Darwin's Theory of (d)evolution

I was waiting in the doctor's surgery yesterday and I picked up a copy of the German magazine "Focus", which had on the front cover a picture of Charles Darwin, and how he can help me with the answers to my life. With no other reading material available and time on my hands I decided to read-on.

It seems to be quite widely accepted that what used to be called a THEORY, has now more or less gained the status of fact or science. Today more and more people assert that Darwin's Theory of Evolution, is an irrefutable scientific fact. I don't know what they teach in school nowadays, but judging from what I can see in the mainstream TV and Media, anyone who does not BELIEVE the THEORY is branded an IDIOT or Unenlightened. At least when I was at school we were taught that it was a theory, and as such there are just as many questions that the theory opens as it tries to close. The problem with School and Society is that it demands a high degree of conformity, the masses are spoon-fed "knowledge", which if you look at the differences between what was taught in the West during the 1980's and what was taught in the Soviet Union, you'll see the big gap in what is considered "knowledge". This spoon-feeding, coupled together with a parrot like learning and repeating back to the system through the form of exams, demands conformity to the establishment's view of what is correct, killing in children early the ability to "think outside of the box" or come up with their own ideas. In the past, what is today labelled as CREATIONISM was taught, without question in most countries with a Christian background. Today, this is more and more ridiculed, and the people who ridicule it count themselves clever, logical and knowledgeable, that they have the scientific truth. The Bible, as ever, has a few good words to say:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools",

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."

Somewhere along the line, I have the feeling that the socialisation process failed on me, I have a feeling that I must have been off sick from school that day, when the brainwashers came around to make the Stepford conversions and equip people for a care-free and well integrated life in society. Or does everyone feel like that ?

Anyway, here are a few objections I have with the Theory of Evolution, and maybe these questions are answered in some way by the Theory, but I must confess that apart from at school, now 20 years ago, and from mainstream media I have never read the book origin of the species, but anyway, the question that I think cannot be answered by human methods to be 100% certain fact are the following:

1) Darwin says that in the beginning there was a "filament of life" - surely the most important question to answer in "Origin of Species" is where does life come from ? It's a major cop out to start by saying in the beginning was life ! It should be explained as a 100% fact where that life came from.

2) What came first - the chicken or the egg ? This is an age-old question that we used to have fun with as kids, but just think about it how does all of the intricacies evolve ? How do you evolve male and female. There must have been at one point a new species - for example the first man evolving from monkeys, how did that first man then reproduce ? There is no cross-species fertilisation, dogs cannot mate with cats, and produce dog-cats etc. Also if you look at people who have gene defects, you will see that in many cases their offspring do not inherit the defects. It is a bit easy for Darwin to say that over millions of years - everything just evolved - how ? where is the proof ? why do we not see this happening today ? why do we not have the mythical creatures like bird-men, or mermaids, or Minotaur (horse-man) - surely there are survival advantages to being a Minotaur.

3) If Darwin were alive today he would probably come to my house and say that all of my electrical appliances have the same ancestor. That over a period of millions of years the plug has evolved and stretched out and grown into toasters, and vacuum cleaners, and TV sets and Computers. If he saw the cars on the street he may well conclude, that in the beginning was the BMW 3 Series, which then evolved into the 5 series, then the 7 Series and so on, there would be quite a few convincing pieces of evidence such as they all have four wheels, an engine, steering wheel etc. Just imagine how excited he would be if he saw a stretch-limousine version of a BMW. The BMW 4x4 Jeep could almost count as a bridge between species. It sounds absurd to deny the involvement of a designer or creator of man-made products, but I think it is equally absurd to deny the creation of God.

4) If you killed all of the Bees on the planet - life would cease to exist within 5 years. Our world is a carefully balanced eco-system where everything is inter-dependent and inter-connected, remove one small thing and the whole thing collapses, it is asking a huge amount of beleif of people to believe that all of the beauty and intricacy of the whole of creation, came by random events and by chaos.

5) How do Believers of Darwin explain how exactly did Bees and Flowers evolve - how could the one evolve or exist without the other.

6) Where did the trees and plants come from ? Where did the actual earth of the ground come from with all of the minerals and nutrients.

7) What is the point of life according to this theory ? Why does life exist ? What is it's purpose ? Why bother ? After all the human body is as God says taken from the ground, in that all of our nutrients come from there and when we die we return there ? Seriously, this is a fundamental question.

8) Why has no-one been able to take a pile of earth out of their garden and create a new life form. No-one understands how any of it works really do they ?

9) Where are the living proofs of evolution ? Why are monkeys still alive and doing well, but none of the other hypothesised transitional forms.

10) People discredit the Bible because of the BELIEVED age of the Earth. No machine can 100% confirm the age of this planet or the age of the Universe. No-one is alive today who can testify of it, and there is no 100% solid evidence. It is impossible to check the machines data of carbon dating etc. and even this is based on yet more BELEIFS and THEORIES - For example in trying to calculate the age of the Earth - everyone assumes that time is constant, linear and stable - here's a thought for you - who can prove that time has always progressed in this way. Just as we have a fast-forward button on our DVD players, why wouldn't God fast-forward through some parts of creation. The Bible says that God made everything in six days, but he could have done it in a blink of an eye, the six days is actually also a message for us about the whole timetable of our world. God is outside of space and time, and our tiny minds can't beging to imagine him, what is so hard to believe about God making everything, at least for me it is more logical.

11) The confusion between science and fact - nothing in science can really be counted as a fact, as everything is based on empirical observation, experimentation, recording and testing, even the most widely witnessed and documented phenomena that are widely accepted as truth are always subject to change depending upon the discovery of a fact against their claim to knowledge. For example, we could believe that all Swans are white, however, on the day you see your first black Swan, your facts are dead. The truth is that everything which is man-made is based of Beleif upon Belief upon Belief - we believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow, that we will get paid at the end of the month, that the paper in my wallet is worth something, that the Bus Driver knows what he's doing, that our Priests know something about the Bible, etc etc None of it is fact - just expectation that because certain things reacted in one way the last time they were observed that the next time they will repeat the performance.

12) Fossils and Dinosaurs - Only widely discovered since the mid 1800's or at least that seems to be when most attention was paid to the fossils. They do not prove anything in themselves, nor are they contrary to the Bible - in fact well before any discoveries of dinosaurs God has described them in the Bible:

(Job 40) 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Of course the word behemoth is not dinosaur, which is quite understanding as dinosaur is a modern invention, but from the description of the animal with a tail like a cedar tree, I can't think of any other animal alive today which fits that description - can you ?

I hope that's a few thoughts to the ball rolling............

Claps, Although some of the things you question can be considered silly or over simplified I agree with most of this post.

There come a point where we need to decided are we to spit back what was taught to us, OR do we reason and use the chunk of meat in our heads to figure somethings out on our own.

I often wonder when education switched from the teaching of higher reason to the memorization of existing knowledge of the time.

7. life need not have a purpose but that which we assign to it, Darwin's theory has no need of a purpose other then survival and propagation

9. One form need not cease to exist when a better version arises, Also side note it is now surmised that we humans have more genetically speaking in common with a neanderthal then two dogs of different breeds, something to think about when saying one was better then the other (this argument would be for Micro not Macro) there is an interesting article I read about the adaptive nature of species on the MICRO level with NO proof of Macro ever being found

THE problem I have with this whole thing is once we defend a held belief with as much blind devotion as evolutionist do we are never open to the possibility of something that may actually be a better fit. Often people will mention gravity is a theory to and then go mention something like go fly then unpowered, But heres the thing we forget, WE HAVE no clue the force behind gravity! We know something causes it, we just cant figure it out, Theory is just a best guess that we have ATM.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by benrl]

Theory:

Lets try to explain. Lets try for example, you have 2 data sets: x and y.

x=1
x=2
x=3
x=4
x=5

and
y=1
y=2
y=3
y=4
y=5

so, what do you think y would be for x=6?

y=6?

Now you go out into the world and measure y for x=6 and come up with 6. yay! your theory that x=y is proven and therefore a fact, yes?

No.

How many numbers are between 4 and 5? its an infinite amount. You can never measure all of them. If you have "quite a lot" you can reasonably assume, for example, that the theory that stuff falls downwards is correct, but you can never say that you observed every possible case of stuff in a position to fall downwards actually doing so.

But the theory of gravity not only states that stuff falls downwards, it states that it does so because masses attract each other. a scientific theory not only states x=y, it states x=y, because ...

A theory is the best science can do.

Facts, on the other hand are "Facts". I just dropped my lighter. It fell to the ground. This fact supports the theory of gravity. It is a singular. It fell like the theories of aerodynamics predicted. Didnt reach terminal velocity since the fall wasnt high enough. It also verified some concepts in engineering by not breaking into 1000 pieces.

a fact either supports a theory or contradicts it. It is not greater/better/cooler/shinier/hotter than a theory. Its just one fact, a piece of evidence.

HI there, i just couldnt stop reading your points after i began, it was just soo funny and ignorant that i was kinda flabagasted. I thought it was sad that someone acctually still thinks like this in 2009.

It just shows that if you dont know ANYTHING about a subject or subject, a human can REALY become creative and wildly imaginative when he tries to understand.

Let me go through some of your points.


"Theory has now become irrefutebul fact"

The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the other sense of the word. "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental data or objective verifiable observations. "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any hypothesis for which there is overwhelming evidence.

=Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence.

Scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact.

Some might say we do not know anything with absolute certainty: even direct observations may be "theory laden" and depend on assumptions about our senses and the measuring instruments used. In this sense all facts are provisional.



The terms "fact" and "theory" can be applied to evolution, just as they are to gravity. Misuse and misunderstanding of how those terms are applied to evolution have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of evolution.

There have been many theories that attempt to explain the fact of gravity. That is, scientists ask what gravity is, and what causes it.

In the study of biological species, the facts include fossils and measurements of these fossils. The location of a fossil is an example of a fact (using the scientific meaning of the word fact). In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory. The observation of fruit fly populations changing character is also an example of a fact. So evolution is a fact just as the observations of gravity are a fact.

Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

What is the point of life according to this theory ? Why does life exist ? What is it's purpose ? Why bother ?

Evolution cannot and will not ever explain that to you. For those answers you must look to yourself, not science.

Evolution is a theory. It is however the theory which BEST explains our exsistence. It isn't perfect, there are still many questions to be answered but it is the most likely scenario.

No machine can 100% confirm the age of this planet or the age of the Universe.

Nor can any machine prove that the earth is only 6000 years old and created out of fairy dust by a benvelent god.

I respect your belief and faith that god created the earth and everything else, however it is based soley on faith.

The theory of evolution is based on physical evidence.

Creationism does NOT belong in the classroom, lecture hall or in textbooks. It belongs in churches and mosques.

the problem of Darwin is that he can only explain how things go extinct and justify it by the alledged weakness of the species. all constructive influence in the theory of evolution is deferred to spontaneous mutation, a deus ex machina, which, without modification only works on individual only.

therefore, changes have to be extremely slow, otherwise these individuals would lose compatibility - and die out

one verifiable issue is that DNA profiling hasn't really revealed the 'tree of life' and it's, imo, counter-intuitive to believe that there' a single root. if life can spawn on its own it should theoretically happen every now and then, shouldn't it? more important is our inability to create new species. if we understood evolution, we should be capable of facilitating the process of speciation, at least in simpler cases.

this has, afaik, yet to be demonstrated and would be extremely useful, especially in crops.

reply to post by blj777


Well evolution to a certain extent from smaller lifeforms has been proven to exist, but to see it's effects on bigger animals we would need to record them for thousands or millions of years, aside from this, I have a book which says the original skeleton models used by Darwin to create his ape to modern human representation, the book is very unbiased and presents the facts, the human skeletons used in the original model have been since proven to have had severe cases of arthritis, and that the ape to man theory was all based on some skeletons that had varrying cases of arthritis and other bone bending deseases, just thought I'd point that out, I bet most Darwin fans are not aware of this, it doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist, it just means Darwin's proof that man came from ape is totally false, but even before this false proof there was never a missing link and still isn't, so not only is there no missing link, according to this proof there is no missing link(s), to say ancient man didn't have bone crippeling deseases such as arthritis would be unscientific, yet I can see scientists stretching the truth if they happen to be a big fan of Darwin which most are.

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled.

Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions.

In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be. Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

It's not just a theory!!

I often refer to the site I linked when this question comes up. It's a plain and simple explanation and not open to much interpretation. Some of my posts can be rhetorical or open to interpretation (who's perfect?) so I posted the quote for this one.

There was a fantastic thread on here that had over a hundred replies on the same topic. I've done an ATS and Google search but can't find it. It began around April/May last year? It was an extremely long thread but compelling reading as the Creationists offered up every argument you can think of. Some of the points they raised were quite good, most just BS quotes from scripture and fossils that 'don't prove anything'.

Several pages were spent in denial that the mudskipper (IIRC) can be described as a transitional example of the evolutionary process. One or two suggested that man and dinosaur lived at the same time and the fossils are simply proof of Biblical Flood.

It really was a great thread, I'm becoming nostalgic for it now

Is this for real? am I really reading this?

1st... Scientific theories are more than just "guesses"... The Theory of Gravity, Atomic Theory, Quantum Theory...

Do you deny the existance of gravity? or atoms? Why not? those are theories too?

Evolution is not ever going to describe the origins of life... that is a completely different field of study called Abiogenesis. I have a thread on that too if you'd like to read up...

I couldn't possibly wade through the pile of dung you left on your OP... but I imagine you complain about radiometric dating and all other dating methods... however, you will only name one form of radiometric dating... and somehow that negates everything... sigh...

Ok, lets take the argument to your turf...

Ready for this?

Monkeys have Morals...

yup... morals.... how does that fit into your worldview...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

reply to post by blj777


Evolution is not a progression from "lower" to "higher", and evolution does not require an increase in complexity A population can evolve to become simpler with less genetic information, and have a smaller genome—often called "DEVOLUTION", but that is a misnomer


4 - "If you killed all of the Bees on the planet - life would cease to exist within 5 years"

-Id like to see a link to where you read THAT. Aint no bees in the antarctic, yet somehow penguins thrive.


5) "How do Believers of Darwin explain how exactly did Bees and Flowers evolve - how could the one evolve or exist without the other."

-Bees, like ants, are a specialized form of wasp. The ancestors of bees were wasps in the family Crabronidae, and therefore predators of other insects. With the passage of time, bees have become completely dependent on flowers as a food source.


9) "Where are the living proofs of evolution ? Why are monkeys still alive and doing well, but none of the other hypothesised transitional forms."

-The theory of evolution does posit "transitional forms", but not "endpoint forms". That is, every animal, plant, fossil that exists, is an example of a transitional form. Evolution is a continuous process that has no "goal" per se. (See also List of transitional fossils.)




Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians


"God is outside of space and time, and our tiny minds can't beging to imagine him, what is so hard to believe about God making everything, at least for me it is more logical."

-Id like to see a link to where you read THAT.
Nothing is hard to believe if one choose to be ignorant and is determined that what you believe is true, and in no way will you change you mind. It is in other words, the easy way out. God did it... think no more.

Originally posted by nj2day

Ok, lets take the argument to your turf...

Ready for this?

Monkeys have Morals...

yup... morals.... how does that fit into your worldview...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Good link. I'll see you on the monkey morals and raise you...Ape currency

The apes can help each other get food by trading tokens, learning the value of each token and handing it over only in exchange for favours or food at the right value. Researchers from the University of St Andrews found orangutans could learn the value of tokens and trade them, helping each other win bananas. The discovery is the first evidence of "calculated reciprocity" in non-human primates, according to an article in Biology Letters.

Seems like our cousins have morality and the means of losing it already built in!

Originally posted by Long Lance
...changes have to be extremely slow, otherwise these individuals would lose compatibility - and die out

The process of biological evolution is not necessarily slow. Millions of years are not necessarily required to see speciation (a change in characteristics of a kind of organism, typically rendering offspring infertile with the previous species). Indeed, it has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[

reply to post by Kandinsky


Great link! lol

these must be good christian god-fearing monkeys ya know... LOL

not only do they have their primate bibles to teach them morality, but they have forms of currency they can tithe! lol

I'll have to put a bookmark on that article

I thought it was sad that someone actually still thinks like this in 2009.

Exactly.
I was about to say the same damn thing
But i don't get it, don't they at least try to inform themselves what evolution is - don't they know the difference between a theory/idea and a scientific theory. I don't understand why they don't understand.....

What's with the education system in America.....

Why don't they get evolution isn't meant to answer the meaning of life, It's like saying why doesn't gravity answer the meaning of life.......It's not meant to. I just don't get it, you don't see this level of ignorance in other developed countries.

reply to post by andre18


Thats right, and it realy doesnt take much effort to learn about it either... for starters you have to READ about it, maybe cut down on the church visits and go to some sites or get some books.. it aint easy, there's alot to learn.

But instad off thinking about all the stuff that you think happens after you die, why not give life a chance.. see the birds and the bees in the garden. Learn about life and everything REAL.. HARD facts. Its extrordinary when you one day manage to see how it all fits together, and you understand that just because you think something's real doesnt make it so.

I realy think they talk and think way too much.. theres not anything REAL to show.. just babble, and all the thoughts of happy happy heaven and eternal life. Cmon, how many havent made a religion.. its a scam to make you feel good, behave good or something. And every one can do it.. its like when you're comforting someone.. "dear dear, everything will be ok" "We're gonna be happy and live a good life, and we'll get our reward eventually"

Everyone can do it... it comes naturaly, one can spew out for hours all those good positive words that isnt realistic maybe, just motivational. Know what i mean? its like taking motivational speech to a new level.. exept they think theyre gonna live forever in a kingdom in the clouds.

But to to learn real knowledge and study your surrondings instead.. that is hard, and becoming quite a rarity.

Did you forget that you are alive and well right here on this world? Reality.

Originally posted by Daniem

Originally posted by Long Lance
...changes have to be extremely slow, otherwise these individuals would lose compatibility - and die out

The process of biological evolution is not necessarily slow. Millions of years are not necessarily required to see speciation (a change in characteristics of a kind of organism, typically rendering offspring infertile with the previous species). Indeed, it has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[

if it renders the individual in question infertile, then how can it contribute to evolution?

speciation would require a sustainable species that lasts long enough to do it again (ideally). hybrids do not count, because they just combine existing types and often carry a doubled set of chromosomes. the issue here is that you need at least two speciment to breed once and a lot more for a viable gene pool.

do mutations cluster?

Thumbsucking

Towards the end of his life, the late and much-venerated evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould formed the opinion that the reason people didn't understant evolution is not because it is particularly hard to grasp (it isn't) - but because they don't want to grasp it. They know they'd have to agree with it if they understood it properly, because it makes perfect sense and is backed by entire mountain ranges of good, hard evidence. And they don't want to accept it, because then they'd be like Linus after Mom put his blanket in the wash.

Creationism is just thumbsucking for grownups.

Originally posted by Long Lance

if it renders the individual in question infertile, then how can it contribute to evolution?

it cant but where are you going with this one? as speciation int a process that leads to sterility

speciation would require a sustainable species that lasts long enough to do it again (ideally).

yes ...and it does ...

hybrids do not count, because they just combine existing types and often carry a doubled set of chromosomes.

not really wolphins dont carry any extra chromosones are still fertile with both parent species

ligers the females are till ferttile and no extra chromosone

the issue here is that you need at least two speciment to breed once and a lot more for a viable gene pool.

wait wrernt you talking about speciation? this is hybridisation not speciation

see Daniem is talking about speciation as observed in the labs .... and your not ... assorted mating behaviour and the creation of insipid strains of drosphillia in lab enviroments doesnt make them infertile, it just means the strains are no longer able to inter breed (this is speciation)

your talking about straight up hybridisation, asses, mules, ligons, tigons wolphins etc ect ...

which is a low grade form of speiation but not one prevelant or all that useful or realistic in the evolutionary model for animals, plant hybrdiation happen a lot in the wild though thier evolution became somewhat dependant on it

[edit on 20/2/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun

ligers the females are till ferttile and no extra chromosone

they combine the traits of existing cats and are of course hybrids, which imho only blur the issue. new traits is where it is at, otherwise evolution would only contract over time.

the issue here is that you need at least two specimen to breed once and a lot more for a viable gene pool.

wait wrernt you talking about speciation? this is hybridisation not speciation

mutation affects only one individual at a time. unless this individual interbreeds with its ancestor species (or any other for that matter, although that would probably be dumb luck) it would be unable to find a mate. clear enough? therefore, you'll have to allow time for that mutation to spread over a population, which could then be repeated several times until the entire population is part of a new species. hence my remark about very long times (measured in generations), which are required to make it work.

see Daniem is talking about speciation as observed in the labs .... and your not ... assorted mating behaviour and the creation of insipid strains of drosphillia in lab enviroments doesnt make them infertile, it just means the strains are no longer able to inter breed (this is speciation)

drosophilia appears to be a valid example, although i wonder how deliberate the process was. i mean it has to be happening somehow, the question is how and when and if one could do something with it.

reply to post by Daniem


Hi Daniem ! I really like your signature. Do you know that when we say to someone I want you to do this or that , or when we point the finger saying you are ignorant, or I'm surprised someone still thinks this way in 2009, or I'm surprised at this person's ignorance. Have you ever noticed what happens. Stretch out your hand and point your finger at the closest thing you don't like, I guess it will be my post on this website. What do you see ? One finger is pointing at me as being ignorant, and 3 of your fingers are pointing right back at yourself accusing yourself of ignorance.

"I want YOU! To wake up. To wake others up. To know you are free. To think for yourself. To protect your rights and to resist tyranny"

Really, have you woken up yourself to the reality in which you live ? Have you really bought into this freedom rubbish ? Do you really believe you have any enforceable rights, or that you can resist tyranny ?

Take a look at those people in Guantanamo Bay - how are they free, resisting tyranny, and who is protecting their rights - no charge is filled against them and they have no rights to a lawyer.

Unless you are living on a desert Island somewhere, then I would say you don't have any freedom either, you have just been conditioned and socialised into believing you are free, and you are free, as long as you choose to follow the pre-defined paths that people with more freedom (super elites, super rich) have already made for you. You are free to spend all of your childhood being indoctrinated and having your brains butchered by the Illuminati curricula of how to prevent free-thought and original ideas, and avoid criticism of the existing capitalist system of subjugation and the status quo of the few haves and the many have nots. You are brainwashed into playing the game, study hard, work hard, get a huge mortgage, repay three times the price of your house in interest payments, work your whole life to own a small house, then pay it off close to death, then stand back and watch the tax man come with death tax to prevent your children being free from the wage slavery. Look at the system nothing has changed since feudal days, and the landless peasants and Robin Hood. Sad thing is today Robin Hood's (Leftist Political Parties) sold out and is now in bed with big business giving social welfare to the rich and powerful.

Do you think this global economic crisis is an accident ? It has been planned for ages, did you not see how all of a sudden the dollar was getting less and less value, and everyone was moving their money into Gold. This was the global Illuminati getting ready to shaft you out. In this country the government collapsed after with one move costing every citizen 7,000 Euro in bailing out Fortis bank, a bank that told me they only wanted business customers and weren't interested in us small accounts. Nice when now I have 7000 Euro financing them. What happened to free-market economy, no government regulation, market forces etc, that Bank sucked big time and deserved to go bankrupt. Nice how the elites stick together. You know in the city there are loads of homeless people, the elites could care less about poor and weak people's problems.

Let's assume that you are the cleverest guy in America. Try testing your freedom, by applying for a job without a college degree, hey, I went to 2 of the best Universities in Europe, and I didn't see much changes before and after. Just try out your freedom to get a job. Or try out how free you are to work in certain government posts without political party friends or relatives?

My friend you are free to be free to do precisely that that the power elites want you to do, conform to everything they spoon-fed in School, and follow their life-plan for you which is in-cahoots with the Prince of Darkness, whose terminus is eternal damnation. Seek God