OK, so first of all. Don't shoot down a theory when you also lack knowledge of an area. I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong but even with the vast amount's of knowledge I've seen from your post you still have plenty to learn. Throughout history many scientists had great theories that everyone thought was ridiculous. They laughed, the argued, they even flat out called the one's who came up with those ideas crazy. But if it wasn't for those scientists we wouldn't have nearly as much as we do now. I'm not just talking about Charles Darwin I'm also talking about Galileo, Copernicus, and many more. Albert Einstein once said "What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right." I understand that sometimes things that contradict what you originally thought may be hard to accept even if you've uad a certain way of thinking for well over 30 years with tons of experience. You could very well be wrong. It's good to question and testify a theory especially (I know the post your talking about by the way) against someone who claimed to have made a great discovery when he only had half of it and had no application or evidence to prove it as more than a few observations.
I know I have plenty left to learn but I also do not believe anything without some proof. Anytime the Gods or Goddesses are involved I dismiss most if not all of it as mythology. Darwin was nuts in my opinion. Did we evolve? I believe so. From monkeys? No way. Too much evidence to refute his theory. So I am not going to be schooled by you or anyone else qithout some credibility and proof. No one tells me I must believe because they believe. I do not understand nor agree with E=MC2. It makes no sense so I have no use for it. That is all I am saying.
The theory isn't that humans evolved from monkeys. The theory is that both humans and monkeys evolved from a common monkey like ancestor ( actually ape to be more precise as to what the idea states). But you are correct it's not the modern monkey.
MindlesChaos I apologise for spelling your name wrong there. Do you have any idea why they are trying to contact me coz woke up earlier heard nothing but like clockwork the birds here.
Outcast interesting name, and you having to complain like your ideas are out there or just are being "outcast". I find it rather interesting
I agree I have plenty to learn, everyone here will hopefully keep on learning.
The problem is, is when a person believes they are inherently correct and yet don't provide enough evidence to support their claims. What I have stated above is based upon a tradition which is hundreds of years old, if not older.
What was stated by Gannon Rapta is actually based of evidence collected by actual researchers. What hexagram was spouting was something one guy had said and he was claiming everything to be fact. What's more is he even admitted that his knowledge of Hebrew wasn't very good, so where was his own authority on the subject?
As for scientists being called crazy, it was largely due to the ignorance of the common people caused by the repression spread by organised religion. Their findings are also supported by evidence which is objective and observable to us. Scientists, however, are open to being challenged and one of the scientific principles is falsifiability- the acceptance to be able to see if one's theory may not be as true as one once thought based upon new evidence.
Hadit although I'm no scholar isn't the problem with science that they focus on the physical world too much? The problem with some religions is as some author said, dunno his name by the way or the name of the book but basically he compared priests/pastors as people who keep the word and the prophet as someone who brings greater understanding through the spirit of course this is if you believe in the abrahamic God.
One thing I find interesting though is that Albert Einstein once said something to the form/scope of religion without science isn't good nor is science without religion.
Hadit although this will sound weird I have a feeling you would know, what do you think of the philosophers stone? And the people well person involved with the matter?
The physical world is the world we live in, I think it is important to focus on objective reality rather than relying on speculation fro people who relay their own subjective experience.
The philosophers stone is a metaphor for enlightenment. It is the component which allows the base lead- the unenlightened human, to turn into gold, the enlightened human; solar consciousness.
I believe John Dee and Edward Kelly both tried to transform lead into gold and were unsuccessful, I am surprised Dee would attempt such a thing, he was by no means stupid.
Alchemy is not really something I am into too much, I know enough to get me by when looking at the tarot trumps. The philosophers stone is not a real stone but a metaphorical one in my opinion.
