then the new species exists until a new change is brought from: change in climate, food source, extinction of a larger predator, etc. Eventually Natural selection makes the form of frog not needed, die off. Or if theres a physical change it could not cope with in the enviroment it will die off.
You can have all of the ancestor species still living as long as their niche is the same. The newer species left that niche and dont compete with them. Thats why they remain living today.
EDJ, im tryin to tell you that the creator theory is the same thing as evolution. You got a bible and you got a science book. Which seems more logical?
Lol @ "funny bones"
The frogs 2,3,4 were a result in some sort of need to change. If the need is met, then the new species exists until a new change is brought from: change in climate, food source, extinction of a larger predator, etc. Eventually Natural selection makes the form of frog not needed, die off. Or if theres a physical change it could not cope with in the enviroment it will die off.
You can have all of the ancestor species still living as long as their niche is the same. The newer species left that niche and dont compete with them. Thats why they remain living today.
EDJ, im tryin to tell you that the creator theory is the same thing as evolution. You got a bible and you got a science book. Which seems more logical?
Lol @ "funny bones"
BLIgHT,
THAT SOUNDS LOgICAL JUST SAYIN' IT LIKE THAT, BUT IN REALITY IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. HAVIN' A CREATOR IS NOT A THEORY BUT A QUESTION OF FAITH. THE BIBLE CAN BE BROKEN DOWN, DECIPHERED, AND TRACED INTO IT'S ORIgINATIONS. IT'S FULL OF gUIDELINES, LESSONS, PROPHECIES, AND SO MANY OTHA LOgICAL INFORMATION. AND FOR THE RECORD, THE BIBLE IS NOT JUST ONE BOOK BUT A COLLECTION OF BOOKS WRITTEN THRU THOUSANDS OF YEARS THUS THE NAME "BIBLE" MEANS LIBRARY.
SOME OF YAW CAN TRY TO DISMISS IT AS MAN-MADE STORIES AND SO FORTH, BUT YAW PERCEIVIN' IT AS WHAT CONVENTIONAL THINKIN' OF IT IS. IF YOU gONNA KNOK IT, ATLEAST STUDY AND SEE WHAT YOU KNOCCIN' IT FOR, NOT WHAT EVERYBODY DONE LABELED IT FOR. FUK WHAT YOU HEARD.
AND EVOLUTION IS A THEORY BROUgHT FORTH BY DARWIN AND TIL THIS DAY MUTHA-FUKAS IS AS CONFUSED ABOUT IT AS THE FOUNDER OF THE THEORY.
ATLEAST THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PROVEN.
THAT SOUNDS LOgICAL JUST SAYIN' IT LIKE THAT, BUT IN REALITY IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. HAVIN' A CREATOR IS NOT A THEORY BUT A QUESTION OF FAITH. THE BIBLE CAN BE BROKEN DOWN, DECIPHERED, AND TRACED INTO IT'S ORIgINATIONS. IT'S FULL OF gUIDELINES, LESSONS, PROPHECIES, AND SO MANY OTHA LOgICAL INFORMATION. AND FOR THE RECORD, THE BIBLE IS NOT JUST ONE BOOK BUT A COLLECTION OF BOOKS WRITTEN THRU THOUSANDS OF YEARS THUS THE NAME "BIBLE" MEANS LIBRARY.
SOME OF YAW CAN TRY TO DISMISS IT AS MAN-MADE STORIES AND SO FORTH, BUT YAW PERCEIVIN' IT AS WHAT CONVENTIONAL THINKIN' OF IT IS. IF YOU gONNA KNOK IT, ATLEAST STUDY AND SEE WHAT YOU KNOCCIN' IT FOR, NOT WHAT EVERYBODY DONE LABELED IT FOR. FUK WHAT YOU HEARD.
AND EVOLUTION IS A THEORY BROUgHT FORTH BY DARWIN AND TIL THIS DAY MUTHA-FUKAS IS AS CONFUSED ABOUT IT AS THE FOUNDER OF THE THEORY.
ATLEAST THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PROVEN.
How has it been proven?
And i have studied it, and have others. I took 2 years of world religion classes also where i was introduced to many forms, which i think Taoism is actually the most logical.
Ar eyou sure that the authors of the bible werent ancient psychologists trying to right their society by striking fear in evil doers? Maybe a form of law that was taken more seriously tah their law-enforcers could uphold?
Afterall, when you have a majority of people beliving in one thing, to not believe is incorrect and wrong... yeah... but it seems to be like that.
And i have studied it, and have others. I took 2 years of world religion classes also where i was introduced to many forms, which i think Taoism is actually the most logical.
Ar eyou sure that the authors of the bible werent ancient psychologists trying to right their society by striking fear in evil doers? Maybe a form of law that was taken more seriously tah their law-enforcers could uphold?
Afterall, when you have a majority of people beliving in one thing, to not believe is incorrect and wrong... yeah... but it seems to be like that.
HOW HAS IT BEEN PROVEN?
THRU HISTORICAL DATA AND PROPHECIES FULFILLED 1,000 OF YEARS AFTER IT WAS PREDICTED. ANSWER THIS BLIgHT: HOW CAN A COLLECTION OF BOOKS BE IN HARMONY AFTER BEIN' WRITTEN BY DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS FROM DIFFERENT TIMES AND MENTALITIES?
LET ME gIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE: LET'S SAY THAT SOMEBODY IN THE 15TH CENTURY WROTE SOME SHIT AND THEN HE DIED. THEN SOMEBODY AgES LATER WROTE ANOTHA BOOK TO CONTINUE IT. THEN SOMEBODY FROM THE NEXT CENTURY DID THAT AND IT CAME DOWN THE LINE WHERE YOU WRITIN' A BOOK. IS ALL YAW MENTALITIES AND LOgIC THE SAME AND IN HARMONY? HELL NAW, CAUSE TIMES CHANgE AND YAW ON A DIFFERENT PAgE. YAW VIEWS AND LIFESTYLES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. HELL, YOU CAN gO BAK TO THE 50'S AND IT'S A DIFFERENT MINDSET. SO FOR ALL THEM AUTHORS TO BE IN COMPLETE HARMONY WOULD HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THE INFO WRITTEN CAME FROM ONE SOURCE.
AND WHAT DID YOU LEARN ABOUT RELIgION? CAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT STUDYIN' RELIgION CAUSE THAT'S HUMAN DOgMA, BUT STUDYIN' THE ACTUAL SCRIPTURES(FUK MAN-MADE LOgIC AND INSTITUTIONS). DO YOU KNOW THE ORIgINAL LANgUAgES THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN? DID YOU DECIPHER THE SCRIPTURES WITH THOSE LANgUAgES?
AND WHAT IS THE FOUNDATION AND ORIgINATION OF TAOISM? HOW DID THAT START OFF?
THRU HISTORICAL DATA AND PROPHECIES FULFILLED 1,000 OF YEARS AFTER IT WAS PREDICTED. ANSWER THIS BLIgHT: HOW CAN A COLLECTION OF BOOKS BE IN HARMONY AFTER BEIN' WRITTEN BY DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS FROM DIFFERENT TIMES AND MENTALITIES?
LET ME gIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE: LET'S SAY THAT SOMEBODY IN THE 15TH CENTURY WROTE SOME SHIT AND THEN HE DIED. THEN SOMEBODY AgES LATER WROTE ANOTHA BOOK TO CONTINUE IT. THEN SOMEBODY FROM THE NEXT CENTURY DID THAT AND IT CAME DOWN THE LINE WHERE YOU WRITIN' A BOOK. IS ALL YAW MENTALITIES AND LOgIC THE SAME AND IN HARMONY? HELL NAW, CAUSE TIMES CHANgE AND YAW ON A DIFFERENT PAgE. YAW VIEWS AND LIFESTYLES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. HELL, YOU CAN gO BAK TO THE 50'S AND IT'S A DIFFERENT MINDSET. SO FOR ALL THEM AUTHORS TO BE IN COMPLETE HARMONY WOULD HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THE INFO WRITTEN CAME FROM ONE SOURCE.
AND WHAT DID YOU LEARN ABOUT RELIgION? CAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT STUDYIN' RELIgION CAUSE THAT'S HUMAN DOgMA, BUT STUDYIN' THE ACTUAL SCRIPTURES(FUK MAN-MADE LOgIC AND INSTITUTIONS). DO YOU KNOW THE ORIgINAL LANgUAgES THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN? DID YOU DECIPHER THE SCRIPTURES WITH THOSE LANgUAgES?
AND WHAT IS THE FOUNDATION AND ORIgINATION OF TAOISM? HOW DID THAT START OFF?
Taoism is basically that man and nature coincide. Like you take life how it is and dont stress over man made obsticals. It was a Chineese religion.
There is no god involved with it.
More like one force of naturally occuring life.
It is moslty impossible in todays times to be in this state of religion since nature has been replaced with tchnology, and industry. Schools spit you out into a modern world ready to swollow you up in a cirlce of work and stress over money and problems. To be happy in Taoism today would be more like being able to make it in life with no hassle. Let problems exist and pass, not to worry over problems.
From what i remember.
--------------------
I see what your saying about consecutive harmony in writings, but then consider Socrates. And then Plato wrote all on his philosophies. It did involve god. But it was also more of reasoning man if you ask me. And as for being passed down generation after generation, i feel The Republic is an awesome representation of life still putting it on the same level as the bible.
I just dont agree with the land they described with Philosopher Kings. Where it was supposed to be a perfect world set up sort of like you had one job. You may be permitted to have a family etc... All a theory that could work, but was very far fetched.
As far as the subjects go in that book, i believe it is about he same as in showing life.
There is no god involved with it.
More like one force of naturally occuring life.
It is moslty impossible in todays times to be in this state of religion since nature has been replaced with tchnology, and industry. Schools spit you out into a modern world ready to swollow you up in a cirlce of work and stress over money and problems. To be happy in Taoism today would be more like being able to make it in life with no hassle. Let problems exist and pass, not to worry over problems.
From what i remember.
--------------------
I see what your saying about consecutive harmony in writings, but then consider Socrates. And then Plato wrote all on his philosophies. It did involve god. But it was also more of reasoning man if you ask me. And as for being passed down generation after generation, i feel The Republic is an awesome representation of life still putting it on the same level as the bible.
I just dont agree with the land they described with Philosopher Kings. Where it was supposed to be a perfect world set up sort of like you had one job. You may be permitted to have a family etc... All a theory that could work, but was very far fetched.
As far as the subjects go in that book, i believe it is about he same as in showing life.
I dont think it is. It is possible to follow it, but youd have to make nature incorporated with all of the chores required by man in modern times. Its like everyone has so much shit to deal with now, that you need to be pretty stong minded.
THE REPUBLIC is a book by Plato, based on Socrates and his conversations which ultimately leaded to his death (over fear that he was a threat to the powerful people of his time). Socrates never wrote anyyhing down. If you dont know, he used to go around and bump into conversations and proove that the people had no idea what they were talking about. He would start interesting topics and talk for hours, making people totally rethink their own opinions.
Its an interesting book, written in the form of conversaitions. Even if you only read one or two stories from it. Specially on art (an attack on pop culture).
I dont like to read. But if this got me to pick it up something had to catch me i guess.
THE REPUBLIC is a book by Plato, based on Socrates and his conversations which ultimately leaded to his death (over fear that he was a threat to the powerful people of his time). Socrates never wrote anyyhing down. If you dont know, he used to go around and bump into conversations and proove that the people had no idea what they were talking about. He would start interesting topics and talk for hours, making people totally rethink their own opinions.
Its an interesting book, written in the form of conversaitions. Even if you only read one or two stories from it. Specially on art (an attack on pop culture).
I dont like to read. But if this got me to pick it up something had to catch me i guess.