GOD ? or Evolution?

[winston Smiths Diary]

OK!

I have already debated the existence of the moon, George Bush and JFK!

But what about GOD?

Do you believe in GOD? as a scientist I have in my time came across the theory of Evolution etc, it seems a very good theory and has lots of good things going for it, it is most likely that this theory is true as there is some evidence pointing to this fact.

But if we indeed did evolve, what happens to the GOD making everyone theory? its gone out of the window, and no matter how many people I ask I can never seem to find any PHYSICAL PROOF that GOD exists.

All I get is people quoting the bible to me, which is no good to me at all as this would not hold up in court as physical proof,

So can any one here actually give me the physical proof I am looking for without quoting the bible?

Thank you please.

[TrippinBTM]

GOD ? or Evolution?

Why not both? Why must people keep going on with this false duality? As if the existance of a god would negate evolution, or that evolution negates God... At most, evolution only disagrees with a small part of Hebrew scripture (the first few parts of genesis).

I really doubt anyone can give you any proof of God that you would accept (nor any I would accept). But though God may not be provable like evolution, that doesn't preclude his existance. It may be that we are thinking of God in the wrong way, and so our search is stymied.

[winston Smiths Diary]

In order to believe in something I would prefer to see some physical proof, rathere that just belive a fairy tale-like story, like santa claus!

[astralgoldfish]

ok well, my personal opinion is that god (a omniscient, omnipotent spiritual energy, non biblical) created a variety of creatures that adapted and changed into the species we have today. My reason for believing in a creator is that a complex chemical like DNA cannot just be formed by chance from chemicals in the sea. Even if the individual component chemicals miraculously managed to float into each other, surely this is not sufficient to spawn an incredibly complex (despite being one-celled) phenominon such as the (alledged) first life on earth.

So I think it probable that life must have been created by design at some point. If it was so easy to create life from scratch that it happened by fluke in the sea, how come we can only manipulate already existing life or DNA. I have never heard of DNA being created completely artificially and with the result of a new life form.

I think a variety of creatures were created because I do not believe evolution has sufficient evidence to prove that we all came from amoebas. It is obvious to see that animals adapt over the generations to suit their environments. Strong genetic traits flourishing and breeding more etc. But the whole survival of the fittest evolution theory doesn't explain how new DNA can be formed in order to create new species.

For example- Exact beak shape is a natural variable in bird DNA, just as eye colour in humans. A bird hatched with a beaked shaped to give it a superior ability to eat nuts (or whatever) has many offspring due to it's sucess, many of which are likely to carry it's beak shape advantage, and wil also flourish, gradually dispersing that genetic strength down the generations. The shape of that beak was already present in their parents DNA.

For any previously aquatic animal to begin the process of developing in order to become the first amphibious life there has to be one parent (exclusively aquatic DNA, no adaptations for processing air in its genetic history) that has an offspring with the beginnings of lung tissue as an adaptation. This new lung tissue gene cannot have come from the DNA of either parent. It is entirely new, and except for genetic mutations (which are almost always undesirable deformaties, not original, useful organs) , that is not possible through natural breeding. Strong traits survive, but new ones are not spontaneously formed.

There are many examples along the amoeba to man chain where new DNA would have to be formed. I think most likely there was some form of mammal, reptile, fish, amphibian, bird in the first place to adapt into the current species. I believe that this if anything supports (but doesn't prove) the existance of a higher power at work as a guiding force in the process. It doesn't even really disprove the christian creation story, as the link from man-monkey is still so ridden with giant gaps that it is uncertain.

[winston Smiths Diary]

Your opinion is duly noted young man!


although I like the whole evolution thing better I must admit.

If You can answer this please do,

God invented Adam and Eve right, they were the first humans on earth, ever.

what happend when the dinosours came?

Man and dinosaurs dont mix well as we have seen on Jurassic Park, so what Happened?

Did man just hide for a few years?

Also why did God, out of all the many planets in the universe, which he made only make life on one planet and why did he name it Earth?

[TrippinBTM]

In order to believe in something I would prefer to see some physical proof, rathere that just belive a fairy tale-like story, like santa claus!
I agree, but then, I also think it's foolish to take such a fairy tale at face value (that is, literally). Most are metaphorical, you have to read into them for the message. And anyways, spiritual beliefs are never going to be proved in the way evolution is proved (scientific inquiry). It is an inward, personal route, not empirical in nature, rather, it is experiential; known through the experience. It's like a whole different way of knowing, a seperate but parallel branch from science.

[peacefulwind14]

And anyways, spiritual beliefs are never going to be proved in the way evolution is proved (scientific inquiry).

Exactly. We will never (dis)prove the existence of God through logical reasoning.

And Winston, it seems that you are more trying to disprove the Jewish/Catholic scriptures, or their beliefs in God. And, although I don't particularly disagree with you when it comes to that, it wouldn't disprove the existence of a God not revealed through "holy texts."

[the dauer]

I'm not trying to defend genesis (which is exactly what I am about to do), but you still seem to have some information mixed up so I'm going to respond.


God invented Adam and Eve right, they were the first humans on earth, ever.

what happend when the dinosours came?

The animals were created first. We have no idea how much took place before man was created because it's not relevant to the story of mankind and then the Jews.

Also why did God, out of all the many planets in the universe, which he made only make life on one planet and why did he name it Earth?

How do you know God only made life on this planet? All that can be ascertained from Genesis is that God created life on this planet. It would not be relevant to the story of mankind and then the Jews (I would suggest that even this is only part of the story of the Jews) to go into a long talk about how God created life on another planet. It's not teaching scientific truth. If it were it would get much more specific on all the little intricacies of creation. It's more interested in the spiritual truths that arise through the telling of creation.

Further, nowhere in the masoretic text does the word Earth appear. Of course you were addressing somebody else and I happened to check in on this thread.

Dauer

edit: It's funny because I'm having a related conversation from something closer to your position somewhere else.

[juggla]

why not believe in both? do you think god could explain to the ancients how he created life if he started talking about genetics and evolution, he'd use language theyd understand at the time.

[TrippinBTM]

For example- Exact beak shape is a natural variable in bird DNA, just as eye colour in humans. A bird hatched with a beaked shaped to give it a superior ability to eat nuts (or whatever) has many offspring due to it's sucess, many of which are likely to carry it's beak shape advantage, and wil also flourish, gradually dispersing that genetic strength down the generations. The shape of that beak was already present in their parents DNA.

For any previously aquatic animal to begin the process of developing in order to become the first amphibious life there has to be one parent (exclusively aquatic DNA, no adaptations for processing air in its genetic history) that has an offspring with the beginnings of lung tissue as an adaptation. This new lung tissue gene cannot have come from the DNA of either parent. It is entirely new, and except for genetic mutations (which are almost always undesirable deformaties, not original, useful organs) , that is not possible through natural breeding. Strong traits survive, but new ones are not spontaneously formed
I don't want to tell you what to believe, but your understanding of evolution seems somewhat limited. New DNA formed through mutations is indeed often harmful, usually the young are never even born. A good deal more of the mutations are neutral, so they serve no immediate advantage. A small amount are adventageous. However, both neutral and adventageous mutations are copied and passed down. Neutral now might end up serving a useful function later. Also, most new features evolve from old features that serve a different purpose. Evolution builds on existing hardware, but small changes in DNA can effect significant changes in usage patterns. I don't have the space here to explain it, nor would I do a great job, check out your library if you're interested.

As far as beak shapes as an example...there is always a variety of features in an existing population due to slightly varying forms of that gene (called an allele, these variations are the result of simple genetic variability, caused by mutation and/or genetic recombination during reproduction). The beaks aren't all the same exact shape but vary slightly in the population. So some birds may be better at cracking this nut than others, but it doesn't matter because there's plenty of other types of nuts. But then say a drought hits, and the food is limited mainly to one type of nut...birds that already have that variety of the beak that helps them eat that nut will survive (and thus reproduce) more effectively. Yes, the shape was already in the population, but it's not hard for such new shapes to form. All it takes is a tiny change in, say, a gene that codes for timing of how long another gene that controls the beak growth is expressed. If these cells grow for a bit longer or shorter, the shape of the beak is changed.

Small changes in complex systems can have large effects, given enough time. The adaptive power of life is amazing, and over billions of years of evolution, I see it as no difficulty for life to evolve from single cells to the amazingly complex life we have now. The time scales are so vast, and life reproduces very quickly in most species (hours, days, weeks, or months for most species). This means DNA is copied very very often, giving ample opprotunity for change.

[shaba]

First, you must take alook at our planet we call Earth. In the vastness of the Universe, the Infinity that we cannot possibly comprehend when we look among the stars, you have to ask yourself (possibly zoning of a joint:H) are we alone? I believe strongly in the distance of our planet from our mother star, has to do with everything that we know and feel and smell and touch and taste and see in this spacetime. Our planet formed because of the gravitational force of our sun, bringing together parts of floating, highly radiating metallic-rock, in the early infant universe, to form and give birth to a complex weather system, which formed the clouds to give us WATER. This my friends can be argued as an act of a GOD, or totally by chance. But, as I asked you before if this happened by chance why could this not have happened elsewhere. The odds might be alot higher than we assume, because when you have a infinite number, then the chances are possibly infinite as well. There is absolutely no way in knowing, all we can do as humans is sit and wonder. Evolving and adapting go hand in hand. That is why we stand on two feet. The earth changed dramatically over billions of years, we came down from the trees in search for food, and the rest is history. But the crazy thing is, that I always wonder, is the NEXT EVOLUTION of the HOMO SAPIEN. Imagine that!? because when you take a look at evolution you see it telescoping if you look at the time scales that are involved here, "two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it, And then when you get to agriculture, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you're looking at 10,0000 years, 400 years, 150 years, What this means is that as we go through the new evolution, it's going to telescope to the point we should be able to manifest it within our lifetime, within a generation." So, are you prepared to Evolve?

[mati]

from a house, a builder is inferred. from Nature, nothing so certain is evident but nor is the negative provable. considering that the question is unanswerable, maybe it would be better to concentrate our energy on subjects that will tend to increase our knowledge about that which concerns us.

[juggla]

argueing against evolution is like believing the earth is flat, a century from now people will be laughing about there being creationists. again evolution doesnt give us the moral of why, it gives us the how, people who ask why man is what he is turn to god, if you wanna know about how we came to be enroll in a biology class.

[quotient]

Winston


when you look at the world around you does it lead you to believe intelligent design or random chaos?

the universe is finely tuned, axial tilt etc...etc
the flagella motor in bacteria,
your eye,...irreducible complexity
heat death

Naturalism neccessarily ends in Existentialism and Nihilism, and they have a problem with the logic of their belief system from morals. That is "whatever is truth to you is truth for you", this is prevalent on this site. However once you find that they care for something you have them in a corner. For example, why did Nietzsche write crybaby letters home to mama?
out of time sorry.

[thumontico]

The point was that it was possible for someone to become a reformed nihilist. Revaluating values and such.

[quotient]

thumontico,

I love the dancing men but it is very distracting as I am simple minded and we are discussing important and complex issues. :) just kidding,....about the importance.

I didn't complete earlier post, had to run.

As the soft spot of existentialism is from morals, so the soft spot for theology has been from evil as your quote above shows. I do not suppose to be able to answer the questions that have perplexed the greatest minds of history as it seems many on this site are able to do with arrogance.

However I do suppose to be able to properly form the questions and the arguments and it is rather nice to be able to do it in such a relaxed atmosphere, though I have seen some tempers on here.

Belief claims are very difficult to defend, whatever they may be. Truth is almost impossible to prove, whatever it may be. Thus I prefer not to make belief claims, I'm a wimp. I would add, in the category of some of the greatest minds, socrates professed to know nothing, Newton had the honesty to admit he did not know the why of gravity and refused to postulate a hypotheses. Enough.

Theology is currently taken to defending the argument from evil by means other than "greater good" and they have admitted the circuitousness of "greater good". That is, if every evil either brings about a greater good or prevents a greater evil" then to prevent evil would be to prevent a greater good or the stopping of a greater evil.

example "if Tom had not died in that car wreck then Suzy would have never joined the church and accepted Christ" Logic says christians should want more people to die in car wrecks so that more people can accept Christ. Surely this is not the case and you can think of an example of preventing a greater evil....etc...etc.

The more recent writings on the topic present a "best of all worlds scenario". My apologies to the men working on this as I will surely butcher it. Basically this world, as bad as it is with evil and all, is the best possible world out of all possible worlds God could have created. For God to have a meaningful relationship with man it was neccessary for man to be able to make moral choices (free will). Evil then exist because of mans moral (or not moral) choices. God has never promised to stop all evil in this world(this could be a whole other subject, admitted) so the existence of evil does not count against him being all good and all powerful. Also you must accept that all powerful does not mean that he can do the non doable, ie create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift.

I must run out again, I have a young son with places to be.

[Alsharad]

argueing against evolution is like believing the earth is flat, a century from now people will be laughing about there being creationists. again evolution doesnt give us the moral of why, it gives us the how, people who ask why man is what he is turn to god, if you wanna know about how we came to be enroll in a biology class.
Even evolutionists vigorously debate the nature of evolutionary theory. The thinking that evolution is without reasonable challenge is to ascribe to scientific dogma surrounding the theory. Even evolutionists disagree as to the mechanism, so saying that "argueing against evolution is like believing the earth is flat" does little more than demonstrate ignorance regarding the arguments being thrown around by the disunified factions within the scientific community.

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.”
[As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), “Evolutionary theory under fire,” Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]

[shaba]

I came across this extremely intresting article about God & Evolution. Take A Look - http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1423450,00.html

Its titled Test of Faith - Religion may be a survival mechanism. So are we born to believe?

[Kopojokoingo]

Evolution...definantley, But why is it that evolution in it's self cannot be spiritual....

There was a Nebula (gas and dust) some forces caused a great swirling in the nebula, and our solar system was created, and in our solar system our plantes, and in our planets bacetria, and from the bascteria fish, then from fish reptiles and so forth up to humans....Essentially we were created from dust....and eventually thats where our organic containers (bodies) will return....but the more amazing thing (to me) is not where we evolved from ect it is life it's self, All these organs and cells working in perfect unison (most of the time0 to create one living thinking breathing peice of matter, that utilizes all of the resources about it (not just humans all living things)

Forget where we came from, And just stand in awe of the mind boggling-ness of Life it's self.

[gonjbob]

there is two kinds Evolution and evolution the first means the theoy of Evolution the latter means things change over time to adaped. there is no solid proof the theoy is true the guy who came up with it said we would find it in the fossels. but we have not. insted animals are just there. yes they found changes in animals but they have yet to find animals changing into othere animals. why is there still crocodiles shouldn't they have evoled.

if you look at all things space, earth, life they all have intelegent disign.

don't think of god in the context of the bible or any othere religen becuase man knows nothing.

think of the big bang theoy. one thing they don't adress much is what was befor it. nothing . so what caused it?

[spooner]

And if you're looking for physical proof of good, the best advice I can give you is to examine St. Thomas Aquinas... He was a pre-renaissance religious philosopher who came up with the 5 proofs of god.

[spooner]

On a different note, it's possible to recreate the early atmosphere in a laboratory and when electricity is added (ie. lightening) simple proteins arrange, the precursor to life. It's a pretty big jump from there to the first cell tho.

[Zion]

Are your a creation? If so how, could you not have a creator? Do you exist? If so, How could you exist, from nothingness? How could something be produced from nothing? One could ask:Tehn what created GOD. If something created GOD, and somthing created that GOD, and so forth and so on are you not speaking of infinicy? Deducing that God is infinte, due the interconnection of these GODs. So really There is only one GOD regardlessly.
But I like us all am just a human, meiraculaslly existing.

[ryupower]

There's this thing called creationism,-look it up! ;)

It's got some disproof of evolution, and also proof of its own.

[Mr MiGu]

Are your a creation? If so how, could you not have a creator? Do you exist? If so, How could you exist, from nothingness? How could something be produced from nothing? One could ask:Tehn what created GOD. If something created GOD, and somthing created that GOD, and so forth and so on are you not speaking of infinicy? Deducing that God is infinte, due the interconnection of these GODs. So really There is only one GOD regardlessly.
But I like us all am just a human, meiraculaslly existing.

could we not extend this logic further, saying god0 created material existence, god1 created god0, etc to infinity. Instead of deducing that god is infinite and hence there is 1 infinite god which created material existence, could it not be possible that material existence is infinite, ie that 'god' is everything around us.

[mati]

In what part of the impression does the idea of a creator exist? Simply saying that a creation must have a creator is not saying anything much and reducing the question to a mere verbal dispute, a circular argument that doesn't go anywhere.

[TrippinBTM]

In what part of the impression does the idea of a creator exist? Simply saying that a creation must have a creator is not saying anything much and reducing the question to a mere verbal dispute, a circular argument that doesn't go anywhere.
Exactly. It starts with the assumption that we are creations. That is not a fact, just an opinion. We may alternatively just be here. Not created, just existing.

[Zion]

Regardless of weather we exist or not, Something is or is not happening. I see now that the question is irrelavent wholistically, but I still enjoy offering thanks to the universe. For my owne appreciation and for being grateful to and for such an experience.

[Zion]

In many ways you two( mati and trippen) are saying the exact same things as we are
could we not extend this logic further, saying god0 created material existence, god1 created god0, etc to infinity. Instead of deducing that god is infinite and hence there is 1 infinite god which created material existence, could it not be possible that material existence is infinite, ie that 'god' is everything around us. (Exactly what I was getting at)
Thus if all is one, than even if we dont exist we still dont exist within GOD

[Esty]

although I like the whole evolution thing better I must admit.

If You can answer this please do,

God invented Adam and Eve right, they were the first humans on earth, ever.

what happend when the dinosours came?

Man and dinosaurs dont mix well as we have seen on Jurassic Park, so what Happened?

Did man just hide for a few years?

Also why did God, out of all the many planets in the universe, which he made only make life on one planet and why did he name it Earth?i'm with you more than any other that's commented here....except for one thing you said...." God invented Adam and Eve right, they were the first humans on earth, ever".....you said it with such certainty....how do you know they were the 1st ones?...the fables you read, written by monks, centuries after the alleged incident supposedly occurred...

i mean....what qualified these guys to be god's biographers?

scopes theory's objective...it's traceable, plausible ....god is subjective, based on belief and desire to be true...

personally it is what it is to us all because of how we were groom'd as kids....we want to believe something, regardless of which side of the fence it's on, so that's our truth.....just maybe not the factual truth

[The Chemical Comrade]

See for me I choose to ignore both major theories accepted by the main audience and instead opt out on trying to figure out how we got here. Instead I figure isn't the more important question where are we going from here?

[ryupower]

Evidence against evolution (have fun! :) ):


http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html
http://www.ghg.net/hollaway/isevolut.htm
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp
http://www.serve.com/revev/revev5.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
http://www.designeduniverse.com/articles/Evidence_Disproving_Evolution/evidence_disproving_evolution.html
http://www.projecttruth.org/Project%20Truth/PTCreation/SciencePapers/darwinerupts.htm
http://www.branchministry.net/bibleteachings/evolutionfoolishness.htm
http://heresies.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/Entropy.html


Darwin HIMSELF even said that his theory was wrong,- in his book!

I used to believe in evolution.However, Some stuff...just doesn't make sense.

I don't think dinosaurs could evolve FEATHERY wings by jumping off trees.

And how could you get ORGANS (like the brain) from amoibas??

Most of all, how does a creature 'evolve' scales,skin,hair,etc.. if the ONE CELLED creature doesn't even contain this DNA?

[PhantomOpus]

Ryu, here is where I show you that everything you believe in is wrong.

A one-celled creature might have the DNA for scales. But it's not going to be expressed, because it's useless to a one-celled creature and would probably be maladaptive.

You should pay more attention in English class. Darwin's quote, taken directly from your link, was "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Darwin did not say that his theory is wrong. What he said is that the Earth does not contain a perfect nor even complete catalogue of all the species to which it has ever played host - he said that we _will not_ find examples of every infinitesimal graduation between species, because not every animal has been preserved. He is saying that those who reject the science of geology will reject his theory as a valid (though untrue) logical conclusion.

And now to refute your "proofs." Not that you're going to take the time to read any of this, because you'd prefer to remain willfully ignorant. Some of these (1-4, for example) actually agree with some things you've pointed to, so I strongly suggest that you read all of these articles and take them to heart.

Site 1:
1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
3) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html
4) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701_1.html
5) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
6) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
7) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
8) I don't even need to link for this one; if we could make oil in a laboratory we wouldn't be drilling Alaska and invading the Middle East for this commodity.
9) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
10) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
11) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
12) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712_1.html
13) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html
14) I can handle this one myself, too: That is based on a fallacious assumption that the Nile has always flowed at its current vector (volume, velocity, and direction).
15) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html
16) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH134.html
17) "Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created." The Silmarillion says that Iluvatar created Ea, so it must be true. Get a grip.

Site 2:
The author of this site is an idiot. He uses the famous peppered moth example ( http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/peppered.htm ) and says, "Now, why was there an apparent change in the moth's color? Did it change color to adapt to its environment? No, the light moths were very simply eaten by the birds." This man demonstrates the thickheadedness of most fundamentalist Creationists - the moth DID adapt, in fact that is an absolutely perfect example of adaptation. "The moth" does not refer to individuals, but to the species as a whole. Individuals do not evolve, they merely serve as stepping stones in the process of evolution.
Do not listen to what morons say.

Site 3:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ ; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html ; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

Site 4:
This site is discredited as easily as Site 2. "The more you study the duckbill platypus, the more problems you find for evolutionists. Here is a list of some of its features:

? It is a fur-bearing mammal."

One need go no farther to realize that these people do not know what they are talking about. Fur, or hair, is one of the defining features of mammals.

Site 5:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/momevol.html

Site 6:
www.talkorigins.org

Site 7:
Another moron. Attempts to prove that the Earth is much younger than science has shown by appealing to the amount of volcanic product deposited on the surface of the Earth each year, while completely ignoring erosion, island chain formations, and the destructive properties of lava.

Site 8:
www.talkorigins.org
Nothing but another site full of lies and misconceptions. They even say that Nebraska man was included in textbooks, which is false.

Site 9:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Disprove entropy! Play this game: http://gprime.net/game.php/chainreaction

[PhantomOpus]

Something else you all need to keep in mind: Our organs are /functional/, NOT perfect. Yes, the eye and ear are amazing...but even we lowly humans could, can, and have designed much better models. Surely God could have made them more perfect.

The fact that things simply work, as opposed to being as ultimately efficient as possible, is further support for development rather than design.

[ryupower]

I looked at some of those sites, but I have not found an explenation for the questions I've asked, nor have I found anything explaining how the giraffe got such a long neck.

I guess you didn't understand my last question. How did one-celled organisms develop these things? The reason I said 'without DNA' is because sperms are one-celled, and with an egg produced a living creature, BUT that's because it has DNA.

[PhantomOpus]

Each of those sites refutes (backed up by solid, researched evidence) each of the points made by the sites you linked us to. I figured my post was long enough without delving into the questions you tacked on at the end.

[QUOTE=ryupower]Most of all, how does a creature 'evolve' scales,skin,hair,etc.. if the ONE CELLED creature doesn't even contain this DNA?

How did one-celled organisms develop these things? The reason I said 'without DNA' is because sperms are one-celled, and with an egg produced a living creature, BUT that's because it has DNA. [QUOTE=ryupower]

I'm not familiar with the gene sequences of all living things, but I can give you two scenarios based upon what I know:

1) All creatures contain the right DNA for any trait, but only the traits useful to that creature are expressed. This is the view I was getting at before, which I thought you might find more acceptable since it clearly implies creation (or alien implantation, if you're into that kind of thing). This is rather unlikely though, given that a) there's no reason to expect that simple one-celled creatures would simply sprout thousands of recessive, even inert genes, and b) more highly developed life-forms have more chromosomes. They simply have more information to deal with.

2) The more likely view is that groups of early cells were more likely to survive when they banded together. The group was more likely to survive when the ones on the outside were tougher, perhaps by secreting keratin (or by keeping themselves covered with the husks of their deceased ilk). There you have skin. Hair didn't come until mammals developed, so that's a long way down the line. Everything follows logically at some point along the path.

The giraffe's neck (as well as its black, tough tongue, and incredibly versatile lips) are explained by the easily observable inter-evolution between its species and that of its main prey, the acacia tree. As the short proto-giraffes ate the acacia trees, those that were taller stood a better chance of surviving. As the acacia trees got taller, giraffes with longer necks stood a better chance of surviving. Acacia trees with thorns were more likely to repel the giraffe's attacks and were more likely to survive; giraffes who could withstand the thorns and the alkalinity of the tree were able to find food much easier and were more likely to survive.

It's all about the interplay between species. Everything is there in the natural world for you to see.

Look around you: there are many things to see that some would say could never be. These things I know, they're true and I will tell you so; they are there to see, if you believe.

[ryupower]

I'm not familiar with the gene sequences of all living things, but I can give you two scenarios based upon what I know:

1) All creatures contain the right DNA for any trait, but only the traits useful to that creature are expressed. This is the view I was getting at before, which I thought you might find more acceptable since it clearly implies creation (or alien implantation, if you're into that kind of thing). This is rather unlikely though, given that a) there's no reason to expect that simple one-celled creatures would simply sprout thousands of recessive, even inert genes, and b) more highly developed life-forms have more chromosomes. They simply have more information to deal with.

2) The more likely view is that groups of early cells were more likely to survive when they banded together. The group was more likely to survive when the ones on the outside were tougher, perhaps by secreting keratin (or by keeping themselves covered with the husks of their deceased ilk). There you have skin. Hair didn't come until mammals developed, so that's a long way down the line. Everything follows logically at some point along the path.
How, then, did these creatures develop brains,hearts,etc...
also, you're implying that one-celled organisms can think? How did it happen that they knew exactly how to bind, if they couldn't think?


The giraffe's neck (as well as its black, tough tongue, and incredibly versatile lips) are explained by the easily observable inter-evolution between its species and that of its main prey, the acacia tree. As the short proto-giraffes ate the acacia trees, those that were taller stood a better chance of surviving. As the acacia trees got taller, giraffes with longer necks stood a better chance of surviving. Acacia trees with thorns were more likely to repel the giraffe's attacks and were more likely to survive; giraffes who could withstand the thorns and the alkalinity of the tree were able to find food much easier and were more likely to survive.
That doesn't really answer my question. How did the creatures develop a long neck in the first place?
"As the acacia trees got taller, giraffes with longer necks stood a better chance of surviving."

[PhantomOpus]

How, then, did these creatures develop brains,hearts,etc...
also, you're implying that one-celled organisms can think? How did it happen that they knew exactly how to bind, if they couldn't think?
No, I'm not implying that they can think. Just because they may have happened to clump together doesn't mean it was premeditated. Unicellular organisms sometimes display activity that looks like thinking - Amoebas hunting down other unicellular organisms, for example - but it's doubtful that they think as we do.

That doesn't really answer my question. How did the creatures develop a long neck in the first place?
"As the acacia trees got taller, giraffes with longer necks stood a better chance of surviving."
It's a good thing you're only 15, or I'd be concerned that you suffer from a learning disability.
I'm sure you've seen humans who are 5 feet tall or shorter, and humans who are over 6 feet tall. Now imagine that we ate green maple leaves by reaching up with our arms to grab them. Now imagine that we end up systematically killing all the trees that are reachable by all of us, because we keep eating their means of producing food. Now the only maple trees left are not reachable by those under 6 feet. Tall people are much more able to survive, and subsequently will reproduce more, spreading their tall information among the population and causing the species' overall height to increase.

[ryupower]

No, I'm not implying that they can think. Just because they may have happened to clump together doesn't mean it was premeditated. Unicellular organisms sometimes display activity that looks like thinking - Amoebas hunting down other unicellular organisms, for example - but it's doubtful that they think as we do. So all these amoebas clumped together, and for some strange reason the clump had organs, and for some strange reason it worked as one Unit? right.



It's a good thing you're only 15, or I'd be concerned that you suffer from a learning disability.
I'm sure you've seen humans who are 5 feet tall or shorter, and humans who are over 6 feet tall. Now imagine that we ate green maple leaves by reaching up with our arms to grab them. Now imagine that we end up systematically killing all the trees that are reachable by all of us, because we keep eating their means of producing food. Now the only maple trees left are not reachable by those under 6 feet. Tall people are much more able to survive, and subsequently will reproduce more, spreading their tall information among the population and causing the species' overall height to increase. That still didn't answer my question, how did the tall Giraffe get so tall in the first place. What I mean is, in the most simple way, 'so how did the first tall giraffe get taller than the others?'

[PhantomOpus]

Did I say the 'clumps' suddenly had organs? No. Not to mention it wouldn't have been amoebas, because amoebas are cannibalistic.

And why not ask me why some of your friends are taller than you? It just happens. There is phenotypical diversity in every species on the planet.

[Bikshu]

See for me I choose to ignore both major theories accepted by the main audience and instead opt out on trying to figure out how we got here. Instead I figure isn't the more important question where are we going from here?
So . . . you ignore both because you think they contadict each other, but they dont even necesarrily do that.

[ryupower]

Did I say the 'clumps' suddenly had organs? No. Not to mention it wouldn't have been amoebas, because amoebas are cannibalistic.
Than how did creatures develop organs (especially the Brain)?

And why not ask me why some of your friends are taller than you? It just happens. There is phenotypical diversity in every species on the planet. Because God created them taller, according to their genes. Simple as that.

You still didn't give me an evolutionary explenation for it though, how DID the first giraffe become taller if it didn't have the genes to be? Most of all, a giraffe's design is way to perfect to have evolved, IMO. One evolutionary flaw and it'd be dead.

[gnrm23]

the real leap is from procaryotic organisms (bacteria & their allies) & the eucaryotes (everything else - protists (amoebae, paramecia, volvox...), fungi, plants, & animals...)

& remember, the total biomass of the prokaryota is greater than that of all eukaryota combined!

now, as for the evolution of giraffes & eyeballs & hummingbirds & blue whales & duckbilled platypi... & the primate & great ape family (including the crown of creation, Homo sapiens sapiens)...
please do some basic science reading (or watch dr carl sagan's totally excellent video series "cosmos" for a li'l intro, dearie...()

[cabdirazzaq]

Point taken to consideration...
We have left these talks about the giraffe long time ago(even though some arguments are still valid, its still possible for evolutionsts to offer what I call CE -conjecture evidence-)

If we would instead reach the level of molecule machines and irreducibly complex systems then the theory of evolution is as dead as its founder! According to whom, one may ask? Darwin him self said this:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Behe was right when he wrote that people are afraid of this subject, otherwise we would have found some evolutionsts trying to explain these extrodinary systems within us such as blodclotting and our immunsystem, but no...
Its either publish or PERISH! They havent published so now they are compelled to perish...

And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."[Quran 17.81]

[ryupower]

the real leap is from procaryotic organisms (bacteria & their allies) & the eucaryotes (everything else - protists (amoebae, paramecia, volvox...), fungi, plants, & animals...)

& remember, the total biomass of the prokaryota is greater than that of all eukaryota combined!

now, as for the evolution of giraffes & eyeballs & hummingbirds & blue whales & duckbilled platypi... & the primate & great ape family (including the crown of creation, Homo sapiens sapiens)...
please do some basic science reading (or watch dr carl sagan's totally excellent video series "cosmos" for a li'l intro, dearie...() I know about apes and humans and all that.

But everyone so far has not been able to tell me how this happened with the giraffe. And noone could explain how your brain just so *happened* to develop.

Now there's another thing: how can bumble bees fly if it would actually be physicly impossible for them?
A bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly. For it has a very 'heavy' body for those small and short wings.

I bet I could list quite a few creatures that defy evolution.

[PhantomOpus]

We've only been seriously working at this problem for a short 100 years. Scientists can't be expected to concentrate on every bit of minutiae in their field; or perhaps you would prefer that all scientists become evolutionary biologists, rather than physicists or cancer researchers?

[PhantomOpus]

Than how did creatures develop organs (especially the Brain)?
Because God created them taller, according to their genes. Simple as that.

You still didn't give me an evolutionary explenation for it though, how DID the first giraffe become taller if it didn't have the genes to be? Most of all, a giraffe's design is way to perfect to have evolved, IMO. One evolutionary flaw and it'd be dead.

Fine, you want to believe that God directs evolution, I have no problem with that. Just don't willfully deny the fact that it happens.

And no animal is perfect.

[cabdirazzaq]

We've only been seriously working at this problem for a short 100 years. Scientists can't be expected to concentrate on every bit of minutiae in their field; or perhaps you would prefer that all scientists become evolutionary biologists, rather than physicists or cancer researchers?Your blaming it on time, as did Darwin. You know what, it has almost passed 150 years and we still havent found all these fossils Darwin was so sure we would find. Interesting...

ryu, considering the fact that this animal slaps its wings hundreds of times per sec it should be able to fly, then again I'm no biologist. In which way isn't it supposed to be able to fly, you probably know more than me on this subject?
The fact it does fly is a clear sig for creation, indeed this little working machine is amazing!

[ryupower]

Fine, you want to believe that God directs evolution, I have no problem with that. Just don't willfully deny the fact that it happens.

And no animal is perfect.
True, but what I meant with that statement is that Giraffes are among the animals that confuse evolutionist.

[ryupower]

Your blaming it on time, as did Darwin. You know what, it has almost passed 150 years and we still havent found all these fossils Darwin was so sure we would find. Interesting...

ryu, considering the fact that this animal slaps its wings hundreds of times per sec it should be able to fly, then again I'm no biologist. In which way isn't it supposed to be able to fly, you probably know more than me on this subject?
The fact it does fly is a clear sig for creation, indeed this little working machine is amazing! I'll get back to you on that one. I'm not quite sure. Bees truely are fascinating, though. I agree with you on that! :D. They defy evolution in some ways :)

To evolutionists:
While collecting the precious nectar that provides their hives with food, bees pollinate dozens of species of flowers and agricultural crops. Without this vital pollination, orchards could produce little if any fruit, and fruit trees would not survive for long. How can these plants exist without first being pollinated by bees? On the other hand, how could bees exist without first being provided with the necessary nectar as food? Which came first?

[cabdirazzaq]

Good question, try this one:
DNA is composed of protein. In DNA lies the information about which protein to be built, which came first. DNA or proteins?
Do not give me the fake "RNA world", rna is like the blueprint. How can a blueprint come about if there is nothing to print it?

[PhantomOpus]

Good question, try this one:
DNA is composed of protein. In DNA lies the information about which protein to be built, which came first. DNA or proteins?
Do not give me the fake "RNA world", rna is like the blueprint. How can a blueprint come about if there is nothing to print it?

First of all, DNA isn't protein.

DNA stands for deoxyribose nucleic acid.

Ribose is a sugar.

That's why DNA is its own category.

And whether you like it or not, RNA most likely came first. You're asking how the first printing press came about when there were no printing presses to print the instructions for it.

[PhantomOpus]

I'll get back to you on that one. I'm not quite sure. Bees truely are fascinating, though. I agree with you on that! :D. They defy evolution in some ways :)

To evolutionists:
While collecting the precious nectar that provides their hives with food, bees pollinate dozens of species of flowers and agricultural crops. Without this vital pollination, orchards could produce little if any fruit, and fruit trees would not survive for long. How can these plants exist without first being pollinated by bees? On the other hand, how could bees exist without first being provided with the necessary nectar as food? Which came first?

I'm only posting this so that I won't be accused of ignoring your question; I would be entering a world of conjecture in order to answer this, as I have little to no background in entymology. The best I can do at this time (hopefully someone with more knowledge will pick up on this thread) is offer you an excerpt from Chatper 4 of The Origin of Species, in which Darwin discusses the bee/flower relationship.

"Let us now take a more complex case. Certain plants excrete a sweet juice, apparently for the sake of eliminating something injurious from their sap: this is effected by glands at the base of the stipules in some Leguminosae, and at the back of the leaf of the common laurel. This juice, though small in quantity, is greedily sought by insects. Let us now suppose a little sweet juice or nectar to be excreted by the inner bases of the petals of a flower. In this case insects in seeking the nectar would get dusted with pollen, and would certainly often transport the pollen from one flower to the stigma of another flower. The flowers of two distinct individuals of the same species would thus get crossed; and the act of crossing, we have good reason to believe (as will hereafter be more fully alluded to), would produce very vigorous seedlings, which consequently would have the best chance of flourishing and surviving. Some of these seedlings would probably inherit the nectar-excreting power. Those in individual flowers which had the largest glands or nectaries, and which excreted most nectar, would be oftenest visited by insects, and would be oftenest crossed; and so in the long-run would gain the upper hand. Those flowers, also, which had their stamens and pistils placed, in relation to the size and habits of the particular insects which visited them, so as to favour in any degree the transportal of their pollen from flower to flower, would likewise be favoured or selected. We might have taken the case of insects visiting flowers for the sake of collecting pollen instead of nectar; and as pollen is formed for the sole object of fertilisation, its destruction appears a simple loss to the plant; yet if a little pollen were carried, at first occasionally and then habitually, by the pollen-devouring insects from flower to flower, and a cross thus effected, although nine-tenths of the pollen were destroyed, it might still be a great gain to the plant; and those individuals which produced more and more pollen, and had larger and larger anthers, would be selected.

When our plant, by this process of the continued preservation or natural selection of more and more attractive flowers, had been rendered highly attractive to insects, they would, unintentionally on their part, regularly carry pollen from flower to flower; and that they can most effectually do this, I could easily show by many striking instances. I will give only one not as a very striking case, but as likewise illustrating one step in the separation of the sexes of plants, presently to be alluded to. Some holly-trees bear only male flowers, which have four stamens producing rather a small quantity of pollen, and a rudimentary pistil; other holly-trees bear only female flowers; these have a full-sized pistil, and four stamens with shrivelled anthers, in which not a grain of pollen can be detected. Having found a female tree exactly sixty yards from a male tree, I put the stigmas of twenty flowers, taken from different branches, under the microscope, and on all, without exception, there were pollen-grains, and on some a profusion of pollen. As the wind had set for several days from the female to the male tree, the pollen could not thus have been carried. The weather had been cold and boisterous, and therefore not favourable to bees, nevertheless every female flower which I examined had been effectually fertilised by the bees, accidentally dusted with pollen, having flown from tree to tree in search of nectar. But to return to our imaginary case: as soon as the plant had been rendered so highly attractive to insects that pollen was regularly carried from flower to flower, another process might commence. No naturalist doubts the advantage of what has been called the 'physiological division of labour;' hence we may believe that it would be advantageous to a plant to produce stamens alone in one flower or on one whole plant, and pistils alone in another flower or on another plant. In plants under culture and placed under new conditions of life, sometimes the male organs and sometimes the female organs become more or less impotent; now if we suppose this to occur in ever so slight a degree under nature, then as pollen is already carried regularly from flower to flower, and as a more complete separation of the sexes of our plant would be advantageous on the principle of the division of labour, individuals with this tendency more and more increased, would be continually favoured or selected, until at last a complete separation of the sexes would be effected.

Let us now turn to the nectar-feeding insects in our imaginary case: we may suppose the plant of which we have been slowly increasing the nectar by continued selection, to be a common plant; and that certain insects depended in main part on its nectar for food. I could give many facts, showing how anxious bees are to save time; for instance, their habit of cutting holes and sucking the nectar at the bases of certain flowers, which they can, with a very little more trouble, enter by the mouth. Bearing such facts in mind, I can see no reason to doubt that an accidental deviation in the size and form of the body, or in the curvature and length of the proboscis, &c., far too slight to be appreciated by us, might profit a bee or other insect, so that an individual so characterised would be able to obtain its food more quickly, and so have a better chance of living and leaving descendants. Its descendants would probably inherit a tendency to a similar slight deviation of structure. The tubes of the corollas of the common red and incarnate clovers (Trifolium pratense and incarnatum) do not on a hasty glance appear to differ in length; yet the hive-bee can easily suck the nectar out of the incarnate clover, but not out of the common red clover, which is visited by humble-bees alone; so that whole fields of the red clover offer in vain an abundant supply of precious nectar to the hive-bee. Thus it might be a great advantage to the hive-bee to have a slightly longer or differently constructed proboscis. On the other hand, I have found by experiment that the fertility of clover greatly depends on bees visiting and moving parts of the corolla, so as to push the pollen on to the stigmatic surface. Hence, again, if humble-bees were to become rare in any country, it might be a great advantage to the red clover to have a shorter or more deeply divided tube to its corolla, so that the hive-bee could visit its flowers. Thus I can understand how a flower and a bee might slowly become, either simultaneously or one after the other, modified and adapted in the most perfect manner to each other, by the continued preservation of individuals presenting mutual and slightly favourable deviations of structure."

-The Origin of Species (Chapter 4), Charles Darwin.

[amiera]

GOD ? or Evolution?

I heard of religiosity being in our genes.

Speaking of God’s existence, it depends on your definition of God. Do we speak of the God like Spinoza described? In an other definition of God he could be too big to understand him. In got some puzzle: We are in a kidney. Kidney is our God. Everything is of kidney. The kidney cells are discussing the existence of God. Some say: “Kidney is everywhere, therefore he exists.” Others say: “Where can we find kidney? We can’t see him.”

Some pen pal of me thought that there are various levels of existence. These could be experienced by people who are into paranormal stuff, Christians, suffis, atheists, etc.

[Occam]

What if evolution..
Is how god creates?

You all seem to be making the assumption that god exists
'In our time frame'.

Yes.The period over which man evolved might be several million
human years.
But who says 'a' god counts our seconds as it's?
If the 'speed of thought' is wildly variable on earth itself.
Why not everywhere?

Thus what looks like a long process full of holes [evolution]
Is in fact a short process of manipulation. [to a god]

Occam

[TrippinBTM]

Even evolutionists vigorously debate the nature of evolutionary theory. The thinking that evolution is without reasonable challenge is to ascribe to scientific dogma surrounding the theory. Even evolutionists disagree as to the mechanism, so saying that "argueing against evolution is like believing the earth is flat" does little more than demonstrate ignorance regarding the arguments being thrown around by the disunified factions within the scientific community. Not really. Biologists do certainly argue about the details and the mechanisms, but the idea of evolution in the broad sense: "life changes over time via heritable changes" is not in question among them. Thus, evolution is a fact, but also a Theory (or really, several competing theories).

I'll get back to you on that one. I'm not quite sure. Bees truely are fascinating, though. I agree with you on that! :D. They defy evolution in some ways :)

To evolutionists:
While collecting the precious nectar that provides their hives with food, bees pollinate dozens of species of flowers and agricultural crops. Without this vital pollination, orchards could produce little if any fruit, and fruit trees would not survive for long. How can these plants exist without first being pollinated by bees? On the other hand, how could bees exist without first being provided with the necessary nectar as food? Which came first?First, bees and flies shouldn't be able to fly based on airfoil flight dynamics. That is to say, their bodies are too heavy and wings too small for an airfoil to give them flight. HOWEVER, they have evolved to make use of the properties of moving air, namely vortexes of air currents, with bouy them up. Thus, it is simply a different form of flight than birds, bats, and airplanes make use of, and only works because of their small size.

Second, you guys in saying "which came first, the bee or the nectar" or "protein or DNA" assumes that life can only exist as it is. If life in the past were different, maybe that nectar had a different purpose originally (like the quoted Darwin text says, perhaps an excretory function). And maybe the bee was eating pollen (they do that). Like the quoted text says, in the long run, certain plants will survive better and reproduce more, eventually coming to dominate the gene pool thanks to the use of insect polination (the same is true for the bees, in the long run).

DNA is harder and I'm less familiar with it, but you throw out RNA as if it's just a blueprint, but it is likely it was the percursor to DNA. It is simpler for sure, and maybe it wasn't always a "middleman" between DNA and protein formation. Maybe DNA evolved because it is more stable and gave a survival advantage to organisms. I think the problem with you and Cab's thinking is that you think about space, but leave out time.

Third, giraffes are not very perfect at all (they are very vulnerable when drinking because their necks are too short and legs too long. Also they can pass out if they keep their head down too long). And I don't see what about them would confound evolutionists, as they are just another species.

Info on RNA origins of life:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA03/RNA_origins_life.html
http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html

[ryupower]

Not really. Biologists do certainly argue about the details and the mechanisms, but the idea of evolution in the broad sense: "life changes over time via heritable changes" is not in question among them. Thus, evolution is a fact, but also a Theory (or really, several competing theories).

First, bees and flies shouldn't be able to fly based on airfoil flight dynamics. That is to say, their bodies are too heavy and wings too small for an airfoil to give them flight. HOWEVER, they have evolved to make use of the properties of moving air, namely vortexes of air currents, with bouy them up. Thus, it is simply a different form of flight than birds, bats, and airplanes make use of, and only works because of their small size.

Second, you guys in saying "which came first, the bee or the nectar" or "protein or DNA" assumes that life can only exist as it is. If life in the past were different, maybe that nectar had a different purpose originally (like the quoted Darwin text says, perhaps an excretory function). And maybe the bee was eating pollen (they do that). Like the quoted text says, in the long run, certain plants will survive better and reproduce more, eventually coming to dominate the gene pool thanks to the use of insect polination (the same is true for the bees, in the long run).

DNA is harder and I'm less familiar with it, but you throw out RNA as if it's just a blueprint, but it is likely it was the percursor to DNA. It is simpler for sure, and maybe it wasn't always a "middleman" between DNA and protein formation. Maybe DNA evolved because it is more stable and gave a survival advantage to organisms. I think the problem with you and Cab's thinking is that you think about space, but leave out time.

Third, giraffes are not very perfect at all (they are very vulnerable when drinking because their necks are too short and legs too long. Also they can pass out if they keep their head down too long). And I don't see what about them would confound evolutionists, as they are just another species.

Info on RNA origins of life:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA03/RNA_origins_life.html
http://www.postmodern.com/~jka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html (http://www.postmodern.com/%7Ejka/rnaworld/nfrna/nf-index.html) Thanks ;)
And about the Giraffe:


Because the neck of the Giraffe extends so high into the air, the heart must contain an extraordinarily strong pump to force the blood from the lower body to the highest reaches of the brain. Thus, the first capability unique to the giraffe is a heart that is also a most powerful pump.

However, when the giraffe lowers its neck to drink, the blood that is circulating in its neck will suddenly come rushing down by the force of gravity. This sudden rush of blood is so strong, it would quickly cause the giraffe to suffer a brain aneurysm, killing the animal instantly. Therefore, the second capability is that spigots are built into his neck arteries that instantly close down whenever the animal lowers its neck to drink water.

However, when the giraffe abruptly raises its head after drinking, the blood would flow so rapidly downward through the force of gravity that the animal would suffer a sudden loss of blood to the brain, thus causing him to pass out cold. However, God has built a third capability that prevents this from occurring. The brain has a sponge-like material just behind the brain that has gradually been absorbing blood all the time the giraffe has been drinking. When the giraffe suddenly raises his head, that blood very slowly drains out of the brain, thus keeping the giraffe from passing out, while the spigots open up and the blood begins to flow naturally.

Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe.

The Giraffe by itself utterly disproves Evolution.

[TrippinBTM]

Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe.

The Giraffe by itself utterly disproves Evolution.
First, thanks for ignoring the rest of my post in your response. I hope you at least read it.

Second, it doesn't disprove anything. We humans have similar adaptations, not all of them, but some. First, all hearts are pumps, and the longer the neck, the stronger the pump will need to be. All of the features you find so singular and unlikely would have slowly formed, together, so a semi-long-necked giraffe would have had a smaller capilary net in it's head, a smaller heart, partial "spigots" to slow the blood rush. For every inch of neck growth, these features (and whatever other features we've not named) would have changed in tandem, enough to keep the giraffe alive and well. Since no one says giraffes got long necks overnight, it's misleading and downright false to say these features had to come together "at once" in the giraffe.

Besides even we humans have little valves in our veins in our legs to keep blood from pooling in our feet. Valves and other blood-flow controlling features in veins and arteries are not unique to giraffes.

Third, next time, try writing your own posts, rather than copy and paste from websites without providing links, acting as if it was you who wrote it: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1653.cfm

[ryupower]

First, thanks for ignoring the rest of my post in your response. I hope you at least read it.

Second, it doesn't disprove anything. We humans have similar adaptations, not all of them, but some. First, all hearts are pumps, and the longer the neck, the stronger the pump will need to be. All of the features you find so singular and unlikely would have slowly formed, together, so a semi-long-necked giraffe would have had a smaller capilary net in it's head, a smaller heart, partial "spigots" to slow the blood rush. For every inch of neck growth, these features (and whatever other features we've not named) would have changed in tandem, enough to keep the giraffe alive and well. Since no one says giraffes got long necks overnight, it's misleading and downright false to say these features had to come together "at once" in the giraffe.

Besides even we humans have little valves in our veins in our legs to keep blood from pooling in our feet. Valves and other blood-flow controlling features in veins and arteries are not unique to giraffes.

Third, next time, try writing your own posts, rather than copy and paste from websites without providing links, acting as if it was you who wrote it: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1653.cfm
Fine. I was just to lazy to write it up.

Now how did the giraffe develop that spongy part of the brain?

[TrippinBTM]

Fine. I was just to lazy to write it up.

Now how did the giraffe develop that spongy part of the brain?
I don't know enough about it to comment further on the subject. I'm not a giraffe specialist, nor for that matter an evolution specialist.

[DrFeelGood]

Sorry

[DrFeelGood]

Peace

[PhantomOpus]

You want us to study? How about you study first.

For the umpteenth time, how evolution and entropy fit together (or don't): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html

Please elaborate on how mitochondrial DNA in any way supports creation over evolution? Seems to me it's more plausible that mitochondria were originally their own little prokaryotic "wee beasties" that became embroiled in what is now an integral plus-plus symbiotic relationship.

Your claim that "every missing link has been proven to be a fraud" is patently false. Yes, Nebraska man was proven to be a fraud. It was not, as you may claim, generally accepted by the scientific community even before it was proven to be false. Yes, Archaeorapter was a hoax.

But Archaeopteryx, homo habilis, homo erectus, the australopithecines, hippocampus, and countless other branches on the tree of evolution are (or rather, 'were') real, and far outweigh the faux fossils created by individuals trying to cheat their way into the history books. Go on a dig sometime.

And, once MORE, we did not come from monkeys. The primary fallacy in your statement is that humans and monkeys (and apes, which are not to be confused with monkeys) are most closely related, meaning that our common ancestor existed much more recently than, say, the common ancestor of humans and cats. The other fallacy of your statement is lumping all primates into the category of monkey and excluding only humans. Why not ask, if there are orangutans, why are there still howler monkeys? As has been pointed out before, members of a species do not all instantly evolve at the same time. That would be a sign of divine intervention. Take, for example, the famous case of Darwin's finches (or the Canadian geese that got stranded on a volcanic island) - they adapted to their new circumstances and eventually became so differentiated from their mainland counterparts that they were, in fact, a new species. But the type of finch which lived on the mainland, and from which the island finches originally came, had no need to adapt to eat harder seeds and find water from new sources, and so remained essentially the same. Thus you have the 'original' finch and the new 'island' finch coexisting. If every member of a species suddenly changed in a generation, there would only be one type of organism on this planet.

Furthermore, if you had taken a simple high school biology class, you ought to be aware that we have made significant strides toward creating life in a lab. We have created amino acids and cell membranes from nothing - in labs on earth as well as in space. The fact that amino acids have been found in meteorites would only serve to have sped up the process of the initial creation of life here, and fully supports evolution.
http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=1319

And yes, Scopes "lost" - Darrow asked the jury to return a verdict of guilty in order that the case might be appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Read your law history before you make a further fool of yourself.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm

The presence of a world-wide flood would not discount evolution. As I have said before, it is entirely possible that God exists, and initiated life or even still today directs the process, but evolution does occur.

Show me these scientific studies that you claim prove that evolution could not have happened. You can't, can you? Because they don't exist. What a shame. It would have been such a crushing blow for you and your Bible-thumping cohorts.

[TrippinBTM]

The presence of a world-wide flood would not discount evolution. As I have said before, it is entirely possible that God exists, and initiated life or even still today directs the process, but evolution does occur.
This is an important point. Evolutionists are not out to destroy religion, or to disprove God (same goes for all scientists in their respective fields). There is no automatic competition between science and religion. It CAN be interpreted or seen that way, but they are not inherently opposed, and can work together.

I suppose there is an opposition between science and literalist religion. But scripture was never intended as literal, these are metaphorical and alegorical writings written to make points about morals. That, or they were "guesses". No one expects bronze age shepherds to have the definitive explanation on the origins of the universe (most of which they didn't even know existed), it's asking to much of them to think they must have known. To reject the scientific understanding we have today (by no means complete, but pretty impressive nonetheless) based on spiritual writings of ignorant shepherds is bordering on insanity. Why can't people understand this?

[Occam]

This is an important point. Evolutionists are not out to destroy religion, or to disprove God (same goes for all scientists in their respective fields). There is no automatic competition between science and religion. It CAN be interpreted or seen that way, but they are not inherently opposed, and can work together.

I suppose there is an opposition between science and literalist religion. But scripture was never intended as literal, these are metaphorical and alegorical writings written to make points about morals. That, or they were "guesses". No one expects bronze age shepherds to have the definitive explanation on the origins of the universe (most of which they didn't even know existed), it's asking to much of them to think they must have known. To reject the scientific understanding we have today (by no means complete, but pretty impressive nonetheless) based on spiritual writings of ignorant shepherds is bordering on insanity. Why can't people understand this? Trippin

Well said.

Evolution and science is in no way opposed to religion.
BECAUSE IT IS OPPOSED TO NOTHING.
It is INDIFFERENT.
Thats the differernce;)
[that makes ALL the difference]
----------------------------------
Because the ignorant shepherds are still trying to tell everyone that
they know the origin of everything.
And they have no idea what metaphor and alegory is.
Or that they are ignorant.
----------------------------------
Your comments on the 'book' as metaphor and alegory are
cool.
But occam has found far greater wisdom in other books.
How do you explain this.?
WHo wrote the bible. man or god.?

Cause if it was god...he's not the sharpest tool in the shed..

Occam

[SpliffVortex]

Man came from germany the rest from a cesspool of bacteria.

[DrFeelGood]

De rekening

[Occam]

Man came from germany the rest from a cesspool of bacteria.
Nyet Tovarich...

Superior man is a product of the political dialectic..
All hail soviet communism.....

What...waht do you mean ' its dead'...
How could it......
The ussr turned balkan/gangsta?

You kiddin....

Oh well..

It was a good idea at the time.

Occam

[SpliffVortex]

Nyet Tovarich...



It was a good idea at the time.

Occam is still a good idea.

[Occam]

is still a good idea. SpliffVortex

Fundamentally yes.
If human beings acted rationally...it's an excellent idea.

But the human world as it exists now...
is 95% Ego/emotion.
That weilds the 5%, human reason, to it's own ends.

Thus..Stalin.

Occam

PS.. And stalin is an example of amoral existentialism.
[quote "1 death is a tragedy, a million a statistic"]

[MollyBloom]

God or evolution?

I believe in both.

And yes..it is possible.

[SpliffVortex]

and maybe is neither.

[Occam]

God or evolution?

I believe in both.

And yes..it is possible.
Molly

It certainly is.

Occam has asked hundreds the question.

"Why do so many hold this preconception that evolution
[of both the universe and life]
is NOT exactly what was 'intended'.

Occam

[shevek]

One problem with "proving" (or "disproving") God is that you first have to apply a definition to God...and there are as many definitions as there are people. I prefer my own (evolving) definition to someone else's, and I also think that everyone has to work that one out for themselves.

As for Physical Reality, I'm all for being on the hard-headed and skeptical side, but I'm also aware that many people regard Physical Reality as being itself an illusion of sorts. This isn't just the mystical mumbo-jumbo types either; a recent article in Scientific American (!) postulated that our three-dimensional Universe is possibly a hologram projection from a two-dimensional Reality.

Mind blowing, isn't it? We really opened up a can of worms on this whole topic.

[Art Delfo]

animals evolve

humans dont

no animal will ever become smarter than a human


even if they do they would not try to find out about a god because humans have a need to know "the spirtual things"

thats what makes us speical

K who made the universe?How can somthing non living allways exsit?

You cant disprove god You cant prove god


But god makes sense to me.

[SpliffVortex]

animals evolve

humans dont

no animal will ever become smarter than a human


even if they do they would not try to find out about a god because humans have a need to know "the spirtual things"

thats what makes us speical

K who made the universe?How can somthing non living allways exsit?

You cant disprove god You cant prove god


But god makes sense to me. A VIRUS BY THE NAME OF "HIV" seems to be smarter than we are.

[Art Delfo]

even so I dont beleve we were once monkeys or apes or whatever.

[Meeshka Chaukinov]

something has been mentioned over and over: where did DNA come from?

As someone pointed out earlier, simulating an early earth atmosphere and shooting electricity through it created proteins.

From there, it's two steps.

Proteins, when combined together, make amino acids.

Amino Acids, when combined, make DNA

there you go

[Meeshka Chaukinov]

even so I dont beleve we were once monkeys or apes or whatever.We never were monkeys. We still are primates .Over a few million years and thousands of generations, we gradually evolved and became more advanced.

[TrippinBTM]

something has been mentioned over and over: where did DNA come from?

As someone pointed out earlier, simulating an early earth atmosphere and shooting electricity through it created proteins.

From there, it's two steps.

Proteins, when combined together, make amino acids.

Amino Acids, when combined, make DNA

there you go
Close, but not quite. amino acids combine to form proteins, and I think they (amino acids) combine with other stuff to form DNA. It might be proteins that combine with other stuff to form DNA, I can't remember. But I know amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, not the other way around.

[Occam]

Oh Man...

Occam is so frustrated...

So many acute minds....
So many splitting hairs...

WE KNOW reality evolves...
Well after all it was all a cloud of hydrogen to start. NO?

How did we end up with 3rd generation stars spitting out the heavy elements?
NATURAL EVOLUTION.

That EVERY ELEMENT in you body heavier than helium was born in side a star.

Yet you say the same set of natural laws that allows this.
Does not allow the evolution of life.

Yet life is obviously EMBEDDED in the structure of reality as we observe it.

There IS a methodology.
There IS is structure established by the OBJECTIVE LAWS OF REALITY
and LONG history to life.
The complexity of it requires that.

Unless. of course...

You simply say..god made it in 4004 bc
What a sad refusal to join the adventure that is.

Occam

[TrippinBTM]

^^ hear hear!

but i still have room for spirituality in my universe.

[Libertine]

Spirituality is really nothingness so there is plenty of room for it. Too bad so many people waste so much time on nothingness. :)

[Occam]

Spirituality is really nothingness so there is plenty of room for it. Too bad so many people waste so much time on nothingness. :) Libertine..

And thus, technically... hope, love, art, beauty, justice, democracy,
humour, wonder, belief, faith, truth...........exct exct...
Are also nothingness.
For they do not exist as real things in the world.
Only as interpretations/synaptic activity. As concepts within our heads.

Do we waste too much time on these?

Spirituallity has 6 billion definitions.
And like occams, most of them are complex and hard to turn into
words.
There is also a great divide between the external and internal spiritual
position..

Occams position on the evolution of reality has ZERO to do with
his position on spirituality. And there is plenty of room in occams
reality for spirituallity as there is in trippin BTM's.

It's the ones that get god and spirits and religious dogma confused
in there heads that come up with the idea that if you believe in a direction
behind reality you must be talking hell/heaven/spirits..exct......

That may be so for the religious..

But occam is not religious.

Occam

[TechnoSpider]

As far as God vs. Evolution goes, I'd say that the two could easily go hand-in-hand, depending on what you believe.

Spirituality = nothingness and a waste of time? I disagree.

Each person should find the belief system that works for them. That isn't a waste of time, especially when so many people claim that their spirituality or religion adds meaning and purpose to their lives. And like Occam said, it may not be a real, tangible thing, but that doesn't detract from its potential value.

[Art Delfo]

The big BANG!!!!!!! Ok so how did it start?Stuff from leftover universe reacts in some kind of cemical reation(I cant rember I learned this at a museum) which starts every thing off with stars and bunches of rock.It becomes the universe we know and love.But we were not here....All reality is thoughts....What we see hear smell and touch are all parts of the brian.Not "us". so all this who's thoughts are the big bang that gives it shape a name and ego and phisical senseation who starts off the cycle of the universe evoluving and destroying itself for all "time"?Who made us as the self(Or no self same thing)? God the ulimate reality one with everything and everyone.We and everythings else are his thoughts...but can you comprhend him?No...I can not and you can not....hes that big/small

[pop_terror]

There you go. Enjoy.

[Occam]

The big BANG!!!!!!! Ok so how did it start?Stuff from leftover universe reacts in some kind of cemical reation(I cant rember I learned this at a museum) which starts every thing off with stars and bunches of rock.It becomes the universe we know and love.But we were not here....All reality is thoughts....What we see hear smell and touch are all parts of the brian.Not "us". so all this who's thoughts are the big bang that gives it shape a name and ego and phisical senseation who starts off the cycle of the universe evoluving and destroying itself for all "time"?Who made us as the self(Or no self same thing)? God the ulimate reality one with everything and everyone.We and everythings else are his thoughts...but can you comprhend him?No...I can not and you can not....hes that big/small Art Delfo

Thats an interesting opinion..

And as a mater of interest...
*Human beings have no idea what existed before the
'bang' Or what the 'singularity' actually was.
I'ts all speculation based on 'reverse engineering' the
physical evolution of the universe.

*How can we exist as nothing but thought when
you yourself say that touch , sight, exct are 'part of the brain'
Is the brain nothing but thought?

No..Occam reasons therefore he exists.
And thus 'a' reality exists for occam to be a part of.
One cannot 'exist' without a reality of laws to 'exist' in.

God would have to say the same thing.
And cannot exist before a reality existed to allow him to be.

Thus reality existed first. not god.
So how can it be a thought in the mind of god?

Occam

[Occam]

PS

And if a reality existed first..
Where did it come from.?

[opinion]
It has always existed and always will.
Reality is not dependent on time.
Time [motion] is a result of a processing reality.

There is no logic or evidence that requires reality to have been created.
Thats just human preconception.

We dont have the smarts to fully comprehend the idea of something
always existing...
Of 'infinite'
Thus we conjure up gods so we can say something made it.
And call the god infinite because that sounds mysterious.

Occam

[thumontico]

Reality exists. Lets call it the Universe and assume its been there for a while. Lets pressume the Big Bang, and say it very well may have happened 23 different times already in a similar way. The first time, like the other times it started with a massive Speck.

So the question is not only of the origins of the Speck, but also this fabric in and around the Speck we will call the Space.

The question is quite simple, although the answer is impossible. One possibility is that a 'Creator' created the Speck along with the Space and pressumably Himself: this option allows me to at least feel like my existence, although existent through complete randomness, has some meaning, but then I realize what I really wanted was Real meaning, for me, right now. So then I created relationships with other talking beings and created meaning by striving for happiness and self set goals.

Without the 'Creator' the creation of the Speck and the Space would be absurd and meaningless and most importantly happenstance. (So my existence is meaningless and I feel a pit in my stomach. Then I realize what made me assume in the first place that there was external meaning, my Ego. My name is Thumontico and I exist, others are like me and We are superior to other Beings that make noise and move around... I thought I must be special and created a 'Creator' to facillitate the fiction, that facillitated living my life. But then I realized my Ego was the same as the Ego of generations of thinking people that created a 'Creator'.) So then I created relationships with other talking beings and created meaning by striving for happiness and self set goals.

[Occam]

Reality exists. Lets call it the Universe and assume its been there for a while. Lets pressume the Big Bang, and say it very well may have happened 23 different times already in a similar way. The first time, like the other times it started with a massive Speck.

So the question is not only of the origins of the Speck, but also this fabric in and around the Speck we will call the Space.

The question is quite simple, although the answer is impossible. One possibility is that a 'Creator' created the Speck along with the Space and pressumably Himself: this option allows me to at least feel like my existence, although existent through complete randomness, has some meaning, but then I realize what I really wanted was Real meaning, for me, right now. So then I created relationships with other talking beings and created meaning by striving for happiness and self set goals.

Without the 'Creator' the creation of the Speck and the Space would be absurd and meaningless and most importantly happenstance. (So my existence is meaningless and I feel a pit in my stomach. Then I realize what made me assume in the first place that there was external meaning, my Ego. My name is Thumontico and I exist, others are like me and We are superior to other Beings that make noise and move around... I thought I must be special and created a 'Creator' to facillitate the fiction, that facillitated living my life. But then I realized my Ego was the same as the Ego of generations of thinking people that created a 'Creator'.) So then I created relationships with other talking beings and created meaning by striving for happiness and self set goals. Thumontico

You say that without a creator. the creation of the speck would be absurd and meaningless. This assumes it was created.

Occam finds it far more reasonable to assume it has allways existed.
For while we see STRUCTURES created in this universe. From what exists
already. And we 'are' such, and create such.
We dont see mater/energy/space created from nothing or vanishing from reality.

If Humanity has NEVER seen any mater/space/energy so created or uncreated.
Why do we assume it can be?
Why do we assume ALL of it was?

Occam can see just as much 'meaning' to life in a universe that has allways existed in on form or another. And has been directed to result in life and US
by a being that came from within the universe.

As universe created by a god that created itself first.

In both cases a being beyond our imaginings has desired/directed us to be.

The principle of parsimony[occams razor] asks why unnecessary factors need be introduced.

A god that created itself is such a factor. And exists only because humans cannot accept the concept that reality was not created. But has allways been.

Occam

[Colours]

i just had an dicussion about this with my friends a day ago. I explained to them how the universe could have been forever always, but they just kept telling me that someone had to have created it. One said "what about Newtons law every action has an equal and opposite reaction" and i explained that the universe's expansion and collapsing would provide a "force" (this may or may not be correct its just how i understand what ive read about cosmology). Then they would ask "well where did this initial energy come from?" and i reply it has always been there; i guess thats what you mean when you say humans can't comprehend the idea of reality always existing, because they didnt buy it. Is this a valid response when questioned about a "force" needed to set off the big bang?

[thumontico]

you are right occam

[Occam]

i just had an dicussion about this with my friends a day ago. I explained to them how the universe could have been forever always, but they just kept telling me that someone had to have created it. One said "what about Newtons law every action has an equal and opposite reaction" and i explained that the universe's expansion and collapsing would provide a "force" (this may or may not be correct its just how i understand what ive read about cosmology). Then they would ask "well where did this initial energy come from?" and i reply it has always been there; i guess thats what you mean when you say humans can't comprehend the idea of reality always existing, because they didnt buy it. Is this a valid response when questioned about a "force" needed to set off the big bang? Colours

Newtons law or any other revealed law of reality
Controls our reality...yes
But has NOTHING to do with the laws that allow REALITY
ITSELF
to exist.

THOSE laws.
Are something we know exist
That science knows exists
But we average people and the human scientific method
has NO understanding of.

Ask your friends
"provide an example of mater/space/energy being created
or
uncreated"
There are no such examples in human history or knowing

Thus..it is reasonable to posit that...
ALL mater/space/energy HAS ALWAYS BEEN
AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

Your friends will have a fine problem with thiis
For there are NO examples of 'acausal creation/uncreation'

Occam

[Occam]

you are right occam
Thumontico

Possibly

Occam

[mati]

coming into being and being are two different things and one cannot argue from a being that there was a coming into being

[Colours]

"Ask your friends
"provide an example of mater/space/energy being created
or
uncreated"
There are no such examples in human history or knowing"

I would assume they would jsut respond with something like, "exactly, no human examples, 'cause God did it." I dont think they would quite understand the question.

[MattInVegas]

I think EVERYBODY has the theory wrong. But only by a little. Here's what I mean. I believe, God planted the seeds of life on EVERY planet that they could grow on.
Would it Dis-Prove the Christian Bible if life WERE discovered out in Space?
No. I think it would only PROVE the existance of God.

The Other side of this is simple. Mankind evolved from the primorial ooze.
(God's Seeds of Life)
Just my two cents.

[thumontico]

Still though God isn't necessary. Assuming the given suspected conditions of primordial Earth and that the planet could not naturally produce life (which is arguable), the possiblities of a 'divinely' seeded planet is no more likely than a planet seeded by happenstance (meteorite w/ base organisms on board hitting the planet, any other naturalistic explaination) because we simply do not know.

Both of your hypotheses require God, but I don't understand why. I see the two phenomenon of creation of Reality and creation of Humanity quite different and seperate. I can imagine the creation of Humanity 100 different ways, but I cannot imagine the creation of the Universe or the Eternal existence of the universe once.

It is easier for me to imagine a Supreme being creating the universe because I don't have to imagine anything, maybe some flashing lights and smoke, but I am completely relieved from thinking about the logistics of the matter and digress to admit my human inferiority and then fall asleep or go to church... Either way this is not a sufficient way of looking at it.

However, the issue has never been about mine or your ability to imagine. Imagination is wonderful in what it is, but it is finite. We have the option to deal with speculation or probability, I believe that second is the more reliable.

I cannot imagine a universe that has always existed, it is counter intuitive. But as occam says, it is reasonable to assume since no one has ever seen matter/energy created nor destroyed that it hasn't. This reasoning allows me to imagine this possible truth.

In ANY case the means by which we came into existence is of no non-self-inflicted consequence. I have been presented with evidence and do not see a necessity or reason for God. Perhaps there was a creator, but according to my perception of reality he has no bearing on my consciousness/life. God is moot.
-
We need some fucking golf shoes... or we'll never get out of this place alive.

[Art Delfo]

Art Delfo

Thats an interesting opinion..

And as a mater of interest...
*Human beings have no idea what existed before the
'bang' Or what the 'singularity' actually was.
I'ts all speculation based on 'reverse engineering' the
physical evolution of the universe.

*How can we exist as nothing but thought when
you yourself say that touch , sight, exct are 'part of the brain'
Is the brain nothing but thought?

No..Occam reasons therefore he exists.
And thus 'a' reality exists for occam to be a part of.
One cannot 'exist' without a reality of laws to 'exist' in.

God would have to say the same thing.
And cannot exist before a reality existed to allow him to be.

Thus reality existed first. not god.
So how can it be a thought in the mind of god?

Occam
I dont really talk of a "Creator"

More of a "Ulimate reality" thats what god is to me but you just cant reduce himm to just one thing or defition.

[SpliffVortex]

SAINTS CROSS THE RED SEA TO THE KINGDOM BY HEAVEN'S FLYING SAUCERS--U.F.O.

To the world at large, the sight of a flying saucer fills them with uncertainty, consternation, and fearfulness as to what the future holds for mankind. And many are afraid of them because of the reports they hear of people who have been burned or temporary blinded by them, and animals mutilated; also of bizarre abductions where experiments were conducted upon their captives. This caused many to think that all flying saucers are evil. The scientific mind could think they are strange be-ings from outer space, while the religious mind could think they are evil angels. And why not? After all, Satan and his angels travel in earth's atmosphere today in their flying saucers, just as he travelled through the starry space in his celestial chariot to heaven in Job's day:

"In the days of Job Satan still had access to heaven, for we are told that '...there was a day when the sons of God came {from other planets by celestial travel} to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came {from earth by a flying saucer} also among them. And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord and said, From going to and fro in the earth {in his flying saucer} and from walking up and down in it.' Job 1:6, 7."--15 Tract, pg. 81:2 (bold emphasis, braces added).

As for the reports of some people being hurt by grotesque looking beings in flying saucers, and that they are the devil's evil angels, may be true. But this does not discount the fact that God's angels also travel in similar chariots, and that they have come to earth to slay the wicked in God's church (1SR36:0), as well as to help the saints finish the gospel. Obviously the general public would think that the unexplainable mysticism of the flying saucers is an omen of catastophic events soon to occur; while the faithful David-ians know what these events portend (the slaughter of Ezekiel 9 and the Loud Cry). Therefore, to the Davidian saints these mysterious flying saucer sightings can only be a sign post that indicates the nearness of their fulfillment!

Ever since the sealing angel (SRod) arrived in 1929 (2A34:0), the sightings of the flying saucers (UFO) increased. It was after Bro. Houteff moved to old Mt. Carmel Center near Waco, Texas in 1935 that he began to write about them; the last time was in the White House Recruiter in 1951 before he died in 1955. Fours years later his wife brought the "knockout blow" (WHR33:2) in 1959 by her false teachings, after which she dissolved new Mt. Carmel Center. But in 1961 the Davidians reorganized in Los Angeles, California and set up God's Headquarters in Riverside. Later, God directed them to move His Headquarters eastward to Salem, So. Carolina in 1970. And still the UFO sightings continued, in some places on a much larger scale, because the angels are still working to seal those "of" the 144,000 and those "with" them (1TG4:27:1). All of which proves that the angels are indeed "hurrying to and fro" from heaven to earth in flying saucers (UFO) preparing for that "important event"--"the fulfillment of Ezekiel 9" (1SR36)--the slaughter!

And the fact that God's Davidian Headquarters has moved "eastward" where a large company will be raised up in the east" (1T414:1), proves that the sealing is nearing completion; and that the angels in flying saucers will soon come to slay the wicked in God's church, and take those left alive ("of" the 144,000 and those "with" them) to the kingdom.

"For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with His chariots {angels in flying saucers_celestrial travel} like a whirlwind {traveling in the air}, to render His anger {slay the wicked in God's church) with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire."--Isaiah 66:15 (bold emphasis, braces added).

The SRod message has given abundant proof that this coming is not Christ's second advent, but His coming in judgment to the S.D.A. church by the slaughter of Ezek. 9.

"Those who are sealed from 1929 to the fulfillment of Ezekiel 9 (close of probation for the church), are living saints, 144,000 in number, who shall never die--translated without tasting death. The class which neglected their opportunity were left without the seal to perish under the ruin of Ezekiel 9 {slaughter}; Isaiah 63; and Isaiah 66: 15-17."--2 Shepherd's Rod, pg. 162:3 (bold emphasis, braces added).

Note in Isa. 66:15 that the Lord comes with His chariots like a "whirlwind, to render His anger." And what could these chariots be but angels in flying saucers? For that is what the Bible says they are!

"The chariots of God {which move as flying saucers} are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels {in these UFO chariots}: The Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place."--Psalms 68:17 (bold emphasis, braces added).

"The work of separation {slaughter of Ezek. 9} is given to the angels of God {who come to the earth in flying saucers--UFO}, and not committed into the hands of any man."--Testimonies To Ministers, pg. 47:2 (bold emphasis, braces added).

Therefore, when the angels in their "chariots" (flying saucers) come to slay the wicked in God's church, then those left (144,000), according to their type--Elijah (1SRtr22:4), will be taken first by the flying saucers to the king-dom to stand on the Mt. Zion with the Lamb in the Holy Land, and finally be translated to heaven in a flying saucer as was ancient Elijah (2 Ki. 2:11).

"There was yet a great work for Elijah to do; and when his work was done, he was not to perish {suffer death} in discouragement and solitude in the wilderness. Not for him the descent into the dust of the earth, but the as-cention in glory, with the convoy of celestial chariots {angels in their flying saucers}, to the throne on high."--Desire of Ages, pg. 301:1; see P.K. 228:1 (boldings, braces added).

"Moreover, he {Elisha} faithfully ministered to Elijah night and day, and kept an eye on him until the 'flying saucer' {chariot of angels--Ps. 68:17} alighted to pick him up, and until he disappeared from sight (2 Kings 2:9 15)."--2 Timely Greetings, No. 45, pg. 15:5 (bold emphasis, braces added).

"One may be incredulous, another startled, at the thought of Heaven's {angels} having flying saucers. But why? If God has given man knowledge to develop aerial mechanisms, no one can reasonably suppose that Heaven does not have incomparably superior ones. Let us not forget what covered a whole mountain in Elisha's day. (2 Kings 6:17). To be sure, Elisha called them chariots, but if they were not flying saucers of some type, how did they come to earth? It matters not what one calls them, it is what they are, and what they do, that counts....And if the flying saucers are indeed the Lord's, then what else are they come for but to deliver every one {144,000 and those 'with' them--2SC5:8:1} whose names is found written in the book (Dan. 12:1), and to slay those {wicked} who oppress them (Isa. 66:16)?"--White House Recruiter, pgs. 10, 11 (bolds, braces added).

Thus, the flying saucers of today are angelsin their char-iots who are "hurrying to and fro," preparing for the "fulfillment of Ezekiel 9" slaughterwhen God comes "with His chariots like a whirlwind to slaythe wicked in His church without the mark! This mark will protects the saints from the slaughtering angels. So what is this protective mark?

[Colours]

whats this got to do with anything

[Occam]

Revelation...1:18:26

And the lord said.."let their be mind"
and 14 billion years latter..there was.

For what point letting there be light.
If theres no one to see it. And know it.
And seek it.

Occam

[misterrain]

I don`t think that evolution disproves the Bible. God created Eden for Adam and Eve... the rest of the world is what Adam and Eve were sent into after they were expelled from paradise.

I don`t think we`ve officially made it back in yet. So maybe the world is something totally different?

[SpliffVortex]

Galileo created the Earth. not God,

[Moshe]

Science and religion should serve different purposes

Science is just about imposing falsifiable theories on our perceptions - and then judging those in relation to our perceptions. It's just trying to get as much out of our perception as possible, in the most truth preserving way.

[tropisms]

So can any one here actually give me the physical proof I am looking for without quoting the bible?

Thank you please.
Nobody can prove or disprove God, if they could they would be famous.

[SurfhipE]

Why not both? Why must people keep going on with this false duality? As if the existance of a god would negate evolution, or that evolution negates God... At most, evolution only disagrees with a small part of Hebrew scripture (the first few parts of genesis).

I really doubt anyone can give you any proof of God that you would accept (nor any I would accept). But though God may not be provable like evolution, that doesn't preclude his existance. It may be that we are thinking of God in the wrong way, and so our search is stymied.

I just love you..

[Colours]

how do we know that "god made" means evolution took place? Humans evolved, came into being, thus God created humans with their evolution. I mean, Christians cant really ebleive God literally made man from clay or dirt or w/e. So how do we know evolution isnt Gods method of creation?

[citrus_seas]

i think that believing in god is like believing that we are ruled by one person and we have to follow his orders or be punished...it's kinda like a cult isn't it? And to believe in evolution is knowing that we actullay have a fucking purpose on the earth and that we humans are not completely worthless... This is just my opinion, though. I don't care if you don't agree...you can rag on me if you want...i really don't care

[Occam]

And to believe in evolution is knowing that we actullay have a fucking purpose on the earth and that we humans are not completely worthless... Citrus_Seas

What fool says we are worthless?

Who will stand and proclaim the purpose of humanity?
No-one here..and you all know it.


Occam

[FreakerSoup]

Close, but not quite. amino acids combine to form proteins, and I think they (amino acids) combine with other stuff to form DNA. It might be proteins that combine with other stuff to form DNA, I can't remember. But I know amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, not the other way around.
Actually, amino acids are only in proteins. Nucleic acids are in DNA. Each little letter in the genetic code is a nucleic acid, a sugar (deoxyribose) and a phosphate. Sometimes protein is used to pack the DNA into bundles, but it's not a part of it.

[Occam]

C
U
T
A
G

[skibadee]

occam you come out with a lot of rubbish.

the purpose of life is to live

[Colours]

at least hes a bit more specific

[thumontico]

Purpose is individually defined and therefore cannot be defined by anyone but the individual.

[MichaelByrd1967]

For me going to catholic school for 12 years, learning the inner workings of the religion, I have discovered nothing but hypocricy in the christian faith, which is why I am now an atheist existentialist. I believe in evolution, because it has been proven scientifically. We have not proven the existence of God yet, and the Catholics believe that you're close-minded if you only believe in things that you see. But I think that they are wrong. It's all got to do with what can be proven that opens up a world of independent thought. So i think that evolution is the most sensible explanation. Just look at the stars, the tell the history of the universe, Billions of years of it, whereas some fundamentalist christians believe that the world is only 12000 years old and that dinosaur bones, and caveman drawings were God's was of screwing with us. I think that's incredibly stupid.

[gunison]

A few points to consider in framing this discussion:

1) Science cannot (and should not) be counted on to answer theological problems (e.g. whether or not God exists).

2) Theology cannot (and should not) be counted on to answer problems (e.g. how life got to be the way that it is once the universe got going) where science can provide better (defined below) answers.

3) The dilemma between God and the theory of evolution by natural selection is a false dilemma (this claim has been expressed previously in this thread and will likely be overlooked once again). That is, there is at least one more alternative (e.g. God created the universe AND evolution via natural selection is the process by which living organisms became what they are).

4) Just because some view has no scientific value (theology) does not necessarily mean that it has no value at all.

5) The theory of evolution via natural selection ('evolution' hereafter) WORKS as an explanation for why and how living organisms are the way that they are. Keep in mind what the scope of this theory is (not what zealots on BOTH sides have perverted it into). The theory of evolution is NOT a dividing line between theist and atheist or even scientist and theologian. Rather, the theory of evolution is a naturalistic explanation for why and how organisms are the way that they are. It is an explanation that can be tested for its accuracy, used to make predictions, and which is borne out by other natural discoveries (e.g. amino acids and bacteria vs. antibiotics). This theory is, because it is both naturalistic and testable, a better explanation than any theological one for why natural organisms are the way that they are (notice: natural organisms and naturalistic explanation). Theological-esque theories (e.g. creationism and intelligent design) lack the traits possessed by evolution. They are untestable (e.g. I don't know where God lives so I can't go to his house to see if anyone is home), cannot be used successfully to make predictions, and are not further validated by natural discoveries.

6) Though evolution is successful as a theory, keep in mind the scope of its success. It is not a knock-down argument against, say, intelligent design. Rather, evolution shifts the burden of proof (which evolution has, so far, met) back to the theological-esque proponent.

[a_fiend]

"god or evolution" ? how about "god and evolution" or "god is evolution" or "evoangdotidlun". ever heard the story about the three blind men trying to figure out what an elephant looks like.

[Keramptha]

GARRRGHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO OFFENCE!... bUT.. anyone who bothers to argue about this is a sucker for brain washing and mind control... while you're all bababling about god veruss evoloution... you aren't free to discoer any other options.. there are other options to god, and, or evloution... personal realisation..... the possibility that two contrasting truths can exist simuentaneously??, ever thought of THAT????? hOW, TO ONE PRSON IT IS DAYTIME....AND TO ANOTHER PERONS IT IS DEFINATELY NIGHTTIME... OR PARTICALE PHSYICS....A PARTCILE IS WHAT MAKES MATTER....AND MATTER IS SOLID.. BUT ACTUALLY THE PARTICLE IS MADE OF NOTHING BUT SPACE....

THERE ARE TOO MNAY EXAMPLES OF CONTRADICTING TRUTHS THAT BOTH EXIST IN HARMONY... theres no... one or the other to god or evoloution.. and by fighting about it.. you're so stupid beucase iots a waste of time.. and what the people in control want you to fill your heads with.. beuccase actually.... it is possible, proven and scientific law..that two opposign truths can exist, equally real.

god or evoloution... PAH...

[moka9x9]

We see everything, its just how let our mind conceive it.

Allow yourself to see the light through more intimate eyes, be the light, know the light, believe in it, and then you shall see you are closer to 'what god should be' than you've ever believed. Yet god is only a figure of speach, implying that there is another greater existance and somehow this existance is also a being here, who knows, maybe you've seen it, maybe not, but I've seen things far unexpainable by any theroy, therefore for me, my theroy is my reality, and you'rs is you're own.

[Zion]

Revelation...1:18:26

And the lord said.."let their be mind"
and 14 billion years latter..there was.

For what point letting there be light.
If theres no one to see it. And know it.
And seek it.

OccamTrue!

[Zion]

The universe is one, so even if we did evolve its all the same. GOD

[Magraheed]

Nither

[MattInVegas]

I don't know why it can't be BOTH. It's the same question as "Which came first?"
It is up to the person asking to decide.

[r33f3r_m4dn3ss]

http://enkispeaks.com

read the synopsis, it makes sense and coincides with a lot of history

basically says that the god that created us didnt create the universe, it was a lesser god, who is enlil, also referred to as Yahweh, Allah, etc.

It makes sense to me and can explain a lot of the things people question.

[themnax]

i don't believe anything HAS to exist. i don't believe anything HAS to NOT exist.
and i certainly see no reason evolution cannot simultainiously exist with one or more gods. though i do believe a lot of people misrepresent a lot of things to grind their own axes. people misrepresent both sides of an argument they are making and by so doing, end up 'proving' nothing.

=^^=
.../\...

[LSDPsychonaut]

Nothing is real. Everything is real.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

So then your really trying to say Everything is nothing. Especially when its relative. Everything to someone can be nothing to someone else. Its a simple paradox with lots of meaning.

[MeMilesAway]

science is so subversive when it comes to God and people are so foolish to subscribe to scientific theory on existence.

science is a very powerful discipline that examines, determines the framework of how and why things work on this planet and around it. only an idiot would not value science and what it has offered humanity in terms of progress and understanding.

with that said, science can only experiment and test the tangible world. God, regardless of which one you choose, is intangible. science can come up with theory after theory about random chances of particles crashing together and call that 'life'. but science cannot disprove that a force outside of creation isn't bringing everything into motion. as science can only work with what is seen, even to the smallest particle, it is still a level below spiritual and metaphysical.

so in my head, to deny a spiritual or metaphysical plane is nonsensical and limiting. i am constantly blown away by scientific progress...but at the end of the day it's still just a man looking around his environment looking for answers. I'm not stupid enough to ignore the idea that I might be just a fish in a tank...I mean, if there is an order to things in space and on this earth there must be an order beyond it.

My thought: science will continually learn about how smart God is...and that's it....science will keep denying God credit because it has become its own subversive force...just another part of creation denying its creator.

[FreakerSoup]

I believe in everything; nothing is sacred.
I believe in nothing; everything is sacred.

[Patience]

Evolution isnt totally proved till now, there are many doubts about it. But does evolution denies the existence of God? What if God wanted some animals to develop to produce better and smarter animals?!

I myself dont believe in Evolution, esp. the one that says man has evolved from monkeys!! Pretty dumb!

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

It aint even proved. Only because Darwin saw some dumb ass turtles and birds that changed a little stuck on some small galapagos crap. I dunno mang, don't cut it for me.

[FreakerSoup]

Then you don't understand it.

[pop_terror]

Jesus said that God is in all things, which would go hand-in-hand with evolution. It is divine that a creature can will objects into existence. It is divine that a dinosaur that had only ever moved along a flat surface willed itself into the sky as a bird.

Fear is nothing without love, so evolution as a survival mechanism is truly about love as well. Which invariably involves abstract realms of subconscious poetry.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

Then you don't understand it.
Are you talkin to me?

Evolution is not PROVEN. Thats why there is still open ground for Intelligent design to be taught in classrooms.

Darwinism is a lie, what about that missing link! Now maybe Dinosaurs turning into Birds is a little more beleivable.

What would explain then a slow evolution of chimpanzee to homo erectus. Then the sudden leap to homo sapiens sapiens and civilization?

Not applicable to evolution. It is only half true. Species evolve within themselves. Transmutation hasn't been proven, if were only now finding evidence of Fish with 4 legs and all that gay shit, well WtF? Shouldn't there be millions of them left around? Where would they all dissappear too?

Simple they were genetic mistakes.

Chimps have been around side by side next to us then too?
Why didn't all chimps evolve?

Why are there still FUCKIN CHIMPANZEES, if it was super cool and survival of the fittest lets slowly mutate into humans!

Oh its ok well just leave those other chimps to be the same. You don't think they would've watched their own kind ??????? It leaves huge loopholes dude.
If birds came from dinos, and man came from chimps, then why aren't there any Dinos left. It only makes sense if there are Chimps still. You can't deny this one. Why ARE THERE CHIMPS LEFT! Yet no other original species, like a wooly mammoth, or a Saber Tooth cat.

Oh yea millions of years of evolution Wow! That explains it! Slow transmutation!

Well then what about the sudden jump to civilization? Just becomes a paradox to the whole concept of slow transmutation and survival of the fittest.

Wouldn't we have killed all the chimps off? They weren't becoming the fittest? LOL wtf dude. Evolution is a joke. Minor shit like a Peacock, evolving into the prettiest of feathers for the most sexually potent peacocks that makes sense.

[FreakerSoup]

Are you talkin to me?Yes.

Evolution is not PROVEN. Thats why there is still open ground for Intelligent design to be taught in classrooms. Nothing is scientifically proven, per se. There is enough evidence for it to be considered true by those who study it.

Darwinism is a lie, what about that missing link! Now maybe Dinosaurs turning into Birds is a little more beleivable. Yes, it's all a conspiracy to turn people against god. Because scientists want you to go to hell.

How is dinosaurs turning into birds not evolution? It involved links that were formerly missing.

Here's the missing link thing. There are plenty of links from one species to the next. If you do a search for a "phylogenetic tree" you'll find plenty. However, the thing anti-evolutionists want is another link. You say "Here's A, and here's C, so where's B?" We say "I dunno...Oh wait, look here's B!" Then you say "Ok, so where are A-and-a-half and B-and-a-half?" Not every organism is fossilized.

What would explain then a slow evolution of chimpanzee to homo erectus. Then the sudden leap to homo sapiens sapiens and civilization?
It didn't happen quite like that. Bipedalism offers a number of advantages over knuckle-walking. Less energy used, longer distance capabilities, hands more readily used for working with stuff, etc. Homo sapiens didn't come from homo erectus. Look it up. Civilization didn't accompany their rise, either, that came after. Ever heard of hunter-gatherers?

Not applicable to evolution. It is only half true. Species evolve within themselves. Transmutation hasn't been proven, if were only now finding evidence of Fish with 4 legs and all that gay shit, well WtF? Shouldn't there be millions of them left around? Where would they all dissappear too?
What are there millions of? Shellfish, trilobites, small stuff around before land animals came about. Have you ever seen a mudskipper? Check that out, they're kinda cool. The thing is, many fossils are destroyed or buried. No doubt we've only found a small percentage of what existed in prehistoric times. But why aren't there fossils of modern animals mixed in with those? If we didn't evolve, we were all created at the same time, and there should be at least as many fossilized humans, deer, elephants, sheep, and chickens as there are t. rexes.

Chimps have been around side by side next to us then too?
Why didn't all chimps evolve?
Why would they? We didn't evolve from chimps, we have a common ancestor.

Why are there still FUCKIN CHIMPANZEES, if it was super cool and survival of the fittest lets slowly mutate into humans! Want me to FUCKIN TELL YOU? Humans and chimps are both around for a couple reasons.
1. Can't interbreed.
2. Don't compete for food or space.
3. Neither preys on the other.
Nothing compels one to overtake the other.


Oh its ok well just leave those other chimps to be the same. You don't think they would've watched their own kind ??????? It leaves huge loopholes dude.
If birds came from dinos, and man came from chimps, then why aren't there any Dinos left. It only makes sense if there are Chimps still. You can't deny this one. Why ARE THERE CHIMPS LEFT! Yet no other original species, like a wooly mammoth, or a Saber Tooth cat. -No dinos because of mass extinction. I'm sure you've heard of this. Dinosaurs went extinct in a huge event that affected large animals much more severly than small.

Well then what about the sudden jump to civilization? Just becomes a paradox to the whole concept of slow transmutation and survival of the fittest.Civilization didn't evolve. It wasn't a characteristic of a species. Humans were hunter-gatherers for a long time, like many other primates, but with more advanced techniques and skills. Eventually, they came up with the idea that seeds, if planted, would sprout a plant, which could feed a family, given enough. Agriculture was an amazing "discovery" that allowed people to survive and thrive with much less effort, and with a better quality of life. If you knew about it, why wouldn't you do it? And with agriculture, you can make a clan, a village, spend time on other things, like making weapons to repel invaders or whatever. You might say humans using agriculture are more fit than hunter-gatherers.

Wouldn't we have killed all the chimps off? They weren't becoming the fittest? Why would we kill the chimps off? And don't most chimps live in south america, where human presence was only known in the last 10,000 or so years?
LOL wtf dude. Evolution is a joke. Minor shit like a Peacock, evolving into the prettiest of feathers for the most sexually potent peacocks that makes sense.
Or primates evolving so that body hair is less and less, because it isn't needed anymore, but a non-monkey-hairy body is a sexually desirable trait? What about fish gaining abilities like breathing air or travelling on land or climbing trees or shooting bugs from branches overhead?

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

You say "Here's A, and here's C, so where's B?" We say "I dunno...Oh wait, look here's B!" Then you say "Ok, so where are A-and-a-half and B-and-a-half?" Not every organism is fossilized.
Maybe so, but in the case of Homo Sapiens, there is no B. So thats irrelevant.
I agreed on the Dinosaurs to birds however, because they didn't all the sudden learn science, math, language, etc all the arts.


It didn't happen quite like that. Bipedalism offers a number of advantages over knuckle-walking. Less energy used, longer distance capabilities, hands more readily used for working with stuff, etc.
Ok I understand that.


Homo sapiens didn't come from homo erectus. Look it up. Civilization didn't accompany their rise, either, that came after.
Yea I knew they didn't come from Homo Erectus, I knew it was the common ancestor, I just looked it up the name was Three 1.5m tall Homo heidelbergensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis) left footprints in powdery volcanic ash solidified in Italy. Homo heidelbergensis is the common ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis) and Homo sapiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens).

Still then who murdered the Neanderthals? This was a favored theory in my Anthropology course. What makes you think it wasn't alien invervention by the Annunaki, of which I've made many posts if you'd like a link. The story goes they were alien beings looking similar to us, came down to earth taught neanderthal man all we know today, and using genetic manipulation spliced the Neanderthal genes with theirs creating Homo Sapiens.

Does this not explain where the Neanderthals went? If you say they genetically bred with Homo sapiens and eventually bred their distinctive genes away, then you'd also have to say this same event brought down the Roman Empire. Now what if that common ancestor was BOTH of ours, BECAUSE WE WERE THE TRANSFORMED NEANDERTHAL.

Civilization didn't come too far afterward. Yet the Pyramids date back almost 20,000 years scientists are coming to find out. This throws off this theory. How could structures like this be made by tribal humans still fighting over where to lay down for hte night?
Oh yea I said Homo Sapiens Sapiens by the way, which at least I thought was the name given to civilized man.


Ever heard of hunter-gatherers?
Yea what about them. What explains this leap from Hunter-gatherers, to the agricultural revolution, or Neolithic whatever you wanna call it.


What are there millions of? Shellfish, trilobites, small stuff around before land animals came about. Have you ever seen a mudskipper? Check that out, they're kinda cool. The thing is, many fossils are destroyed or buried. No doubt we've only found a small percentage of what existed in prehistoric times. But why aren't there fossils of modern animals mixed in with those? If we didn't evolve, we were all created at the same time, and there should be at least as many fossilized humans, deer, elephants, sheep, and chickens as there are t. rexes.
I didn't mean fossils, I mean why aren't there massive amounts of fish with legs romaing mud puddles all around. Not fossils, how can you trust these T rexes are even put togethor correctly? Discovery did a thing that they think T rex walked on all fours now, and only stood up to intimitade other 4 legged dinosaurs. How do you know these skeletons are correct? When 90% of the time they have to be re-created. Only a few have been found in tact, thats why its such a big thing when they are found.

Fuck Fossils dude, I mean why aren't there halfling animals still running around. Bird Dinosaurs, bipedal hominids in Africa etc yet there are still reptiles, and still tons of apes.

Why would they? We didn't evolve from chimps, we have a common ancestor.
[/quote

Yea fine ok I messed up wording that. Your right.
But did we murder all these missing links or what?

[quote]
1. Can't interbreed.
2. Don't compete for food or space.
3. Neither preys on the other.
Nothing compels one to overtake the other.
1.Could've interbred back then, if we had a "common ancestor"
2.That common ancestor, if Chimps could survive and didn't have to evolve besides owning the canopy and hiding in trees, well then obviously our "common ancestor would've had the same capabilites. Or else that common ancestor crap is out of the question.
3. Ok.
4. What made them split, and us keep going then? Why didn't we just hang out in the canopy and eat worms, and plants. Obviously there wasn't enough room or something man. Again more loopholes, that sound simple but when you actually look into it it makes no sense.


No dinos because of mass extinction. I'm sure you've heard of this. Dinosaurs went extinct in a huge event that affected large animals much more severly than small.
Where are the small dinosaurs? They must've became birds right? There that makes sense. But still what event? They say a comet, an ice age, then they say a receeding ice age is what caused Homo sapiens to become sapiens sapiens and the dawn of civilization. This doesn't make any sense. Why wuold they not just migrate to a new suitable climate? What made us SMART and scared to DIE.
Can't argue about the dinosaurs, theres too little evidence on either side.


Civilization didn't evolve. It wasn't a characteristic of a species. Humans were hunter-gatherers for a long time, like many other primates, but with more advanced techniques and skills. Eventually, they came up with the idea that seeds, if planted, would sprout a plant, which could feed a family, given enough. Agriculture was an amazing "discovery" that allowed people to survive and thrive with much less effort, and with a better quality of life. If you knew about it, why wouldn't you do it? And with agriculture, you can make a clan, a village, spend time on other things, like making weapons to repel invaders or whatever. You might say humans using agriculture are more fit than hunter-gatherers.
Yea that all makes sense, what about digging irrigation ditches though? With stone shovels? Irrigating the fertile crescent from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers? Building the first cities in Sumera? Huge walled structures and temples?
I understand corralling animals, and planting small fields. But where did the massive fields come into it, and the hierarchy of power and ownership?

Everybody knows that this was a sudden leap, if you look at the evolutionary timeline. Where did the death-fear come from? And origin of religion and higher thinking. The discovery of modern day mathematics 5000 years ago? Modern astronomy without telescopes? Language, Alphabet? If you put mentally challenged people into a mock setting with others and leave them with food and water for a few generations you think theyll come up with science?! A name and category for everything? Advanced Geometric structures? No theyll just survive how they are living at the time.

What makes you think a hungry ape man, would just murder you and destroy your crops out of jealousy? Or this is before we gained modern emotions? EVOLUTION IS NOT LOGICAL.

Civilization didn't evolve. It wasn't a characteristic of a species
I don't agree with this either. Of course its a characteristic of our species.


Why would we kill the chimps off? And don't most chimps live in south america, where human presence was only known in the last 10,000 or so years?
Then tell me what made our "common ancestor" at that period take a different route, other than copy the chimps who would turn out to be successfull in lasting to modern day?

No most chimps live in Africa. Not south america.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_theory
This is maybe a more believable theory. Still you should research the annunaki of the sumerian accounts, and see how in a time of warfare and early writing. They somehow could explain genetic engineering. Which goes along with history, mythology, and Anthropology. The big thing is Where did the Neanderthals go? Where did Sapiens Sapiens get all this knowledge to build cities and structures, and write, and have advanced language and number systems, advanced astronomy, advanced astrology, etc all the arts.

[FreakerSoup]

Maybe so, but in the case of Homo Sapiens, there is no B. So thats irrelevant.
I agreed on the Dinosaurs to birds however, because they didn't all the sudden learn science, math, language, etc all the arts.Human evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#The_Homo_genus)
That stuff didn't come with being human. The capability did. Science and math didn't come for thousands of years. Language is something many animals possess, and the arts, if you're thinking cave paintings were only natural for humans once they had some time on their hands.



Still then who murdered the Neanderthals? This was a favored theory in my Anthropology course. What makes you think it wasn't alien invervention by the Annunaki, of which I've made many posts if you'd like a link. The story goes they were alien beings looking similar to us, came down to earth taught neanderthal man all we know today, and using genetic manipulation spliced the Neanderthal genes with theirs creating Homo Sapiens. If you want to believe that, go ahead. It's a completely unfounded theory with no evidence for any part of it.

Does this not explain where the Neanderthals went? If you say they genetically bred with Homo sapiens and eventually bred their distinctive genes away, then you'd also have to say this same event brought down the Roman Empire. Now what if that common ancestor was BOTH of ours, BECAUSE WE WERE THE TRANSFORMED NEANDERTHAL
I suppose it's possible, though really really (really) unlikely. Sapiens would have no reason and probably no desire to mate with neanderthals. Neanderthals were short, not as smart, and more primative. Sapiens had every advantage, and it's quite possible that their territory just overlapped, and since they hunted the same animals, they were just outcompeted by homo sapiens. If your clan starves, and gets to a number low enough, than even if you've got plenty of food, your offspring will not be very fit, because of interbreeding, and the bloodlines won't last long.

Civilization didn't come too far afterward. Yet the Pyramids date back almost 20,000 years scientists are coming to find out. This throws off this theory. How could structures like this be made by tribal humans still fighting over where to lay down for hte night?
Oh yea I said Homo Sapiens Sapiens by the way, which at least I thought was the name given to civilized man. Pyramids date back 20,000 years? Do you have a source for that? 'Cause it sounds like bull. The pyramids were built by the egyptians for the dead pharoahs. Around 2000 bc.


What explains this leap from Hunter-gatherers, to the agricultural revolution, or Neolithic whatever you wanna call it. Innovation. The human mind has an amazing inventive ability. Putting a sharp rock on the end of a stick to kill stuff takes some amazing brain power, if you've got no previous knowledge of any such thing. That ability for innovation and learning is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, and without it, agriculture and civilization would not have occured.

I didn't mean fossils, I mean why aren't there massive amounts of fish with legs romaing mud puddles all around.They weren't very competetive, compared to either the fish inhabiting the water or the reptiles and amphibians they spawned. But again, check out the mudskipper. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper)

Not fossils, how can you trust these T rexes are even put togethor correctly? Discovery did a thing that they think T rex walked on all fours now, and only stood up to intimitade other 4 legged dinosaurs. How do you know these skeletons are correct? When 90% of the time they have to be re-created. Only a few have been found in tact, thats why its such a big thing when they are found. Ok, I dunno what Discovery presented as evidence, but T-rex's arms were really small, and would not support its body weight. If it tried, its tail would stick way up in the air, and not only would it look ridiculous, but it wouldn't get much accomplished. Skeleton ideas were changed a bit when they were first breaking into that field. The degree of specialization in the field of science is good at making an accurate portrayal, 'cause there's a scientist for frickin' everything.

Fuck Fossils dude, I mean why aren't there halfling animals still running around. Bird Dinosaurs, bipedal hominids in Africa etc yet there are still reptiles, and still tons of apes. They weren't competetive. They were unstable as an evolutionary species, and once they gave rise to something, else, that something else most likely turned around and bit them in the butt by outcompeting them for food and habitat. And since they were similar and had similar food and habitat, it's likely that they were territorial with one another, and again, the more advanced species is more likely to win in a fight.

Yea fine ok I messed up wording that. Your right.
But did we murder all these missing links or what?Not murder any more than invasive species murder the species they're taking over, but you get the idea.

1.Could've interbred back then, if we had a "common ancestor"Again, the more advanced species, and probably the less, would have no reason and little interest in mating with the other. It could've happened, sure, but the offspring would have been either completely messed up, sterile (like a mule), or still at an evolutionary disadvantage.

2.That common ancestor, if Chimps could survive and didn't have to evolve besides owning the canopy and hiding in trees, well then obviously our "common ancestor would've had the same capabilites. Or else that common ancestor crap is out of the question. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

3. Ok.
4. What made them split, and us keep going then? Why didn't we just hang out in the canopy and eat worms, and plants. Obviously there wasn't enough room or something man. Again more loopholes, that sound simple but when you actually look into it it makes no sense. It's not a matter of room. If humans have an easier time running around on the ground then swinging through trees, that's what they're going to do. Worms don't taste good. We grew taller and smarter, and could hunt in groups with tools and take down bigger animals, and that's good eatin'. Why would they give themselves a hard time by climbing trees and eating worms when they don't have to?

Where are the small dinosaurs? They must've became birds right? There that makes sense. But still what event? They say a comet, an ice age, then they say a receeding ice age is what caused Homo sapiens to become sapiens sapiens and the dawn of civilization. This doesn't make any sense. Why wuold they not just migrate to a new suitable climate? What made us SMART and scared to DIE. A receding ice age would probably make plenty of climate suitable for humans, and with less time spent looking around for big game in relatively barren areas, they could develop agriculture. And since that saves even more time and effort, they could use their magnificent brain for other things. Tools, houses, ziggurats, fences, whatever...

Yea that all makes sense, what about digging irrigation ditches though? With stone shovels? Irrigating the fertile crescent from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers? Building the first cities in Sumera? Huge walled structures and temples?
I understand corralling animals, and planting small fields. But where did the massive fields come into it, and the hierarchy of power and ownership?
It's all development. When you've got a human brain, and primative hardships, you're gonna look for ways to get what you need more easily. Irrigation only required that you know that plants need water, and water will flow into a hole. When you get tired of a breeze blowing in your grass hut, why not put up something the wind/rain can't get through? Like rocks and clay. Power and ownership are political ideas, and that's all they are. Did you know that land ownership didn't come about until about the 1500's?

Once you've got the essetials of life taken care of, you can turn your mind to other things, like politics. Maslow made a heirarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy_of_needs) that explains this well.

Everybody knows that this was a sudden leap, if you look at the evolutionary timeline. Where did the death-fear come from? And origin of religion and higher thinking. The discovery of modern day mathematics 5000 years ago? Modern astronomy without telescopes? Language, Alphabet? If you put mentally challenged people into a mock setting with others and leave them with food and water for a few generations you think theyll come up with science?! A name and category for everything? Advanced Geometric structures? No theyll just survive how they are living at the time. Animals in general fear death. You know how chimapanzees can be trained to use a keyboard with symbols for words on it? They've been documented saying things about fearing/hating tigers. 'Cause tigers eat them. The rest of that all comes with having your basic needs (food, shelter, water) taken care of.

As for putting people in a room, I think you underestimate the human mind. IF you take babies from mothers at birth, expose them to no civilization, they will socialize in some way. Remember when you were a kid, always asking your parents what stuff was? I remember seeing dew and being really curious about it. Now, if there's nobody telling you what sound you make with your throat to refer to dew, wouldn't you just make something up so that you can talk about it? If one of these isolated babies looks at the others and points to himself and says "Oog!", and does that often, he will be known to the others as Oog. Same with anything else. If you're talking to someone who speaks no English, you will point to the car and say "Car" everytime you see a car, he will know that those things buzzing around all over the place are called "cars."

What makes you think a hungry ape man, would just murder you and destroy your crops out of jealousy? Or this is before we gained modern emotions?Uhh. Nothing. Those apemen would stay away, 'cause they know I'm bigger and stronger, and probably have a spear nearby. Besides, we rumbled with them before, and a couple of them got killed. They learned their lesson, and will stay away. If anything, Imma go over their, kill him, and steal his crops, 'cause I'm hungry, and not in the mood for corn today.

EVOLUTION IS NOT LOGICAL. Evolution is one of the most logical things there is! If I'm bigger, stronger, and smarter than the monkey across the field, I'm gonna go mate with his women, mate with my woman, and every woman I want to, and he's not going to do anything about it, and his genes won't get passed on, and the species will advance.

I don't agree with this either. Of course its a characteristic of our species. No, it's a capability. Humans didn't just come about and start building libraries and stuff. It took thousands of years to get to cities, fields, and science. There's an ant in the south american rainforest that makes huge colonies of thousands, maybe millions of ants, and they will periodically move from one colony to another. Now not only to they have specialized structures and locations for different purposes within a colony (Specialization is a quality of modernity), but as they move, if they come across a small area where a bridge would be handy, ants will link themselves together by the legs so that those thousands or millions of ants coming after them can use them as a bridge. Cool, huh?

Then tell me what made our "common ancestor" at that period take a different route, other than copy the chimps who would turn out to be successfull in lasting to modern day? They can't just copy them. They aren't the same. They were outcompeted by one of the groups they spawned, and just couldn't cut it. It's not like they could just go join the chimps and learn their ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_theory
This is maybe a more believable theory. Still you should research the annunaki of the sumerian accounts, and see how in a time of warfare and early writing. They somehow could explain genetic engineering. Which goes along with history, mythology, and Anthropology. The big thing is Where did the Neanderthals go? Where did Sapiens Sapiens get all this knowledge to build cities and structures, and write, and have advanced language and number systems, advanced astronomy, advanced astrology, etc all the arts.Aquatic ape theory seems pretty unscientific. The evidence is all really speculation.
Human knowledge is passed from generation to generation, and more is gained along the way. Everything we have today is the result of accretion and documentation of this knowledge.

[r33f3r_m4dn3ss]

Well I agree with evolution in animals,insects, etc. And i agree that apes and other primates evolved throughout their history, slowly making tools, but I also beleive that evolution had no part in our mental development. There was something that changed us, for a reason, and I think early development was due to psyolocibin mushrooms. Once we ingested them, our brains developed, and slowly we learned to use tools, have language, and paint on walls. After this, more of these advanced apes spread, with art, language, and tool making under their belt, killing off or mating with lesser apes. Then from there, my beleif in the Annunaki comes into effect, in which there is plenty of proof.

Oh, and Pyramids going back to 2,000 b.c. solely for the dead pharoahs? You need to stop reading middle school history books. There are pyramids in Japan that supposedly date back 10,000 years, and pottery has been found in South America that dates back almost 75,000 years.

I think evolution explains a lot about species of plants and animals, but I wouldnt go as far to say evolution caused everything in this world, merely parts of it. You can't honestly say evolution caused apes to evolve. If so, why didn't tigers evolve? Or elephants? Why aren't there other species able to talk and draw paintings and corral other animals? They were here thousands of years before us, so why didn't evolution do the same thing?

I'll stick to my beleif that our common ancestor was an ape evolved to a point from the help of fire and mushrooms, and then was altered and turned into modern man. If you beleive in Atlantis, it would explain as to why man could have flourished, and after its destruction, reverted back to tribal mode and hunter gatherer mode, because it was faced with a catastrophy never witnessed, the destruction of civilization that it worked so hard to build. This would also explain why there are pyramids and other arhcaeological evidence that goes back thousands of years before recorded history. I think maybe you should open your mind more before accepting an idea that evolution caused everything, it's proposterous to think Darwin could explain the history and events of the world by simply traveling to the Gallopagos Island's and staring at birds.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

That stuff didn't come with being human. The capability did. Science and math didn't come for thousands of years. Language is something many animals possess, and the arts, if you're thinking cave paintings were only natural for humans once they had some time on their hands
How much time dude, your running into a wall. Civilization started in 5,000 BC in the Harrapan civilization and 2500-3000 in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Now their finding early civilizations in South America, Japan and even northern Europe, that could've gone well past 10,000. Yet it also occurs the glacial retreat was supposedly in 10,000 Bc. I dunno man so even in 5000 years your saying from 10,000 bc they slowly evolved into having advanced knowledge of the solar system that wouldn't be revealed until the telescope? Its like I know in 2000 years we've gone from nothing, to computers but still I don't buy it. What about the sacred power of shapes and Geometry demonstrated in the Pyramids?

No Animals possess language like we do, they have communication skills, not vocal syllabalization, and word formation with complex meanings.
I don't mean cave paintings, I mean huge monuments, and stone statues of demi-gods.


If you want to believe that, go ahead. It's a completely unfounded theory with no evidence for any part of it.
First off I meant, the murder of Neanderthals was the favored theory of my class.

The annunaki is the only theory that makes sense. First off do you deny humans landed on the moon? If you do well then you won't be able to beleive in space travel.

What about all the mythologies that spawned off this original beleif to the Sumerians? Of alien gods, with human personalities and problems. I've made many posts about this, so has r33f3r M4nd3ss so if you'd like to know more ill give you a link, or just look it up on the net.

I suppose it's possible, though really really (really) unlikely. Sapiens would have no reason and probably no desire to mate with neanderthals. Neanderthals were short, not as smart, and more primative. Sapiens had every advantage, and it's quite possible that their territory just overlapped, and since they hunted the same animals, they were just outcompeted by homo sapiens. If your clan starves, and gets to a number low enough, than even if you've got plenty of food, your offspring will not be very fit, because of interbreeding, and the bloodlines won't last long.
So this could go along with them being murdered by Homo Sapiens right? Obviously no chance of genetic engineering thats so specifically talked about in the Enuma Elish and other texts, about the alien gods.

5500 years ago humans were hunter-gatherers or simple farmers living in very small villages. Suddenly, 5 centers of civilization appeared: Egypt, Sumeria, Japan, Peru and the Indus Valley Civilization.

From the very beginning religion was of highest importance. Gods and deities demanded total subservience from humans and in Egypt this went as far as calling humans the cattle of the gods. Besides religion political systems were implemented to control the growing human population. Civilization experienced a very rapid expansion and within less than a thousand years was well established all over the planet.
Still can't admit the possibility?


Innovation
Yea but who taught them how to use innovation? You don't build massive structures on your own. You make spears like you said, for killing beasts and lure them into a hole and stab them to death. Then feast and fuck. Then all the sudden one guy talks about the Pythagorean Theorem? Or the universal phi number that exists in all things. Hed prolly get kicked out of the circle, anyone ever try talking about intelligent shit at a party, doesn't last too long even nowadays.

The mudskipper is all yours. Mudguppy


but T-rex's arms were really small, and would not support its body weight
Have you seen an in tact t-rex skeleton in person? Found in perfect condition bones completely in tact? What if the T-rex didn't have the faggy little arms and his back stayed relatively straight but could jump up like some dogs even can and take a few steps, just to intimidate an opponent?


They weren't competetive. They were unstable as an evolutionary species, and once they gave rise to something, else, that something else most likely turned around and bit them in the butt by outcompeting them for food and habitat. And since they were similar and had similar food and habitat, it's likely that they were territorial with one another, and again, the more advanced species is more likely to win in a fight.
How can you just jump and say they weren't competitive? DId Ghandi get through to them? How were some animals "not competitive" maybe they just were weaker and dumber, but they obviously didn't make a concious decision not to fight. Even so why didn't they go back then and revert and attempt to fight the chimps in the trees? If they couldn't beat Homo Sapiens, isn't that ture in everyday life. If your a competitor and you get owned you go own someone smaller and weaker than you.


2.That common ancestor, if Chimps could survive and didn't have to evolve besides owning the canopy and hiding in trees, well then obviously our "common ancestor would've had the same capabilites. Or else that common ancestor crap is out of the question.
Why wouldn't the common ancestor see the Chimps being succesfull and copy them and live in the trees. Why did they have to evolve at all? Because if we shared this common ancestor he had the physical talent and ability to swing and jump. Why not just go bac kto what he was used to if he couldn't keep up with this new human after a few generations?

It's not a matter of room. If humans have an easier time running around on the ground then swinging through trees, that's what they're going to do. Worms don't taste good. We grew taller and smarter, and could hunt in groups with tools and take down bigger animals, and that's good eatin'. Why would they give themselves a hard time by climbing trees and eating worms when they don't have to?
Ok. Fine, but still if everything is so fight or flight SURVIVAL!!!!! minded why would they try and keep up with those out of their league. Instead of going back into the trees?


Power and ownership are political ideas, and that's all they are. Did you know that land ownership didn't come about until about the 1500's?
Probably under that term. Land ownership was the only thing that gave anyone power in nature. That's what the 3rd most frequent fights were caused by, after food, and sex. Everything was about land ownership. Don't say this to m6m or hell pull some repressed patriarchal neurotic want to have sex with your mother freudian crap on you. However that was an interesting article about the needs, I like the part that said studying the mentally ill only gives you an ill version of the psyche. Never thought of it that way. We should round up all the smart people in the world and put them in a room to be tested! Jk


As for putting people in a room, I think you underestimate the human mind. IF you take babies from mothers at birth, expose them to no civilization, they will socialize in some way. Remember when you were a kid, always asking your parents what stuff was? I remember seeing dew and being really curious about it. Now, if there's nobody telling you what sound you make with your throat to refer to dew, wouldn't you just make something up so that you can talk about it? If one of these isolated babies looks at the others and points to himself and says "Oog!", and does that often, he will be known to the others as Oog. Same with anything else. If you're talking to someone who speaks no English, you will point to the car and say "Car" everytime you see a car, he will know that those things buzzing around all over the place are called "cars."
Good point. I would have to actually refer to the mind of a healthy child, compared to a mentally impaired person.


Animals in general fear death. You know how chimapanzees can be trained to use a keyboard with symbols for words on it? They've been documented saying things about fearing/hating tigers. 'Cause tigers eat them. The rest of that all comes with having your basic needs (food, shelter, water) taken care of.
If you can proove animals have a fear of death, Id like to show that to m6m cuz that will disprove his theories about the catalyst for rapid advancement as being this death-fear that was ego driven.
I don't think animals fear death, but if Im going to look into the chimps and tigers.

Uhh. Nothing. Those apemen would stay away, 'cause they know I'm bigger and stronger, and probably have a spear nearby
I mean within the homo sapiens ranks. Both with spears, they would've killed each other if they felt jealousy. Or just the superior dude with the garden stabbed them all I guess.


Evolution is one of the most logical things there is! If I'm bigger, stronger, and smarter than the monkey across the field, I'm gonna go mate with his women, mate with my woman, and every woman I want to, and he's not going to do anything about it, and his genes won't get passed on, and the species will advance.
Yea. Poor pud

No, it's a capability. Humans didn't just come about and start building libraries and stuff. It took thousands of years to get to cities, fields, and science.
Characteristic of homo sapiens sapiens. I just consider civilization as a walled in group of houses. With central water and a central shrine, and a minor economoy Like the ancient cities at Uruk, and Babylon.

Cmon man what about our nickname
"The civilized ape"


They can't just copy them. They aren't the same. They were outcompeted by one of the groups they spawned, and just couldn't cut it. It's not like they could just go join the chimps and learn their ways.
Why not, If they had the same ancestor a few generations back why not just call it quits and go back to them. Im not talking like a thousand years year. I mean like 100. I didn't think chimps would be so elitist.

[FreakerSoup]

Oh, and Pyramids going back to 2,000 b.c. solely for the dead pharoahs? You need to stop reading middle school history books. There are pyramids in Japan that supposedly date back 10,000 years, and pottery has been found in South America that dates back almost 75,000 years.Egyptian pyramids. They were a really large-scale project, and required a civilization and a huge workforce. I could not find any information on japanese pyramids, and here's what I found on pottery. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery#History) Please note that the source for the information about the oldest pottery is from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Not some highschooler's website.


I think evolution explains a lot about species of plants and animals, but I wouldnt go as far to say evolution caused everything in this world, merely parts of it. You can't honestly say evolution caused apes to evolve. If so, why didn't tigers evolve? Or elephants? Why aren't there other species able to talk and draw paintings and corral other animals? They were here thousands of years before us, so why didn't evolution do the same thing? They did evolve. Have you ever heard of a fossilized tiger or elephant? No. Their relatives, yes. Sabertooths and mammoths, but they became tigers and elephants. Evolution doesn't require perfection or intelligence or civilization. ALL it requires is survival.

I'll stick to my beleif that our common ancestor was an ape evolved to a point from the help of fire and mushrooms, and then was altered and turned into modern man. If you beleive in Atlantis, it would explain as to why man could have flourished, and after its destruction, reverted back to tribal mode and hunter gatherer mode, because it was faced with a catastrophy never witnessed, the destruction of civilization that it worked so hard to build. This would also explain why there are pyramids and other arhcaeological evidence that goes back thousands of years before recorded history. I think maybe you should open your mind more before accepting an idea that evolution caused everything, it's proposterous to think Darwin could explain the history and events of the world by simply traveling to the Gallopagos Island's and staring at birds. Eating a mushroom will not affect your descendents. You can't pass on a mushroom. And I know I didn't eat a psychadelic mushrooms (or mushrooms at all, really) to give me special powers. If you believe in Atlantis, what's to stop you from believing in anything? If all you need for belief is an idea, then why not believe in scientology or fundamentalist christianity? Those are just as rational.

How much time dude, your running into a wall. Civilization started in 5,000 BC in the Harrapan civilization and 2500-3000 in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Now their finding early civilizations in South America, Japan and even northern Europe, that could've gone well past 10,000. If you're gonna make these claims, provide a source.

Yet it also occurs the glacial retreat was supposedly in 10,000 Bc. I dunno man so even in 5000 years your saying from 10,000 bc they slowly evolved into having advanced knowledge of the solar system that wouldn't be revealed until the telescope? Its like I know in 2000 years we've gone from nothing, to computers but still I don't buy it. What about the sacred power of shapes and Geometry demonstrated in the Pyramids?They didn't evolve into having advanced knowledge. Intellectual advancement is not evolution, because it isn't genetic. The ability to think and solve problems maybe, and would give an advantage, but information and skills are not.

Advanced knowledge of the solar system? Like what?

Sacred power of shapes? How do the pyramids demonstrate that? The pyramid is a strong, stable structure, fit for a king. The pharoahs (I assume we're talking about Egypt when we say The Pyramids) would want something really big and long-lasting, to show how cool they are. They show the sacred power of astronomy more than shapes, 'cause they are aligned to Orion's Belt.

No Animals possess language like we do, they have communication skills, not vocal syllabalization, and word formation with complex meanings.
I don't mean cave paintings, I mean huge monuments, and stone statues of demi-gods.
Birds? Birds sing all the time, and not just for kicks. Their songs mean something. Some can even speak english. Language is not a human trait. We can't communicate like other animals do. Whales cry, birds sing, some fish can click. Speaking of which, the African Bushmen use clicks, not vocal syllabization. If we have the ability to form many different sounds to comminicate ideas, why wouldn't we use it? If anything, our success would argue for evolution! Stone monuments and statues? What about it? You get to maslow's heirarchy, and get up to the spiritual level, and as a society, produce spiritual leaders specialized (remember?) to direct the worship or glorification or whatever of whatever god they say there is.

The annunaki is the only theory that makes sense. First off do you deny humans landed on the moon? If you do well then you won't be able to beleive in space travel. I don't deny that. Space travel is obviously possible. Inter-solar system travel? Inter-galactic? The nearest star is Proxima Centauri, which is something like 4.25 light years away. So travelling at light speed, it would take 4.25 years from the closest star to earth. We have yet to find any trace of like elsewhere in the universe, although we have found what look to be planets capable of supporting it, but they are nowhere near 4.25 light years away, and stuff can't travel at the speed of light (according to present data) anyways.

What about all the mythologies that spawned off this original beleif to the Sumerians? Of alien gods, with human personalities and problems. I've made many posts about this, so has r33f3r M4nd3ss so if you'd like to know more ill give you a link, or just look it up on the net. Yeah, lemme know. Although you should know that belief in gods has been pretty much present throughout human history.

So this could go along with them being murdered by Homo Sapiens right? Obviously no chance of genetic engineering thats so specifically talked about in the Enuma Elish and other texts, about the alien gods. Again, no, not murdered, just outcompeted.

5500 years ago humans were hunter-gatherers or simple farmers living in very small villages. Suddenly, 5 centers of civilization appeared: Egypt, Sumeria, Japan, Peru and the Indus Valley Civilization. How do you know? The earliest granery was apparently in Jordan at 9000BC. It obviously wasn't suddenly. Once people can communicate and decide that working together is better than fighting, civilization will make huge strides.

From the very beginning religion was of highest importance. Gods and deities demanded total subservience from humans and in Egypt this went as far as calling humans the cattle of the gods. Besides religion political systems were implemented to control the growing human population. Civilization experienced a very rapid expansion and within less than a thousand years was well established all over the planet.
Still can't admit the possibility? Within less than a thousand years? Where did that come from? And if these gods keep demanding subservience, where are they? Don't they care anymore? Christianity calls people sheep. So what? I'll admit that technically, there's a possibility of pretty much anything, like god planting fake fossils to test us, or the world being born from a giant lizard or whatever the hell you want to believe. However, it is not likely, there is no objective evidence to support it, and you only believe in it because you want it to be true.

Yea but who taught them how to use innovation? You don't build massive structures on your own. You make spears like you said, for killing beasts and lure them into a hole and stab them to death. Then feast and fuck. You don't teach someone to use innovation. Innovation isn't a tool, it's a quality. If you are innovative, you will use your problem solving skills to succeed and multiply. You don't build massive structures on your own. You show to others how you can achieve greatness by working together, and then build massive structures. Possibly by rallying together and enslaving the next tribe over.

Then all the sudden one guy talks about the Pythagorean Theorem? Or the universal phi number that exists in all things. That came later. Pythagorus was around 500BC, in the golden age of greece, if I remember right. No, they probably would not come up with mathematics and abstract concepts like that if they were still fighting to stay alive.

Hed prolly get kicked out of the circle, anyone ever try talking about intelligent shit at a party, doesn't last too long even nowadays.
That's 'cause the entire point of a party (it seems) is to show everyone how big of an idiot you can be. I've had a number of amazing intelligent, abstract, and philosophical conversations with those same people that pass out in their own vomit on occasion. If society is going ok, people have food to eat, and the basic essentials, inventions and new ideas will be welcomed. Among the scientists and like minds, if not the general populace.

The mudskipper is all yours. Mudguppy Huh?

Have you seen an in tact t-rex skeleton in person? Found in perfect condition bones completely in tact? What if the T-rex didn't have the faggy little arms and his back stayed relatively straight but could jump up like some dogs even can and take a few steps, just to intimidate an opponent? Ok, yes there's a possibility that those scientists who have studied these things for their whole lives and the guys who dug up the skeletons that may not have been completely intact, but were identifyable as the same organism were wrong, and the T-rex was really a brontasaurus with teeth. But there's also the possibility that the earth is flat, the sun is a giant light bulb, and I'm a cat randomly stepping on keys, but somehow coming up with the correct series of letters to form a cojent argument on evolution.

How can you just jump and say they weren't competitive? DId Ghandi get through to them? How were some animals "not competitive" maybe they just were weaker and dumber, but they obviously didn't make a concious decision not to fight. Even so why didn't they go back then and revert and attempt to fight the chimps in the trees? If they couldn't beat Homo Sapiens, isn't that ture in everyday life. If your a competitor and you get owned you go own someone smaller and weaker than you.
Why wouldn't the common ancestor see the Chimps being succesfull and copy them and live in the trees. Why did they have to evolve at all? Because if we shared this common ancestor he had the physical talent and ability to swing and jump. Why not just go bac kto what he was used to if he couldn't keep up with this new human after a few generations?By not competitive, I don't mean they didn't want to put up a fight, I mean that while they were throwing rocks a deer hoping to knock it out, the next group up the evolutionary ladder were stabbing that deer with spears, and taking it home and eating it, and the rock-throwers went hungry. Go to someone smaller and weaker? It doesn't work like that. Elephants cannot say "hey guys, we're getting hunted to extinction, let's go take the ocean from the dolphins." The early humans were not fit for the trees. They were outcompeted by more advanced humans on the ground, and they weren't agile enough or skeletally formed to fit the tree environment. It was a lose-lose situation for them.

Ok. Fine, but still if everything is so fight or flight SURVIVAL!!!!! minded why would they try and keep up with those out of their league. Instead of going back into the trees? They couldn't. The trees would offer them even less advantage then the ground. Monkeys have ideal features for swinging through trees and not dieing. Early humans did not.

Probably under that term. Land ownership was the only thing that gave anyone power in nature. That's what the 3rd most frequent fights were caused by, after food, and sex. Everything was about land ownership. I don't think so. More the ability to use and live on land, not ownership. Ownership would mean you could sell it or rent it, which didn't happen until the 1500s.

We should round up all the smart people in the world and put them in a room to be tested! Jk That would be a pretty interesting experiment. If only...

If you can proove animals have a fear of death, Id like to show that to m6m cuz that will disprove his theories about the catalyst for rapid advancement as being this death-fear that was ego driven.
I don't think animals fear death, but if Im going to look into the chimps and tigers. Animals show the same fight-or-flight response people do. When faced with that situation, cats will try and look big so that they won't get killed, a horse will rear up or run, birds fly away when you come near because that way you can't kill them. All animals have an interest in staying alive.


I mean within the homo sapiens ranks. Both with spears, they would've killed each other if they felt jealousy. Or just the superior dude with the garden stabbed them all I guess. It doesn't take much brainpower to figure out that working together will benefit both parties more than fighting. Even so, people have obviously been killing each other for the most ridiculous crap since forever, though when both of you are working hard to stay alive, you probably won't be as interested in stupid stuff like that.

Characteristic of homo sapiens sapiens. I just consider civilization as a walled in group of houses. With central water and a central shrine, and a minor economoy Like the ancient cities at Uruk, and Babylon. But not all humans have/had that. Therefore, it is only a capability. And it's not related to genetics, except that the brain configuration allows that kind of activity.

Cmon man what about our nickname
"The civilized ape" We're smarter, organized, and advanced. As a species, we are civilized, but it wasn't always that way. Would you consider every human on earth today civilized?

Why not, If they had the same ancestor a few generations back why not just call it quits and go back to them. Im not talking like a thousand years year. I mean like 100. I didn't think chimps would be so elitist. They couldn't go back to them. They were different. If a tree-monkey society gives rise to a ground-semi-monkey group offshoot which gets outcompteted somewhere down the road (which would be more than 100 years) the nth generation of these guys can't be like - look at those monkeys and their proliferation, let's do what they do. They don't have any knowledge that they came from them, and neither do the tree-monkeys. If the newer guys tried to join the tree-monkeys, they would fall behind, 'cause they aren't as good in trees as on the ground, and probably would not be accepted into the group. Vanilla Coke cannot become Original Coke just because it isn't doing so well. It's still Vanilla.

[zpiper]

You see religion is like a disco ball... every single person on the earth could be look at the same disco ball and yet they would each see and take away a different view.

[jrod]

Science and religion have different goals. Science is based on the scientific method while religion is based on faith. They can co-exist and evolution does not 'kill God.'

[rayne_lyric]

OK!

I have already debated the existence of the moon, George Bush and JFK!

But what about GOD?

Do you believe in GOD? as a scientist I have in my time came across the theory of Evolution etc, it seems a very good theory and has lots of good things going for it, it is most likely that this theory is true as there is some evidence pointing to this fact.

But if we indeed did evolve, what happens to the GOD making everyone theory? its gone out of the window, and no matter how many people I ask I can never seem to find any PHYSICAL PROOF that GOD exists.

All I get is people quoting the bible to me, which is no good to me at all as this would not hold up in court as physical proof,

So can any one here actually give me the physical proof I am looking for without quoting the bible?

Thank you please.
Well, while there is no "evidence" that proves God exists, there are certain things about the bible that have proven something about it... For instance, the Bible claims "The life of the flesh is in the blood" in the old testement, but it wasn't until the past few hundred years that people found that out! The Bible mentioned the existance of groups of people that archeologists claimed never existed and were part of a fictional bible story, but they were later discovered. One has to admit it IS a little uncanny that the Bible claims things that no one knows until several thousand years later, and its accuracy to certain things like that. There are also some pieces of evidence that point towards a worldwide flood, like that of noah, and almost every culture has a similiar story.

However, there is no conrete evidence of the existance of God. However, the beleif in a higher being claims to be a faith, not a fact. If we knew it concretely, then we wouldn't have faith.

Evolution takes faith to. There is no concrete evidence of evolution either. There may be a couple leads, but there are a lot of missing link and stuff, and nothing about it has been completely proven. However, unlike faith, evolution claims to be fact but has yet to back itself up.

I hope that helped out some, I didn't read the 20-something pages of replies so I may have coppied some people, sorry if I did. But I hope that helps you see another perspective on it.

[jrod]

Any good scientist will tell you evolution is a theory, a very sound theory. Obviously no one can go back in time to see how it all began, but there is overwhelming evidence that supports evolution. Just ask any biologist or geologist.

The Great Flood is one event that is in the Bible and there is evidence of. The theory goes when the ice age ended and the glaciers melted rapidly many places had a flood of biblical proportions. There is evidence in geology dating 10,000 to 50,000 years ago(im not an expert) as well as most tribes and have a great flood story.

The fact there is such a debate on evolution vs God proves.in my own mind, that most of us are still primative creatures.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

Eating a mushroom will not affect your descendents
Untrue, if you can communicate and teach you can learn. If you can learn from shrooms you can communicate that and teach. It wouldn't be genetic, it would just be cultural mind expansion.


Civilization started in 5,000 BC in the Harrapan civilization and 2500-3000 in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Now their finding early civilizations in South America, Japan and even northern Europe, that could've gone well past 10,000.
Look at your own link on pottery. Says 10,000-8,000 for the Jomon pottery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappan_civilization
thats for the Indus Valley, look at the bar on the right. 7,000 to 3,500 bc

so Id say it began around 5,000


Advanced knowledge of the solar system? Like what?

Sacred power of shapes? How do the pyramids demonstrate that? The pyramid is a strong, stable structure, fit for a king. The pharoahs (I assume we're talking about Egypt when we say The Pyramids) would want something really big and long-lasting, to show how cool they are. They show the sacred power of astronomy more than shapes, 'cause they are aligned to Orion's Belt.
The pyramids are aligned to orions belt. Akhenaten the pharoah revealed a religion about a god the Aten, which is manifest power of heat and light in the universe. Showing the Sun was the center of the galaxy, and the earth revolved around it. He showed the Phi symbol and the natural spiral it makes. They knew the galaxy was a spiral, they knew the Pyramid was one way to find this number geometrically http://goldennumber.net/geometry.htm. This is one way it was a sacred shape, being part of the template to find the golden mean of all life.

The pyramid shape also has a pyramid energy, that creates an invisible upside down opposite right above it. It works with the earths magnetic field to create a resonance inside that can perserve. This is why they thought they should put their mummies there as to perserve them longer until a time of genetic manipulation and they could be cloned. As their dna would stay in tact longer. Thats why you here of new age goons and hippies building pyramid shaped houses, and refridgerators. It has an effect but nothing dramatic. Yet still for this to be known in the bc era? Cmon now.


Some can even speak english.
Can't take this paragraph seriously dude.

the African Bushmen use clicks, not vocal syllabization.
So what, they never came out with any advanced culture so it would make sense they spoke in a strange fashion.

but they are nowhere near 4.25 light years away, and stuff can't travel at the speed of light (according to present data) anyways.
What if they could?


How do you know? The earliest granery was apparently in Jordan at 9000BC. It obviously wasn't suddenly. Once people can communicate and decide that working together is better than fighting, civilization will make huge strides

But then why would they all have similar creation myths and same pantheons of gods? Yet the super continent would've been way before 5,000 bc? Obviously they never interacted. What would give them the same beleifs in the same gods?


And if these gods keep demanding subservience, where are they? Don't they care anymore? Christianity calls people sheep. So what? I'll admit that technically, there's a possibility of pretty much anything, like god planting fake fossils to test us, or the world being born from a giant lizard or whatever the hell you want to believe. However, it is not likely, there is no objective evidence to support it, and you only believe in it because you want it to be true.
We owned them. They were scared of mankind. Thats why they tried to destroy us once with a flood. Could be underwater, could've went back to Niburu, could still be here. Pushing us into this hell away from each other. The allegory of the tower of babel. All mankind and religion breaking down and going against each other because of our lost common ground. Only when we rebuild the tower of babel will they return, and unite as one people, because that is what makes us dangerous to them obviously.

According to the Mayans they were going to return. Same with the Aztecs, thats why Cortez, was treated like a god.

Pythagorus was around 500BC, in the golden age of greece, if I remember right
Its a known fact all of Hellenistic greece was a result of greek philosophers going into the Egyptian schools to learn, against the will of Athens. It had to start somewhere they didn't just make it up. THe library of Alexandria was host to millions of texts that were copied and called their own by the Greeks.
There were right triangles before Pythagoras, if they were built someone obviously knew how to make them equivalent. Greece robbed Egypt. Its a fact.



That's 'cause the entire point of a party (it seems) is to show everyone how big of an idiot you can be. I've had a number of amazing intelligent, abstract, and philosophical conversations with those same people that pass out in their own vomit on occasion. If society is going ok, people have food to eat, and the basic essentials, inventions and new ideas will be welcomed. Among the scientists and like minds, if not the general populace.

haha true.



The mudskipper is all yours. Mudguppy Huh?
PWNT!

The early humans were not fit for the trees. They were outcompeted by more advanced humans on the ground, and they weren't agile enough or skeletally formed to fit the tree environment. It was a lose-lose situation for them.
Why? why didn't they all evolve into the advanced humans right away? Why couldn't they go back to being apes in a few years after they saw they wouldn't survive. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO COMMON ANCESTOR.

They couldn't. The trees would offer them even less advantage then the ground. Monkeys have ideal features for swinging through trees and not dieing. Early humans did not.
Wouldn't they do anything to survive then?
Why didn't nature allow them to revert back to their monkey roots. Plus I mean a few years again. 100 years at the most. They see their offspring aren't succeeding like the other early humans, why not just go to the trees. Because if there was a chimp and man common ancestor, he had the capabilities to do what a chimp would do.

They couldn't go back to them. They were different. If a tree-monkey society gives rise to a ground-semi-monkey group offshoot which gets outcompteted somewhere down the road (which would be more than 100 years) the nth generation of these guys can't be like - look at those monkeys and their proliferation, let's do what they do. They don't have any knowledge that they came from them, and neither do the tree-monkeys. If the newer guys tried to join the tree-monkeys, they would fall behind, 'cause they aren't as good in trees as on the ground, and probably would not be accepted into the group. Vanilla Coke cannot become Original Coke just because it isn't doing so well. It's still Vanilla.
Why not after 100 years then? Just call it quits and go back to the trees, before it totally develops the vanilla. Its just another big loophole in this theory. It makes sense, but its more unbeleivable then genetic engineering by aliens. How there aren't any survivors. That only have a little bit of vanilla in them.

Rad discussion but what Im proposing is just way more logical and beleivable. Especially in modern day man. If we can send people to the moon, discover light photons, dna, advanced mathematics, and genetic engineering is within our grasp if religious nuts would stop saying its unethical. What is going to happen in even the next 20 years of science? What if we find out light travel is possible? and genetic engineering is just as easy? Where are we left to go? We're basically there already.

[FreakerSoup]

Untrue, if you can communicate and teach you can learn. If you can learn from shrooms you can communicate that and teach. It wouldn't be genetic, it would just be cultural mind expansion. Here's what was stated: "I'll stick to my beleif that our common ancestor was an ape evolved to a point from the help of fire and mushrooms, and then was altered and turned into modern man."

Neither fire nor mushrooms make things evolve. And why would it make any sense for an ape to eat a mushroom, and for that mushroom to organize thoughts in that ape's head that will allow him to succeed? From what I know about people eating mushrooms, they don't organize anything.

Look at your own link on pottery. Says 10,000-8,000 for the Jomon pottery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappan_civilization
thats for the Indus Valley, look at the bar on the right. 7,000 to 3,500 bc

so Id say it began around 5,000 Well that's quite a shot in the dark. You're probably much closer than all those archaeologists who have spent their lives in the pursuit of knowledge about just such a thing as the dawn of civilization.

The pyramids are aligned to orions belt. Akhenaten the pharoah revealed a religion about a god the Aten, which is manifest power of heat and light in the universe. Showing the Sun was the center of the galaxy, and the earth revolved around it. He showed the Phi symbol and the natural spiral it makes. They knew the galaxy was a spiral, they knew the Pyramid was one way to find this number geometrically http://goldennumber.net/geometry.htm. This is one way it was a sacred shape, being part of the template to find the golden mean of all life. Problem 1 - Akhenaten didn't come around until around 1300BC, and the orion-aligned pyramids in Giza came about a thousand years prior to that.
Problem 2 - The pyramid was the one way to find the number geometrically? You can make a pyramid any way you want. Alter the height of the equation on your web page there a little bit, and it doesn't fit anymore. Turns out the pyramids don't fit, and never did. The side is 231m long. The height is 146.5m. Those are known numbers. That means that in the little diagram of the pyramid with phi, the "1" is 231, the Phi^1/2 is 146.5, and Phi is 1.618x231. Now you try and make phi^(1/2) (and remember, Phi is 1.618x231) equal 146.5, and get back to me.
Problem 2 - The sun isn't a source of heat and light in the galaxy, and isn't for most of the solar system in any significant way. Nor is it the center of the galaxy. And I don't have a source for any of those claims anyways.

The pyramid shape also has a pyramid energy, that creates an invisible upside down opposite right above it. It works with the earths magnetic field to create a resonance inside that can perserve. This is why they thought they should put their mummies there as to perserve them longer until a time of genetic manipulation and they could be cloned. As their dna would stay in tact longer. Thats why you here of new age goons and hippies building pyramid shaped houses, and refridgerators. It has an effect but nothing dramatic. Yet still for this to be known in the bc era? Cmon now. Yeah. Uh huh. Show me. The closest thing to a pyramid house I know of is an A-frame, which isn't a pyramid. Refridgerators? What? Prove you're not making this up.

Can't take this paragraph seriously dude. Do I really need to explain this? No, birds can't understand english. They can make the sounds. Parrots, crows, and ravens can all be trained to speak english words. No they won't have an intelligent conversation. Yes, they can make the sounds.

So what, they never came out with any advanced culture so it would make sense they spoke in a strange fashion. Are they uncivilized? Do they have villages, huts, religion? Do they use tools to hunt and make work easier? My point is vocalization is a human capability, not a characteristic. Are you going to deny that they are human?

What if they could? 1- it would take a huge amount of resources to achieve.
2 - Your entire belief is based on "what ifs."
But then why would they all have similar creation myths and same pantheons of gods? Yet the super continent would've been way before 5,000 bc? Obviously they never interacted. What would give them the same beleifs in the same gods? Please remind me of what gods they had in common. And creation myths. Or give a source.

We owned them. They were scared of mankind. Thats why they tried to destroy us once with a flood. Could be underwater, could've went back to Niburu, could still be here. Pushing us into this hell away from each other. The allegory of the tower of babel. All mankind and religion breaking down and going against each other because of our lost common ground. Only when we rebuild the tower of babel will they return, and unite as one people, because that is what makes us dangerous to them obviously. Why will they return when we are more dangerous to them? If they are underwater, how are they alive? Where is this Nibiru? And what makes you think any floods intended to destroy the human race occured and/or were caused by aliens? Give me some damn evidence!

According to the Mayans they were going to return. Same with the Aztecs, thats why Cortez, was treated like a god. So what? That indicates nothing, is evidence of nothing, and christians believe the same thing, but their "god" was human.

Its a known fact all of Hellenistic greece was a result of greek philosophers going into the Egyptian schools to learn, against the will of Athens. It had to start somewhere they didn't just make it up. Why didn't they make it up? People can't think new things now? Show me some evidence, stop just saying it's a known fact.

There were right triangles before Pythagoras, if they were built someone obviously knew how to make them equivalent.For a right triangle, you don't need an equation. All you need to make it is a right angle and three straight lines. Pythagoras obviously didn't invent right triangles, but he was the first to realize that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of one side plus the square of the other.

Why? why didn't they all evolve into the advanced humans right away? Why couldn't they go back to being apes in a few years after they saw they wouldn't survive. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO COMMON ANCESTOR. Evolution is not a decision one makes. It doesn't happen to a person. It happens between generations, to a species. They didn't all evolve 'cause evolution of a new species starts with only one or a few members, and the rest stay the same. They can't say "those guys are doing well, let's evolve too." If that were the case, I would be a frickin' 200-foot dragon that breathes fire with machine guns for hands and a jet engine growing out of my back.

But I'm not.

Wouldn't they do anything to survive then? Yes. But moving to the trees would not help them. They didn't do well in the trees. They did well on land, just not well enough to compete with the more advanced species.

Why didn't nature allow them to revert back to their monkey roots. Plus I mean a few years again. 100 years at the most. They see their offspring aren't succeeding like the other early humans, why not just go to the trees. Because if there was a chimp and man common ancestor, he had the capabilities to do what a chimp would do. Nature doesn't make decisions. In 100 years at the most, very little evolution will occur, and definitely not enough to create a ground species from a tree species and then a more advanced ground species.

No, he didn't have the capabilities to do what a chimp could do. Early humans LOST the ability to survive in the trees when the gained the ability to survive on the ground. That was the only place they could live, and they had to do their best with it.

Why not after 100 years then? Just call it quits and go back to the trees, before it totally develops the vanilla. Its just another big loophole in this theory. It makes sense, but its more unbeleivable then genetic engineering by aliens. How there aren't any survivors. That only have a little bit of vanilla in them. Like I said, can't go back to trees. Can't happen. They are not chimps, they can only live on the ground.

For the vanilla coke metaphor, consumers=evolutionary force, ok? NOBODY WANTS a little vanilla. The people that like original coke want no vanilla, and the one or two guys who want vanilla want as much frickin' vanilla as they can get. If it has even a little vanilla, it's too much for the original guys, but if it only has a little, the people that like vanilla with just stick with vanilla coke. Nobody wants Little-Bit-O'-Vanilla Coke.

Rad discussion but what Im proposing is just way more logical and beleivable.It's not a question of believable, it's a question of what is there evidence for? There's a buttload of evidence for evolution, such that about 99% of people who study science go with the evidence. There's zero evidence for your thing, and it's not believable anyways! Apes ate mushrooms and evolved into early humans, and aliens came down to fuck up their genes?! Now their hiding from us underwater or on Nibiru?

Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

Especially in modern day man. If we can send people to the moon, discover light photons, dna, advanced mathematics, and genetic engineering is within our grasp if religious nuts would stop saying its unethical. What is going to happen in even the next 20 years of science? What if we find out light travel is possible? and genetic engineering is just as easy? Where are we left to go? We're basically there already.
We have cars, right? Why not theorize that monkeys found a car. Maybe there was a cell phone inside. The cell phone made him smart, and he drove the car to what is now New York City, and there was a genetics lab magically put there, so he used his new brains to alter his genes and become human, and then burned the place and the car.

You know why nobody believes that? 'Cause not only is it ridiculous, there's no evidence for it.

Again, you believe what you do because that's what you want to be the case. Maybe you like psychadelic mushrooms, so you let them have a part in the success of humans. You want there to be more life in the universe than us, so there is. Christians aren't cool with gay sex, so whattaya know, gays go to hell. 'Cause an omniscient and loving god would care about the gender of who you sleep with. There is NO evidence for any of the stuff you believe in, just as there is no evidence for any other god or creation story. And I'm at the point where I can't really tell if you're screwing with me, or if you really believe all this crap.

However, I will again state the obvious: You don't understand evolution.

Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) Read the Mechanisms part.

[jrod]

There are many other species than humans who have the ability to communicate. Koko the gorilla and friends know over 1,000 signs and can communicate with us and certainly have thier own language with each other as all the other primates do. Dolphins and whales have complex languages too, they even name themsleves.

Anyone who dismisses evolution with stupid analogies and fuzzy logic are closed minded fools and are probaly imcapable of understanding genetics.

The best argument by creationists against evolution I've heard is it gives humans the right to behave like beasts. Ironically religion has forced people to behave like savages, wars over holy lands and who's God/prophet is better is as old as mankind and still continues to this day.

[r33f3r_m4dn3ss]

Here's what was stated: "I'll stick to my beleif that our common ancestor was an ape evolved to a point from the help of fire and mushrooms, and then was altered and turned into modern man."

Neither fire nor mushrooms make things evolve. And why would it make any sense for an ape to eat a mushroom, and for that mushroom to organize thoughts in that ape's head that will allow him to succeed? From what I know about people eating mushrooms, they don't organize anything.Well obviously you've never had a mushroom experience. Explain to me then why Mayans and other mushroom cultures flourished in Mexico and had advanced astronomical and cellestial calendars?

The argument we're all having is about evolution. We all have sources about what came after it. All we're saying is yes, evolution did happen, it happens naturally, but evolution is not the reasoning for the modern human mind. Yes, it did create the human like creatures prior to us, but then one day, something happened, which I beleive was a possible alien encounter, and we were permanently changed from there, this would be the basis for the Garden of Eden story.

Now, I do not question evolution, I beleive it happened naturally, just like weather patterns and the tides, the flowers blooming, and the rise and fall of the sun. I also beleive ape's brains developed with the help of psyloocibin mushrooms. But explaining how evolution, a natural occurance of breeding, primative nature, and clans of apes competing, cannot fully explain how we took such a gigantic leap by just altering cell structures in our dna by breeding and eating certain food. There was some link that altered us and made us evolve light years ahead of the pack. I also think if we had not been altered, we would have eventually evolved into what we are, with technology and advanced industry and agriculture, but over the course of many thousands of more years.

As for pyramids in Japan - http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html

Also, the pyramid energy thing is widely discussed topic and I had heard about it reading on the net, and then I also saw an experimented tested on Mythbusters about it. They tested meat in open structures of shapes, and then closed structures. The open pyramid structure didn't do anything, but the closed pyramid structure did. Hmm...

Also, I was watching history channel about the pottery in South America, that was my source. Supposedly going back 50,000 - 100, 000 years. Pottery depicting men performing surgery, advanced machines, etc. Atlantis? Quite possibly.

As far as the ridiculous beliefs, brush up on your Sumerian history too. It will explain a lot, seeing as how they were the first people to record their history, as well as having their Gods be related to the rest of the pantheon. Read some of Zacharia Sitchin's work. You have to keep in mind all the history you learn in school, only scratches the surface. And all these crazy theories, aren't just made up. They are all connected like tiny fibers in a giant puzzle slowly being put together by fellow esoteric's on the internet. You should be thankful for people like us who question traditional beliefs that have been institutionalized. And no, none of this is made up. All of our words can be cited so some specific site of literature, it's just a pain in the ass to do it. We're not assholes or scam artists, merely providing an alternative solution.

Shit, people used to beleive the Earth was flat and killed people over it. Now we kill people over religion. Don't you think it's worth trying to figure out even if it sounds silly at the time?

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

Well that's quite a shot in the dark.
Not really it says so right there dude.


Problem 1 - Akhenaten didn't come around until around 1300BC, and the orion-aligned pyramids in Giza came about a thousand years prior to that.
I didn't say that. I said this knowledge was known to the elite and the royal in ancient times. They were initiated through schools of knowledge. I didn't say HE BUILT THEM.

The sun isn't a source of heat and light in the galaxy, and isn't for most of the solar system in any significant way. Nor is it the center of the galaxy. And I don't have a source for any of those claims anyways.
Solar System our planets, that revolve around the sun. The fact that this sun gives earth its orbit and position to have life in the first place. The ATen was not the physical sun, the sun iteself is only a representative, of the higher powers. Whatever is at the center of the galaxy and the universe. This is the aten, its the powers of heat and light. Don't say heat and light don't impact life, or your about to sound like a real dumbass.

But it was my B cuz I confused solar system with galaxy. What do you mean heat and light aren't the main causes of life? Are you rewriting science books now?


The pyramid was the one way to find the number geometrically? You can make a pyramid any way you want. Alter the height of the equation on your web page there a little bit, and it doesn't fit anymore. Turns out the pyramids don't fit, and never did. The side is 231m long. The height is 146.5m. Those are known numbers. That means that in the little diagram of the pyramid with phi, the "1" is 231, the Phi^1/2 is 146.5, and Phi is 1.618x231. Now you try and make phi^(1/2) (and remember, Phi is 1.618x231) equal 146.5, and get back to me.

It doesn't matter if it connects and forms a pyramid shape, it automatically applies this ratio. That wasn't the point, that the site says it equals the Great Pyramid! Its the fact that using a pyramid structure you can find the phi ratio, proving it a worthy esoteric symbol of sacred geometry.


Refridgerators?
Dude do you watch tv? Not everything has a link on the god damn internet.

Im speaking from general knowledge on this one.


Are you going to deny that they are human?
No but they are third world. Obviously them living in Africa in a hot climate has caused them no need to evolve anymore right. So what does that proove? Of course they're human.


Your entire belief is based on "what ifs."
Not at all. That only applies to that specific question.
What if a geological climate shift was the catalyst for our rapid evolution!

Evolution is all what Ifs too. Is there proof one happened? Some, ohh! This justifies it, and not the other thousand possibilities we could think of! This also justifies Evolution as being the major scientific breakthrough that allowed the wide appeal of Communism to the PEOPLE! Remember that? How quickly people jumped on the atheist communist bandwagon when this came out?

You sure all this isn't just propoganda dragged on way to far?


Please remind me of what gods they had in common. And creation myths. Or give a source.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward186.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/names_gods.html

HISTORY SAYS, WESTERN CIV MIGRATED FROM THE FERTILE CRESCENT.
The annunaki were the oldest, the Sumerian.
Evolution says man migrated from East and North Africa to the middle east Then ON.
Matches up so far?
All Pagan systems, recognize different versions of these gods made with their own Ethnocentricity during their migrations, and early settlements.
The dominant classes, changed them around as all of polytheistic pagan societies evolved. According to history books. If you want me to go outside mainstream history I will.

About the Creation myth, here is the Sumerian annunaki version.
The gods were dredging the rivers,
were piling up their silt
on projecting bends--
and the gods lugging the clay
began complaining (Jacobsen, Harps 154)

Indicating the need for slave labor. Right? Just like I said.

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm

Goes on to describe how human embyros were physically made, by physical gods with physical genetic engineering.
Obviously connected to Genesis of the bible.
The article tells about the deluge from their perspective
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
this gives you an overview.
Almost every culture shares these in common? Is that a synchronicity or what?
It has nothing like this a quote from the greek creation story

Gaea loved her children, however, and hated Uranus' tyranny. She supplied her youngest child, Chronos, with a sickle, and told him to kill his father with it. He cut off Uranus' genitals, and these fell into the sea and from them were created Aphrodite, the goddess of love, and the Fates, the Giants, and the Meliai nymphs. Chronos succeeded Uranus on the throne and married his sister Rhea. He freed the Titans and shared his kingdom among them, but imprisoned the Cyclopes and the Hecatoncheires in Tartarus, a fiery pit much like Hell.

Zeus was raised on the island of Crete and grew into a handsome youth. Eventually he slipped Chronos a drink to vomit up his other five siblings, and they and Prometheus, one of the Titans, fought and defeated Chronos and the Titans for power. Zeus ruled the earth and married his sister Hera; the gods together created humans to entertain and amuse them as they watched from their home on Mount Olympus. YEt you still see where they have maintainted the truth. Talking about the 5 ages of man in relation to their own creation. These align very well with the ante-deluvian Sumerian account of what exactly went on in this amazing genetic testing zone. Obviously the origin of most Greek myth.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grecoromanmyth1/a/hesiodagesofman.htm


THe annunaki were here on earth, using genetics. Not vomiting up their children. You see with the migrations of man these original stories were corrupted, and changed to agree with the times and predominant elite. Not even in a bad way were they corrupted I just mean made more unrealistic to appeal to those who cared little for the type of things.

So do you understand this major aspect of my arguement? If you want to go against people migrating from the fertile crescent be my guest, but don't claim you beleive in evolution then. Go against History as well by saying Sumeria is not the oldest documented civilization in western culture.



Why will they return when we are more dangerous to them? If they are underwater, how are they alive? Where is this Nibiru? And what makes you think any floods intended to destroy the human race occured and/or were caused by aliens? Give me some damn evidence!
Niburu is what scientists refer to as planet X nowadays.

If they are underwater, man haven't you ever seen the Abyss?

Its just the fact that the sumerian description as well as most polythestic cultures beleived that thest Gods were physical beings, doing physical things. In a real place visible to the human eye.

Alien in the sense of an ET! WAS UNHEARD OF UNTIL MODERN TIMES.

You think an extra terrestrial alien would be even thought of in the translation of Greek texts of ancient times to English?

It would always be transferred as God.

According to the next disaster it is a trial by fire. Not water.
Thats why according to the Egyptians Thoth hid 2 tablets one to withstand a flood and and one to withstand fire.


According to the Mayans they were going to return. Same with the Aztecs, thats why Cortez, was treated like a god. So what? That indicates nothing, is evidence of nothing, and christians believe the same thing, but their "god" was human.

Christians beleive Jesus Christ is going to return.

Not a race of gods. Jesus Christ was human not God. To the catholics he made up the trinity.

A race of Gods were going to return headed by Queztlcoatl, a messenger god.

They said they would come sailing in on clouds. A fitting description for the Spanish ships. Did you skip this page in the middle school history book?
You know alot about what they have to say of Khufis pyramid and 2000 bc though.



Its a known fact all of Hellenistic greece was a result of greek philosophers going into the Egyptian schools to learn, against the will of Athens. It had to start somewhere they didn't just make it up.

Research Alexander the Great, and when he conquered Egypt. The library of Alexandria as HE named it was open to the Greeks for the first time on a national level. Greeks went and learned there. This was the origin of the Hellenstic Greek period. Its very simple. Borders were weakend under Alexander. Less warfare, its too much to type it all out.


For a right triangle, you don't need an equation. All you need to make it is a right angle and three straight lines. Pythagoras obviously didn't invent right triangles, but he was the first to realize that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the square of one side plus the square of the other.
Yea so, they were obviously around then before him. All he did was point out the obvious.


Yes. But moving to the trees would not help them. They didn't do well in the trees. They did well on land, just not well enough to compete with the more advanced species.
Still goes nowhere for you proving a missing link.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

No, he didn't have the capabilities to do what a chimp could do. Early humans LOST the ability to survive in the trees when the gained the ability to survive on the ground. That was the only place they could live, and they had to do their best with it
Bullshit. Plain and simple, your saying evolution is slow, then your saying its fast. Theres no proof of this right here and your just dragging it out. THey had the capabilities. Im talking that guy that could swing in the trees and walk, would still be around, or fossilized at least. Theres no way it could just go in 2 directions.



For the vanilla coke metaphor, consumers=evolutionary force, ok? NOBODY WANTS a little vanilla. The people that like original coke want no vanilla, and the one or two guys who want vanilla want as much frickin' vanilla as they can get. If it has even a little vanilla, it's too much for the original guys, but if it only has a little, the people that like vanilla with just stick with vanilla coke. Nobody wants Little-Bit-O'-Vanilla Coke.
Who are you to speak for evolutionary force. The LIttle bit o Vanilla wanted to STAY AROUND. I THOUGHT THATS WHAT MATTERED? The desire to survive. LIttle bit of cola doesnt give a shit with the evolutionary force things. What force are you speaking of anyway? I thought things were totally random and not connected? This force is not the same force Im talking about is it? WHen I was speaking of Akhenaten and the Aten and its relationship to the universe.


It's not a question of believable, it's a question of what is there evidence for? There's a buttload of evidence for evolution, such that about 99% of people who study science go with the evidence. There's zero evidence for your thing, and it's not believable anyways! Apes ate mushrooms and evolved into early humans, and aliens came down to fuck up their genes?! Now their hiding from us underwater or on Nibiru?

Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
Not at all. Mushrooms make you produce. Look at classic rock. Mushrooms give you empathy, and illumination. The Annunaki records, history, and evolution of man from the fertile crescent all proove me right.


We have cars, right? Why not theorize that monkeys found a car. Maybe there was a cell phone inside. The cell phone made him smart, and he drove the car to what is now New York City, and there was a genetics lab magically put there, so he used his new brains to alter his genes and become human, and then burned the place and the car.

You know why nobody believes that? 'Cause not only is it ridiculous, there's no evidence for it.
Thats stupid bullshit again.


Again, you believe what you do because that's what you want to be the case. Maybe you like psychadelic mushrooms, so you let them have a part in the success of humans. You want there to be more life in the universe than us, so there is. Christians aren't cool with gay sex, so whattaya know, gays go to hell. 'Cause an omniscient and loving god would care about the gender of who you sleep with. There is NO evidence for any of the stuff you believe in, just as there is no evidence for any other god or creation story. And I'm at the point where I can't really tell if you're screwing with me, or if you really believe all this crap.
I just gave you plenty of evidence. I can tell you whats wrong with the Christian god right now.

Took Enlil one of the annunaki, masked him in the Aten. Organized all rituals of Enlil into a new fasion under new names, and call it Judaism! A god that is omnipresent and the cause of human life, and all life on earth, into a slave driving god that gives demands and speaks of an after-life of paradise or misery. Corrupted by the Jews, Christians and Muslims.
Its true Judaism was a henotheism meaning they beleive in many gods (annunaki) yet thoguht one was only worth worshipping (Enlil). The lord of war, the vengeful god declaring submission, and restriction on sex, drugs, free thinking, philosophy. Only emphasizes following orders and punishment.

Then added from Enki, the all loving aspect. They made an abomination. A mash of characteristics of these annunaki maskes in the all god.

[r33f3r_m4dn3ss]

Here's what was stated: "I'll stick to my beleif that our common ancestor was an ape evolved to a point from the help of fire and mushrooms, and then was altered and turned into modern man."



Neither fire nor mushrooms make things evolve. And why would it make any sense for an ape to eat a mushroom, and for that mushroom to organize thoughts in that ape's head that will allow him to succeed? From what I know about people eating mushrooms, they don't organize anything.Well obviously you've never had a mushroom experience. Explain to me then why Mayans and other mushroom cultures flourished in Mexico and had advanced astronomical and cellestial calendars?



The argument we're all having is about evolution. We all have sources about what came after it. All we're saying is yes, evolution did happen, it happens naturally, but evolution is not the reasoning for the modern human mind. Yes, it did create the human like creatures prior to us, but then one day, something happened, which I beleive was a possible alien encounter, and we were permanently changed from there, this would be the basis for the Garden of Eden story.



Now, I do not question evolution, I beleive it happened naturally, just like weather patterns and the tides, the flowers blooming, and the rise and fall of the sun. I also beleive ape's brains developed with the help of psyloocibin mushrooms. But explaining how evolution, a natural occurance of breeding, primative nature, and clans of apes competing, cannot fully explain how we took such a gigantic leap by just altering cell structures in our dna by breeding and eating certain food. There was some link that altered us and made us evolve light years ahead of the pack. I also think if we had not been altered, we would have eventually evolved into what we are, with technology and advanced industry and agriculture, but over the course of many thousands of more years.



As for pyramids in Japan - http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html



Also, the pyramid energy thing is widely discussed topic and I had heard about it reading on the net, and then I also saw an experimented tested on Mythbusters about it. They tested meat in open structures of shapes, and then closed structures. The open pyramid structure didn't do anything, but the closed pyramid structure did. Hmm...



Also, I was watching history channel about the pottery in South America, that was my source. Supposedly going back 50,000 - 100, 000 years. Pottery depicting men performing surgery, advanced machines, etc. Atlantis? Quite possibly.



As far as the ridiculous beliefs, brush up on your Sumerian history too. It will explain a lot, seeing as how they were the first people to record their history, as well as having their Gods be related to the rest of the pantheon. Read some of Zacharia Sitchin's work. You have to keep in mind all the history you learn in school, only scratches the surface. And all these crazy theories, aren't just made up. They are all connected like tiny fibers in a giant puzzle slowly being put together by fellow esoteric's on the internet. You should be thankful for people like us who question traditional beliefs that have been institutionalized. And no, none of this is made up. All of our words can be cited so some specific site of literature, it's just a pain in the ass to do it. We're not assholes or scam artists, merely providing an alternative solution.

Shit, people used to beleive the Earth was flat and killed people over it. Now we kill people over religion. Don't you think it's worth trying to figure out even if it sounds silly at the time?

[FreakerSoup]

R33F3R - I can go for some of that. I don't think that the beliefs of those people in the mesopatamian peninsula are evidence of anything more than beliefs. I think the similarites between many different ones are indeed evidence of a similar origin of humanity (but not aliens), and also of similar brain chemistry.

Nimrod - You don't get evolution, and arguing it with a flawed knowledge of it does nothing to support your case. You're looking at evolution as too conscious of a thing. It is only chemical and biological. And logical, too, I suppose. It's only logical that a more fit individual will have a better chance of surviving and reproducing than a less fit individual. But the basic mechanism is mutation, which is chemistry. Maybe a little physics. Biology results from the chemical changes in ways I don't think you understand.

A number of your argument regarding your own theories are flawed. A pyramid will only give you phi if you have the correct width to height ratio, which you would need phi to get anyways. I am not going to further research your beliefs for a couple of reasons:
1. I'm just not interested, and I don't at this moment believe there's a shred of actual evidence for it.
2. If I were to research it and discover that my mind had changed and I now believed that, nothing else in my life would change. It would be like if someone were to convince me that jesus's middle name was mortimer. It's kinda funny, but so what?
3. I'm just really tired of this conversation, where I can make my points over and over, and even though they are scientifically proven (demonstrated), you fail to either understand or concede them. That makes for a very boring and repetetive debate.

In conclusion, I suggest you learn how evolution works. If you can't find an explanatory page on the internet, find a biology major to talk to in person, 'cause it's much easier that way.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

Give me one instance of something I said that would show I don't have knowledge of Evolution.

You can't just say that without giving an example. Its not like your the one trying to present an abstract theory that obviously cannot get through to someone whos knowlege of culture, mythology, and history only goes past a 10th grade history book.

I was just presenting questions. Maybe if we were talking about shit on a cellular level and evolution of microscopic organim pieces.

What exactly did I say proving that I don't know evolution.
All you said was the last known link between man and chimp, had such a large gap between them that they were not capable of reverting back to the older ways of this "common ancestor".

Obviously this common ancestor had talents to do both of these things. You cannot explain this statement your making about missing links correctly.

You still cannot understand the fact, that according to history of western civ, civilization began in the fertile crescent, and migrated to the rest of the western world.

You cannot understand the fact that this matches up with what evolution has to say, about early man transforming from a "common ancestor" of apes. The closest relative being the chimp, which had the least distance between homo erectus and the common ancestor. They began in Africa. Migrated to the fertile crescent.

Now tell me what illogical mindframe are you thinking in. That would not connect the oldest known religion and mythology, with the Sumerians, who were the first of the big cultural peoples in this region.

Dating back to this being the closest time that humanity was last one. Before the great Ism Schism.

What makes you so stuck up, that you can't even recognize this fact. Then incorporate their great religion and mythology into a world view.

Said there were ALIEN LIFE FORMS, IN THIS PHYSICAL REALM. NOT ZEUS ON MT OLYMPUS THROWING LIGHTNING BOLTS, AND VOMITTING UP HIS CHILDREN.

Not Odin hanging himself on a tree for 9 days and nights to learn the knowledge of the runes.

Not a fuckin she wolf raising little Romulus.

It was an ET genetic lab. Where embryos were created, the old humans were "mutated genetically" then became known as sapiens sapiens.
It wasn't spoken in heavy metaphors, it was simple and understandable. It never claimed there were any extra metaphysical interpretations of the text or anything. What was there, was there, because it was real.

This mythology then comes about in a time thats unexplained? A sudden jump, that you claim didn't exist even though every single Anthropology professor would tell you otherwise. Occured rapidly with no explaination. There are only theories, just like there are only theories why Neanderthal man dissappeared, and homo erectus was over run by sapiens sapiens.

How can you say this is all coincidence?

All the sudden man just gets super smart, then decides to build cities and monuments and temples to the alien gods that enlightened them.

That they say came down from heaven to earth on flying objects.

Obviously the place where humanity was most concentrated before they began migrating north, and in all directions, would be where the original beleifs stayed the most in tact.

You wanna know the funny thing about the Annunaki though. That I was only gonna say, if you had some kind of respectful intelligent response to this theory, was that they looked HUMAN. THEY LOOKED LIKE HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS. Thus explaining why the Elohim of Genesis fashioned man in Their appearance. Remember Elohim the Hebrew word used in Genesis when speaking of man's creation, is a plural word. Not the singular God that created the universe in the previous chapters.

This is the ultimate truth of it all however. Most descriptions of the annunaki have been etched out of the stone tablets. Just like a few lines in the Epic of Gilgamesh, ending on he was 1/3 man and 2/3s god. Then its crossed out after that, showing that obviously someone did not want to us to know what he looked like. The most logical reason, would be ethnocentricity, of when the white man translated all these texts and became the dominant race of western culture. I however, beleive this was done to show this true relation to the god men that morphed us.

What if the space men were ourselves from the future. Gone back in time, and splicing our own DNA, and creating ourselves?

[FreakerSoup]

Give me one instance of something I said that would show I don't have knowledge of Evolution.THey had the capabilities. Im talking that guy that could swing in the trees and walk, would still be around, or fossilized at least. Theres no way it could just go in 2 directions.

The LIttle bit o Vanilla wanted to STAY AROUND. I THOUGHT THATS WHAT MATTERED? The desire to survive.

why didn't they all evolve into the advanced humans right away? Why couldn't they go back to being apes in a few years after they saw they wouldn't survive.

Wouldn't they do anything to survive then?
Why didn't nature allow them to revert back to their monkey roots. Plus I mean a few years again. 100 years at the most. They see their offspring aren't succeeding like the other early humans, why not just go to the trees. Because if there was a chimp and man common ancestor, he had the capabilities to do what a chimp would do.

Why not, If they had the same ancestor a few generations back why not just call it quits and go back to them. Im not talking like a thousand years year. I mean like 100. I didn't think chimps would be so elitist.

Ok. Fine, but still if everything is so fight or flight SURVIVAL!!!!! minded why would they try and keep up with those out of their league. Instead of going back into the trees?
-------------------------------------

Is that enough? Prettymuch everything you've said or asked concerning evolution has been flawed. I'm gonna give you a quick run-down of evolution right now.

The basis of life, species, and evolution is DNA. There are 4 Nitrogenous bases that connect together in a really friggin' long chain to make a DNA molecule, and the pattern of those bases control what the organism will be like. They are organized into groups of 3, called codons, copied, and sent out of the nucleus of the cell to be decoded. Each codon codes for one amino acid, which is the basic unit of a protein. Nitrogenous Base:DNA = Amino Acid:Protein. That is the basis for all cell activity, and hence all activity of multicellular organism, i.e. us.

Mutations change the order of nitrogenous bases and can either change small number of amino acids by switching one nitrogenous base with another, or can mess up large segments of the protein, and render it nonfunctional, by inserting or deleting base pairs from the sequence, and hence shifting the entire frame of reference for the codons. A codon sequence of AGT/AGT/AGT/AGT etc. can become ATA/GTA/GTA/GTA just by deleting that one G. The only codon that might still code for the same amino acid there is the first one.

UV light causes mutations by inserting a TT into a random spot. X-rays mutate, gamma rays, microwaves, a whole ton of stuff mutates your cells, and if you try to avoid it all, you're gonna have to live in a cement room with the lights off and not eat or drink or breathe. So, everyone's cells mutate.

Since a large portion of the DNA is not used for protein coding (or anything else, as far as we know), called introns, most mutations have no effect at all. Again, as far as we know. The cell also has correcting enzyme complexes for DNA, so most mutations that occur anywhere are corrected. Only something like .00001 mutations stay, which is good, 'cause mutations happen all the time. Of the mutations that stay, most are in the introns, 'cause they account for somewhere between 75 and 95 percent of DNA. Of the mutations that have an effect, most are bad. It can cause cancer, mess up a certain protein, and any number of things that go wrong with the cell. It's usually ok, 'cause the cell will get weak and either lyse itself (committing suicide), or be unable to live anymore, in which case, it is replaced by a neighboring cell. Sometimes it causes cancer. And once, once in a while, a mutation is beneficial.

That's not to say that the organism that has the mutation changes. An early human cannot get a mutation and change into an advanced human. It CANNOT happen.

In order for evolution to occur, the organism has to have a couple things happen.
1. A Beneficial mutation(mutation that isn't corrected, in a protein-coding length of DNA)...In a reproductive cell. That means a sperm or ovum.
2. That particular sperm must reach the egg and fertilize it, out of the millions-billions of others, or that ovum must be the one in some 60,000 or something that is fertilized.
3. The fertilized egg, also called a zygote, must go through a stable pregnancy and be born, and survive to adulthood, and reproduce, hopefully a lot.

So the chances are really small. You can see why it would take a long time for evolution, especially if the population is small. I think Africa and the equatorial area in general is where a lot of evolution occurs because there's more sunlight and energy being added to mutate stuff.

So the individual with the good mutation survives, and let's say it's a deer with antlers, and in this scenario, none of the other deer have antlers. So this deer is born, and as it grows, it gets antlers. This means that if it's attacked by a wolf, it will be much better at defending itself than the others. It also means that if it wants to challenge another male (he's male, by the way) for a mate, he'll do better in a fight. This deer can do prettymuch whatever it wants. It'll eat a lot, even if food is limited, 'cause he'll eat more than his fair share, and he'll mate with a disproportionate number of females, and have a disproportionate number of offspring. And each of these offspring will have that gene for antlers. Let's call the original deer with antlers Deer1. His kids are Deer2, and the next generation is Deer3 and so on. Some of Deer2 will have antlers. Depending on whether the allele is dominant or recessive, all of them may, or none. The gene is probably dominant, so all of them do. The males anyway. Deer2 will again increase the proportion of antlered deer to unantlered deer, by mating with more females than the unantlered males, and females with the gene will pass on the gene, even if they mate with a male that doesn't have it. Eventually, all deer will be antlered, and if any weird combination of genes in the future makes an unantlered deer, it'll be at a severe disadvantage.

So let's say the deer population is 1000 before Deer1. And it'll stay constant, because the environment they're in cannot support more deer in terms of food, water, and space. When Deer1 comes about, the proportion of antlered deer to the total is 1:1000. Since he mates to a buncha females, the proportion in Deer2 is 15:1000. Since they mate with a buncha females, Deer3 is 200:1000, Deer4 is 350:1000, and so on somewhere down the road, maybe Deer15, it's at 999:1000, and that one deer without the gene is screwed.

That's basically evolution. The deer didn't choose to change. The deer without antlers can't try to be like the deer with antlers. The best it can do is mate with one of the ones with the gene and hope for the best for its offspring. It's not a gradual progression, from no antlers to small ones, to medium ones, to medium-large, to the full rack. It's antlers or none.

On the topic of early man or pre-man species, they're either fit for the trees or the ground, not both. They can do alright in both, but can only succeed in one. Any particular body type will be better fit for one or the other, but won't be able to compete in both. They couldn't run to the trees because they were losing on the ground, because their bodies were made for the ground. There was no half tree/half ground species. It was one gene that switched it completely, and I'm not gonna even try to guess at what that gene was.

Obviously this common ancestor had talents to do both of these things.
Do you understand why this is wrong now?

You still cannot understand the fact, that according to history of western civ, civilization began in the fertile crescent, and migrated to the rest of the western world. I understand that written history began there. However, I do not follow the logic saying that if people were there, there were none elsewhere. I am also unwilling to call it the beginning of civilization or the human race, because I'm fairly sure it's neither.

You cannot understand the fact that this matches up with what evolution has to say, about early man transforming from a "common ancestor" of apes. The closest relative being the chimp, which had the least distance between homo erectus and the common ancestor. They began in Africa. Migrated to the fertile crescent. I can go for that, and I don't think I said otherwise. However, before they were in the fertile crescent, they must have hunted and gathered for a while, and learned at least the basics of agriculture, so when they were in a fertile place, either by chance, or 'cause they knew it was fertile, they could grow a ton of stuff, not have to worry about food, and work on other things.

Now tell me what illogical mindframe are you thinking in. That would not connect the oldest known religion and mythology, with the Sumerians, who were the first of the big cultural peoples in this region. I don't know what you're saying. Either that the sumerians have the oldest known (known) religion, or that the oldest religion must have belonged to them 'cause they were the oldest. If it's the second one, that's a big assumption. I do think, however, that once they've got time to spend not hunting or working or sleeping or collecting roots and berries, they're gonna use they're advanced minds to ask the same questions everybody does. Why are we here? What's the meaning of life? Of course, someone said they saw something amazing, which actually turned out to be a falling star or a lunar eclipse, or any number of natural phenomena that are rare enough to be considered a god or whatnot by a primative human. They spread that around, and there's a religion. You gotta placate the gods so they don't rain fire on your big head or turn out the moon.

Dating back to this being the closest time that humanity was last one. Before the great Ism Schism. How do you know humanity was one? That's not only a huge assumption, it's illogical.

Said there were ALIEN LIFE FORMS, IN THIS PHYSICAL REALM. NOT ZEUS ON MT OLYMPUS THROWING LIGHTNING BOLTS, AND VOMITTING UP HIS CHILDREN.

Not Odin hanging himself on a tree for 9 days and nights to learn the knowledge of the runes.

Not a fuckin she wolf raising little Romulus. All religions state their position as fact. This one isn't special.

It was an ET genetic lab. Where embryos were created, the old humans were "mutated genetically" then became known as sapiens sapiens.
It wasn't spoken in heavy metaphors, it was simple and understandable. It never claimed there were any extra metaphysical interpretations of the text or anything. What was there, was there, because it was real. You have no evidence of this, and I would like to see whatever text you're getting that from.

This mythology then comes about in a time thats unexplained? A sudden jump, that you claim didn't exist even though every single Anthropology professor would tell you otherwise. Occured rapidly with no explaination. There are only theories, just like there are only theories why Neanderthal man dissappeared, and homo erectus was over run by sapiens sapiens. Yeah. We can't see into the past, so we don't know what happened. What jump are you referring to?

How can you say this is all coincidence? It's not much of a coincidence to begin with.

All the sudden man just gets super smart, then decides to build cities and monuments and temples to the alien gods that enlightened them. No. Man gradually evolved so that they had, as a species, a certain intellect and were proficient at problem-solving. All they needed to do to accomplish everything else was band together, which the most primative of animals do.

That they say came down from heaven to earth on flying objects. Why is that anything but a primative interpretation of natural celestial occurances?

Obviously the place where humanity was most concentrated before they began migrating north, and in all directions, would be where the original beleifs stayed the most in tact. They would not ALL be in one place and then say Ok, now that we have alien genes, you guys go this way, you guys go that way, and we'll stay here. That was just a large center of humanity at the time, not the only village or city on the globe.

You wanna know the funny thing about the Annunaki though. That I was only gonna say, if you had some kind of respectful intelligent response to this theory, was that they looked HUMAN. THEY LOOKED LIKE HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS. Thus explaining why the Elohim of Genesis fashioned man in Their appearance. Remember Elohim the Hebrew word used in Genesis when speaking of man's creation, is a plural word. Not the singular God that created the universe in the previous chapters. Because every piece of religious literature can be taken completely at face value. I'll bet only a small segment of sumerians actually subscribed to this.

This is the ultimate truth of it all however. Most descriptions of the annunaki have been etched out of the stone tablets. Just like a few lines in the Epic of Gilgamesh, ending on he was 1/3 man and 2/3s god. Then its crossed out after that, showing that obviously someone did not want to us to know what he looked like. The most logical reason, would be ethnocentricity, of when the white man translated all these texts and became the dominant race of western culture. I however, beleive this was done to show this true relation to the god men that morphed us. Who knows what that means? Maybe it said "Nevermind!" Maybe it was just tad damaged after however long it was just sitting there.

What if the space men were ourselves from the future. Gone back in time, and splicing our own DNA, and creating ourselves?Like wow, man, that totally blew my mind. There's another what if. What if the space men were highly evolved frogs that made a model of what monkeys would look like if they were highly evolved, make human costumes, and went back in time to evolve monkeys so that they'd have another species to play checkers with? Isn't that a possibility too?

[FreakerSoup]

By the way, is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_episodes:_Season_2#Pyramid_Power) that episode you were talking about?

[jrod]

So mythology is a valid argument against evolution?

One of the biggest proofs of how closely related to primates is the fact that a human and a gorilla, bonope, orangutan,or chimp can reproduce. Experiments like this were done durring the holocast and rumoroed the communist also did things of this nature. The average person is not suppose to know this.

Ever heard of Oliver the humanzee? He was either a mutant chimp or a hybrid human/chimp. He walks upright and is more intelligent than other chimps in captivity. Either way it proves our link primates, and if he is a mutant that just shows how some mutations led to a more evolved species. Officially the genetic tests 'proved' he has 100% chimp, but any other result would have resulted in social uproar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_the_chimp

[themnax]

call this adamance on my part if you want to, but i still fail/refuse to see this as an either or question.

=^^=
.../\...

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

So mythology is a valid argument against evolution?

One of the biggest proofs of how closely related to primates is the fact that a human and a gorilla, bonope, orangutan,or chimp can reproduce. Experiments like this were done durring the holocast and rumoroed the communist also did things of this nature. The average person is not suppose to know this.
I support testing like this. To have actual physical living proof.


Do you understand why this is wrong now?
Yea, I don't beleive it anymore than you beleive my theory though.
Your still using a large time period, im saying why within the first few genetic code changes, why isn't there some sort of living or fossil remains, seeing that there existed still thousands of yeras during this evolution from the common ancestor.


However, I do not follow the logic saying that if people were there, there were none elsewhere. I am also unwilling to call it the beginning of civilization or the human race, because I'm fairly sure it's neither
There were people elsewhere, they migrated from Africa and the fertile crescent. The first civilization however was in Sumeria. The first CITY was in Sumeria, this is proven and agreed upon.
As for the origin of man, its different in every source I read. Some say they migrated after they completely evolved, some say they evolved as they were migrating.
Neanderthal was in Europe and Asia, not Sapiens.

How is it illogical? You are going against your theories of climate being the major factor for evolution. You are saying climate is what gave man his free time, as well as the geology resulting from this climate. Neanderthal did not evolve, because he was in harsh cold climates, still hunting beasts.

You cannot claim geology, is what caused man to create irrigation ditches that were miles long, then say well if there were humans here I don't get how there weren't any in other places.

The first city was Babylon in modern day Iraq. No question about it.

Beginning of the human race, maybe. But your going against everything you said previously, like I just stated. Plus wouldn't a close confined area be the only way to prevent this dominant allele from eventually being outbred? If they kept migrating instead of inbreeding? In order for that to work, they would've had to stay in this temperate area. Untill the complete evolution were finished. You even said it in this next quote.


before they were in the fertile crescent, they must have hunted and gathered for a while, and learned at least the basics of agriculture, so when they were in a fertile place, either by chance, or 'cause they knew it was fertile, they could grow a ton of stuff, not have to worry about food, and work on other things.
Migrated from where? Neanderthal was in the north. Homo Sapiens Sapiens came smack dab in Africa and mid-east, they developed around this temperate climate lifestyle. So they begin in a perfect place, then leave to go hunt, then come back? Ok but the bulk definitely stayed put. Thus proving my point, that Sumeria was the closest thing to humanity as a whole.
Youve got to agree with this man you just said it.



Either that the sumerians have the oldest known (known) religion, or that the oldest religion must have belonged to them 'cause they were the oldest.
That doesn't make sense. What defintion of oldest are you using?

They were the oldest civilization, with a leap in advancement over all humanity that now at this time 5000-3500 bc. I understand there could be massive migrations at this point in time, since its been at least 10,000 years since homo sapiens developed clearly from all links between them and apes.
As in no protoman left, all old genes bred out or murdered.

They were the first civ, with a religion that could be written down. Therefore they win the race, according to anyones rules. Theres no way around it. They wrote it down first, therefore it is the oldest. What assumption could be made? Obviously their religion was oral for thousands of years, before cuneiform came around. This is why the migrants north east and south west. All have sky gods, and thunder, and rain, and water, and earth gods.
Yet they did not write it down. Its very clear the Sumerian religion is the oldest religion. Before written religion, and written law there was only tradition. Not organized religion setup for the masses.


they're gonna use they're advanced minds to ask the same questions everybody does. Why are we here? What's the meaning of life? Of course, someone said they saw something amazing, which actually turned out to be a falling star or a lunar eclipse, or any number of natural phenomena that are rare enough to be considered a god or whatnot by a primative human. They spread that around, and there's a religion. You gotta placate the gods so they don't rain fire on your big head or turn out the moon.

Why is that anything but primitive interpretation of natural celestial occurences?
Do comets hit earth then land, then creatures get out. Transform you and and teach you? Thats why its not natural celestial occurences.

The thing is the annunaki of the Sumerians,(not the gods of the Babylonians or Akkadians or Assyrians by the way.) These gods were not elements personified originally, this came after. Just like the Idea as man of the ruler of nature came after as well. According to the Sumerians there was no question, it was fact that everyone agreed upon. It was the only truth.


How do you know humanity was one? That's not only a huge assumption, its illogical.
Dude are you Racist? That sounds like the Nazi Aryan theology to me.
What do you mean humanity was not one? Are you saying races are not related genetically? Of course humanity was one, with that whole thing about alleles you just presented a concentrated group of alike genes over a long period of time is the only way this comes out to work. Of course humanity was one.


this one isn't special
Yea so people in 4000 bc knowing of genetic engineering isn't special.
When the greeks beleived Zeus threw up his siblings.......

my paste function is not working properly so Ill restart then finish the rest.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

They would not ALL be in one place and then say Ok, now that we have alien genes, you guys go this way, you guys go that way, and we'll stay here. That was just a large center of humanity at the time, not the only village or city on the globe.
It was the only city on the globe. Not the only village.


Who knows what that means? Maybe it said "Nevermind!" Maybe it was just tad damaged after however long it was just sitting there.
All it means is that somebody did not like what it said.

Either for racist ethnocentric ideals, which is most likely true. Which would then show the white man and the semitic jew are actually the barbarians copying black Africans culture and then enslaving them.

Or it could show our relation to this alien annunaki, which is what I would like to beleive.

Either way someone etched out those lines, and its not because they said what the dominant elite of the time would liked them to have said, and agreed with thier "version of history".

Obviously no matter what it did not agree, with the Greek, Hebrew, or Roman versions of history, and the appearence of early man.

As for the frogs, that Idea could be just as true as the fact that Communists funded Darwins expeditions. To find a scientific study that could be used to bring value to atheism, and the position of man as an animal with a sickness for curiosity.

Oh wait that was true!

As for the Annunaki a sample of translated text from the Enuma Elish, these 2 lines are evident of the interaction.
As said by Enki the cheif Genetic engineer of the Annunaki,
whos symbol just so happened to be two snakes intertwined around a pole showing an exact dna double helix http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=paranormal&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sitchin.com%2Fadam.htm

"The being that we need already exists;
all that we have to do is put our mark on it.”

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

So I take it you recognize the truth of my theory now?

And realize that it does challenge evolution.

Just so you know its called the Alien manipulation theory.

[FreakerSoup]

So I take it you recognize the truth of my theory now?

And realize that it does challenge evolution.

Just so you know its called the Alien manipulation theory.I recognize the possibility of your theory, just as I recognize the possibility of every religious doctrine. It is impossible to prove wrong, and is therefore a possibility. However, that means that it is completely unscientific, and you accept on faith, just like every other religion.

Nothing challeges evolution. No theory present in today's world posits a legitimate scientific challange against evolution.

If you read my post on the workings of it, you might have realized...Evolution MUST happen. It's not a question of "is it real" or "does it happen." Mutations and evolution must occur, and are occuring constantly regardless of what the religious sector of the population believes.

I stand by post #154. Your arguments do not logically lead to the conclusion you make, and you are filling in all the holes and whatever else in your head. I do not accept your theory , which is also called the Ancient Astronaut Theory, as scientific, logical, or in any way likely, and as I said before, you can believe it all you want, but don't try to argue it with science, because it relies on faith. Also as I said before, I'm tired of this discussion, because it's like talking to a brick. A brick who doesn't understand evolution.

[bamboo]

This thread had been very entertaining...start to finish. The original argument was flawed, though. Is there a god or evolution? These are not opposites and it was apparent that the person who started the thread was really asking "is there a "Christian God" or evolution"...and again these are not opposites. That person also asked for "proof" of god before he would accept such and yet he daily takes his sience at face value and never asks for deffinitive proofs of existance of the basic concepts before jumping into his own belief with both feet. Prove God, tell me what god "is" so i can believe? Ok then you first prove gravity and tell me what it "IS", or prove electrons and tell me what they "ARE". Tell me exactly "WHAT" a force is, or show me what inertia is made of. All sience is built on basic UNPROVABLE assumptions just the same as religion. Even reality is unprovable. Occam said he was so there had to be a reality and yet every night he dreams and believes for the time that that too is reality. Evolution is an unprovable even if compelling assumption. The pretty patterns in the rocks that look like the bones and shells of long ago living things can not ultimately be proven to be so. One would have to see the creature perish, watch the shells and bones turn to stone and then take them up in an unbroken sequence of time to "PROVE" what they were. The reality of the sience of the day is as often perishable as the religion of yesterday. Nothing is permenant or absolute as long as the arbitures of thruth are as varied and incalcitrant as those who have posted here. Having said that then the truth is (and always was) what you as the individual makes it.

[MichaelByrd1967]

I say, don't follow science or religion. Make your own conclusions on life and God. That's why we have science fiction. Just go with it.

[FreakerSoup]

As has been said before, science doesn't claim to prove anything. If we accept that reality consists of at least everything that all people with fully functioning senses can sense, the task of science is to gather objective information and draw conclusions from it. Evolution has a huge mass of objective evidence in history, biochemistry, and repeatable experiments. Fossils are known to be former animals because they hold the shape, organs, and pieces of animals. And many of them are the same species and look alike, and that is congruent a number of observations leading to the same logical conclusion. Religion has none of that. So while I don't have anything against religion as a concept, whenever it is stated as fact or even true, it is misleading someone. I don't feel you can put science on the same level as religion, because that would mean you can either take some of both, or all of one or the other, which leads to illogical thinking on the scientific side (at least about religion), and fundamentalism on the other, which I believe is far more harmful.

I would say accept science for what it is. It is information to help everyone understand the world, live more easily, and survive. Then you can take or leave religion, as there is nothing to make one superior to the other.

[Last Stand]

God had a stomac flu the day he dicided to create us and earth.

[bamboo]

Freaksoup...your arguments however cogent are still full of "accept", "objective", "conclussions," etc. These are all intuitive assumptions and provisions ABOUT reality as filtered through the human mind and are not REAL reality as it exists. We do not know TRUTH and REAL REALITY but only our individual translations of reality as filtered through our senses and brains. To the truly religous person their religion is reality. To the scientific person science is reality. The only thing that ever truly exists is the instantanous existance of any given second. All else is the shadow of the no longer existing past and the as yet unproven future. The laws of physics are "set in stone" so to speak but it is an act of faith in physics if the individual believes that they will all apply ten seconds from now. Sure they seem to have always applied but there is NO WAY of knowing if they always will apply...we assume they will, and we hope they will but these are just as much acts of faith as the religous person's belief in their own systems.

[FreakerSoup]

Indeed, science is logic at its finest. If reality isn't what we sense, then reality doesn't have any bearing on us, and it doesn't matter. Your post is deep and all, but using logic and reason, we can say that if you flip a coin 10,000 times and it's always either heads or tails, it's always, with almost complete certainty, going to land on either heads or tails. And until something significantly different from that result turns up, which probably won't happen, the possibility that it will change isn't something to worry about. It's not faith, it's logic.

[r33f3r_m4dn3ss]

I try to look at science and religion as the same thing. They are both connected in forming this thing we call reality. The Yin and Yang of our modern world, two planets revolving around the same sun. Evolution was of course a natural occurance, I do not debate that, but to me the missing link wasn't some lost ancestor, but was altered in some form, whether it was mushrooms, astronaut's, or something like the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was something that evolution can not explain, and this something I beleive, is the cause of all religions and yearning for a higher self or entity. It makes sense when you put history in a timeline, and look at all the different things ancients cultures worshipped and had in common. Take the Mayans for example, how do you think they learned math and astrology? What about the Egyptians? On complete opposite sides of the world yet they had advanced knowledge as well as pyramid structures lining up with Orion. Obviously there was some contact or connection that occured seperately from the natural state of the world. To say evolution was the cause of everything, including religion, I will never accept. You may agree with me here, but I beleive this was the main argument Nimrod and I were trying to get across.

Also, I think compared to all the theories floating around, as ridiculous as they may sound, ours at least has evidence that is agreed upon by numerous scholars and authors. It's not like we're picking and choosing random things and connecting them. We are merely adding on the layers and putting together the pieces to something that can actually be used as a basis for a credible argument. It's not like we're sitting here trying to argue that the floating spaghetti monster caused everything, we're using what ancient history has told us, with all the translated scripts and texts, and applying them to other things other branches of science and archaeology have discovered. It's discussion's like this that gain noteriety years down the road, just like when people though the Earth was the flat. It's the same kind of deal.

p.s. - If I hear logic or reason in another argument I might have to stab groin with a rusty soda can, because it causes me that much pain if not worse to hear it as a basis for arguments.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

recognize the possibility of your theory
That is the truth I was looking for.

However, that means that it is completely unscientific, and you accept on faith, just like every other religion.
Thats fine thank you. Its your opinion, mixed with truth.
Yet in a time where genetic engineering is only a politcal debate away from being mastered, I can't see how you view it as unscientific.
The truth is Alien shit is all around, its a big money maker through works of science fiction. Which is "science" fiction, you forget that science part? Yet it is also still fiction, obviously. Only as fictitious as the scientific method. The aim of science fiction is to show a possible viewed future. The scientific method has a desired answer before tests are even made, even if people do not want to admit it directly. Science is proven, but it is also relative.


Evolution MUST happen
Of course, if the evolution is of young, to old, to death, to decay, thats all that has any real proof in the macrocosm of everyday life.

It's not a question of "is it real" or "does it happen."
Never said Evolution did not happen to certain points. Evolution like science is relative. The only reason a deer looks like a deer to a human is because of the light coded photon particles raping our eyes, and causing this image to be created in our brain. We do not know what a human looks like to a deer, obviously. So what if human appears different to a deer, than it does to another human? All of it is true but relative to the condition of the viewer. If you were on LSD and saw this deer turn into a purple color, is it not true? That it is the real interpretation your brain is making of this deer at the relative time? Of course, now is it true to your mainstream idea of a deer. No. Relative. Both true in their own instances.



Mutations and evolution must occur, and are occuring constantly regardless of what the religious sector of the population believes.
Show me some. All i've seen of natural evolution, is natural extinction.
Species dying off completely, and not taking another path. Racially amongst humans you mean? You mean evolution of a persons individual self or of their egos instead?

What evolution is constantly occuring? It is a very broad concept when it comes down to it, and can almost always be replaced with other words.

The evolution of society?
The aging process?

What about things devolving? If you beleive things evolve, what devolving? What is an example of a devolving species? However, now if you say things do not devolve, and you say the force of evolution only pushes forward, does it mean theres a point where it eventually must stop?

No we're back to where I began, it would be RELATIVE to the species, or mineral, etc of endless things.
Right? Are we to a point where only mans material and techonological evolution is all thats left?

Is there a point where everything stops evolving?

If it had a beginning it must have an end. Or else it just becomes a circle.
Isn't a circle the most sacred of shapes? Always symbolizing origin. Or god in many instances.

So if god and evolution can be symbolized by the same thing. Then why are you attacking the religious sector? Unless you were to say evolution does have an end. Beyond life,death,decay,and rebirth. What would be that end?

The thing is my theory provides an end that is also a circle. This was where I really wanted this to come to, just not exactly like this. The creators create, the creation evolves,the creation creates, the creators evolve, the creaters create a new creation.

Isn't this the pattern of all human thought about everything weve discussed?
When it comes to spirituality, science, and religion.

1+1 in almost every case =2. When you are looking for 2 to begin with.

1+1=3? Not usually unless it were a point of counting, whatever is viewing the individual pieces. For 1+1 cannot be recognized as what they are unless there is something to state there is something there.

Making it an obvious 3 parts to recognize that 1+1=2. Because 1+1 doesn't mean shit unless it impacts a 3rd party.


Your arguments do not logically lead to the conclusion you make, and you are filling in all the holes and whatever else in your head. I do not accept your theory , which is also called the Ancient Astronaut Theory, as scientific, logical, or in any way likely, and as I said before, you can believe it all you want, but don't try to argue it with science, because it relies on faith.
Your opinion,
I have heard that name, I like it. I didn't think you'd like it, so I didn't bother saying it.
Thank you for allowing me to beleive what I want
Im not arguing with a study that only aims at what it intends to receive.
How can you?
Yes it relies on faith. So does jumping off a cliff into the water after all the speculations and technicalities thought of and sifted through.


I'm tired of this discussion, because it's like talking to a brick. A brick who doesn't understand evolution.
Thank you. A brick is both creative and destructive, a perfect paradox. A perfect example of the irrationality present in this world. That science turns its shoulders from, and that faith conquers.

One side of the spectrum is not balanced.

To know, is to know that you know nothing.
To prove something rational to its own little niche in life, has no greater impact on the bigger picture. It can develop its own little timeline, but eventually has to end if it was created.
Unless of course it could just mutate forever.

Then the last question on this is how far does that mutation have to go before it is so far from the source, it no longer shares any attributes except for that one fact, it was derived from this source?

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

Freaksoup...your arguments however cogent are still full of "accept", "objective", "conclussions," etc. These are all intuitive assumptions and provisions ABOUT reality as filtered through the human mind and are not REAL reality as it exists. We do not know TRUTH and REAL REALITY but only our individual translations of reality as filtered through our senses and brains. To the truly religous person their religion is reality. To the scientific person science is reality. The only thing that ever truly exists is the instantanous existance of any given second. All else is the shadow of the no longer existing past and the as yet unproven future. The laws of physics are "set in stone" so to speak but it is an act of faith in physics if the individual believes that they will all apply ten seconds from now. Sure they seem to have always applied but there is NO WAY of knowing if they always will apply...we assume they will, and we hope they will but these are just as much acts of faith as the religous person's belief in their own systems.I was addressing each post one by one so I didn't really read yours. But we said alot of the same stuff. Right on MANG.
especially like
NO WAY of knowing if they always will apply

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

Indeed, science is logic at its finest. If reality isn't what we sense, then reality doesn't have any bearing on us, and it doesn't matter. Your post is deep and all, but using logic and reason, we can say that if you flip a coin 10,000 times and it's always either heads or tails, it's always, with almost complete certainty, going to land on either heads or tails. And until something significantly different from that result turns up, which probably won't happen, the possibility that it will change isn't something to worry about. It's not faith, it's logic.Its faith that the test will go well, and you won't drop the coin by accident and it falls into the sink and goes down the drain.

Is this illogical? Not at all, its probably happened. So what would the scientist do, free himself from all possible error and move to a spot where it would not fall into the sink. Now hes already gone to far. How can it be accurate if its shut out from reality. The unknown result already sprung up. So the scientist eliminated it.

It is relative to the perfect situation, where there is no way to lose the penny half way through. But what truth is there in this? Only in a tightly picked out reality these probabilites stand true? How then could they ever be applied to a whole reality?

The logos, is a state of perfection that is reachable. Some thought of it to be constantly present as well. Of course logic is a worthy explanation then when it encompasses both sides. Its like, whats the best way to win a war? control both sides.

Logic is a Machiavellian war tactic applied to a knowledge scale.

The only antagonist is for something to be illogical. Which it automatically by its nature counts out, because it cannot fit within its own guidelines. Its creating a debate its already won, or the most the opponent can do is tie.

This is not the way of natural chaos, this is not the way of the world.

There are rarely ties, in the feeding of the food chain.
So then the logic lover, takes that which it does not want to tie with it, and claims it is illogical. Which is then the only thing that allows logic to exist in the first place, with its own set rules of what enters.

So how then can there be rules for this party, where the different people invited, are relative in their own situations only. Its a stoner party! So only stoners! But we want chicks! Even though there not stoners! Who cares? They are allowed to come because we agree with them in that relative aspect. Even though they don't fit under the stoner party category. Then fuck it Its just called a regular party! But then this would mean nobody gets counted out.

Except for the people you dont like.

Then if they show up, thats all there is to justify why they shouldn't be there.
Do you see what I mean?

Logic is taking a gun to a sword fight.
Guns run out of ammo, but sting from far away. A sword lasts as long as you maintain it in "your own hands" and sleys from close.

What is the sword? Whatever the fuck you want it to be.

Mine in the case of where man came from is the Alien Manipulation theory.

What if you get shot before you can strike with your sword? Ha ha haaaaaaa

Then the man with the gun realizes he did not play a fair game. Yet still has victory, and a tie. An unfair win, was a known and desired result. It is not a true win, but instead a tie to circumstance because it was never actually a contest. But if you run out of bullets and do not kill the opponent, the gun becomes useless against the sword, and the gunman learns his gunpower is only relative inside this realm of logic or in this case a clip full of bullets, and he becomes a sitting duck to a razor blade of destruction.

I guess all the logical person has to do is never leave the boundary of the logical, and he remains safely on the shore. Only experiencing half of the picture.

Whereas he who embraces the illogical and relative logical, now has both a gun and a sword. He can have a gunfight, with the logical person, and a swordfight with the illogical making it an even contest. Or just shoot the swordsman if he still has bullets left, and call it 3 points.

And is fuckin Neo and shit. TEAR SHIT UP.

[FreakerSoup]

Science defines logic by studying reality. If you take drugs and see a purple unicorn or whatever, that's your own brain fucking with you because you decided to leave reality for awhile. It is not real, regardless of whose perspective we're looking from. It's not objective, and it is only visible (I dunno about other senses) when you're drugged out, and probably not that often.

If you can't handle reality, feel free to live outside it, but don't claim your world to be reality. Maybe once you get off the mushrooms or acid or whatever you'll be able to understand evolution.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

If you can't handle reality, feel free to live outside it, but don't claim your world to be reality.
So now youve jumped from Logic to reality.

You scalywag, you turned your back on logic and didn't even post a logical response.

As for reality.
If your world is real to you. It is reality. Reality is only available through perception. When your perception is skewed it is not the same as other peoples, this doesn't make it any less real.

So you willingly admit coming to a debate with logic is bringing a gun to a sword fight right? And that no one can even win in a debate vs logic, they can only tie.

Logically since you didn't respond to those things then you agreed with them right? Since thats been the reality of this thread.

Maybe once you get off the mushrooms or acid or whatever you'll be able to understand evolution.
I understand evolution.

You don't.

Is that logical?

You didn't answer any of my final questions so you conceded your opinion.

I dodged your bullets, and slew you with my sword.
Just like I said above.

You have terrible aim dawg. I wouldn't shoot sideways like a gangsta next time, maybe thats where you fucked it up.

Im not on any mushrooms or acid anyway. If you beleive this effects your overall brain patters and sense of shared reality. Then you contradicted yourself completely. You just openly said that my reality is correct to me. Which is all that matters in a world of ME. Where you are the only person you're ever going to be. You will never experience this reality through another person directly.

I didn't say purple unicorns, your obviously a neo-con right wing turd, that thinks hes a liberal douche. You perverted what I said with anti-drug propoganda and thought humor would back you up.

You don't even know what your talking about, and then accuse me for not knowing a few facts that obviously aren't in the everyday understanding of Evolution.

Evolution is bullshit. Your bullshit.

Go to Jail.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

Science also borrowed logic from philosophy.

As I pointed out before your coin example was wrong, due to the fact the coin could fall down the drain. Or into the radiator, or get eaten by the baby or dog in the middle of the experiment.

This part is removed from a scientific experiment setup.

Therefore it does not explain reality.

No matter what you say as long as peoples senses work the way they do, and we interpret exterior coded particles as what we think they are, theres no way to determine the exact shared reality.

Therefore like I said they study isolated, relative scenarios where the X factor is eliminated. Then say ohh its only probability that the coin will land on either side and thats all there is to it.

Only after you've eliminated those factors. Then tell me what is the reality of the experiment??

I thought I already explained that. You didn't have an answer so you lost.


It's not objective
Meaning its subjective? Which is evidence you yourself cannot evaluate. Then making it an issue of faith.

Unless you were to take acid. Then it becomes objective.

Your gonna say evolution is subjective?

Cuz if you were I'd have to agree. Because every single person out there cannot test fossilized bones and carbon date them.

You count out even my theories attempting to fit mushrooms into the timeline. When mushrooms are the only thing connecting life and death in nature. They feed off decay, and can be eaten.

What caused all these original proteins to form out of nothing?
Dead shit doesn't all the sudden become alive.

You can't get something out of nothing.

If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? Or that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes? Obviously there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution. But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible, and thus obscures some of the most interesting genetic questions." "Our DNA is about 75% similar to that of a nematode, which is basically a small soil-dwelling worm. No-one would suggest a nematode is 75% human?

[FreakerSoup]

If the coin toss is not performed in an error-proof setting like any place with just a floor, it becomes a different experiment.

Reality is not a personal thing. Reality is absolute, objective, and is defined with ever increasing accuracy by science. It's also defined by logic. If you do not follow logic, you do not accept reality, and choose to call whatever skewed perceptions you hold in your head reality.

Yes, everybody can do carbon dating. Get the training, the materials, and whatever else you need, and you can do it. It doesn't take a special perception, although if you don't believe in logic you might just interpret it wrong. Just because some people can't see doesn't mean objective information can't be visual.

Mushrooms are the only things connecting life and death?
1. Bullshit. Fungi in general do that, along with any number of plants, animals, and bacteria.
2. What does that have to do with anything at all?

What caused all these original proteins to form out of nothing?
Dead shit doesn't all the sudden become alive.
They didn't form out of nothing. Amino acids have been created from basic inorganic compounds in lab conditions made to be similar to pre-life earth. All you need to start evolution is one self-replicating molecule. THAT'S ALL. As long as replication occurs, evolution will happen, whether idiots like it or not.

All organism have similar DNA, huh? Doesn't that suggest something to you? Maybe something contrary to the entire point you're trying to make?

If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? Or that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes?Plenty of organisms have more dna than humans. More hemoglobin genes, etc etc etc. Are you trying to use this as an argument?

(http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C08/C08Links/chemistry.about.com/science/chemistry/library/weekly/aa061598a.htm)Homo sapiens (human) genome = 3,000 Mb (http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C08/C08Links/chemistry.about.com/science/chemistry/library/weekly/aa061598a.htm)
Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco) genome = 4,434 Mb
Vanilla planifolia (vanilla) genome = 7,672 Mb
Avena sativa (oat) genome = 11,315 Mb
Triticum aestivum (wheat) genome = 15,966 Mb
Triturus cristatus (crested newt) genome = 18,600 Mb
Necturus maculosus (mudpuppy) genome = 50,000 Mb
Lilium longiflorum (Easter lily) genome = 90,000 Mb
Fritillaria assyriaca (butterfly) genome = 124,900 Mb
Protopterus aethiopicus (lungfish) genome = 139,000 Mb


Obviously there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution.OBVIOUSLY!

But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible, and thus obscures some of the most interesting genetic questions."
The percentage comparison seems like a faulty measure to me. What about that extra ten percent? How does that get compared? That would indicate to me that at most there can be 90-91% similarity. Did they just measure the amount humans have? You should look into these sources and articles and whatnot before copy-pasting from anti-evolution websites. Especially if their source links don't lead anywhere.

"Our DNA is about 75% similar to that of a nematode, which is basically a small soil-dwelling worm. No-one would suggest a nematode is 75% human? Again, humans have 30 times the DNA that nemotodes do. Now that's just misleading.

[FreakerSoup]

By the way, this is one time I will reply to a post like this, so maybe stop being an idiot in the future.

So now youve jumped from Logic to reality. Are they unrelated at all? Logic is a part of reality. If you deny logic, you deny reality.

As for reality.
If your world is real to you. It is reality. Reality is only available through perception. When your perception is skewed it is not the same as other peoples, this doesn't make it any less real. It doesn't make reality less real, but it makes your perception of it non-representive of reality. What you are percieving is not real.

So you willingly admit coming to a debate with logic is bringing a gun to a sword fight right? And that no one can even win in a debate vs logic, they can only tie. No. That's a dumb metaphor. Logic is not in a constant battle with any forces of illogic or whatever you'd call it. Logic is. Illogic isn't. It'd be kinda like bringing a sword to a balloon-popping party. Then when you've used logic to pop all those balloons, there will always be some little snot holding his string and denying that his balloon was popped. That's illogical.

Logically since you didn't respond to those things then you agreed with them right? Since thats been the reality of this thread. That's not logical at all. If you're making stupid "points" that I don't want to expend the energy to type out for your non-benefit, that's the same result, but with a different reason. Logic has nothing to do with it, as there are no rules on what I must or mustn't do concerning this discussion.

I understand evolution.

You don't.

Is that logical? Not coming from you. You've demonstrated little knowledge of evolution, and fail to understand it even when I go as far as to write out the basic mechanism for you.

You didn't answer any of my final questions so you conceded your opinion. That sounds like something a little kid would say. You didn't say you weren't a stinky-head, so you must be a stinky-head.

I dodged your bullets, and slew you with my sword.
Just like I said above. And I wouldn't expect you to say anything to the contrary.

You have terrible aim dawg. I wouldn't shoot sideways like a gangsta next time, maybe thats where you fucked it up. I was still exhausted from that ride your mom gave me.

Im not on any mushrooms or acid anyway. If you beleive this effects your overall brain patters and sense of shared reality. Then you contradicted yourself completely. You just openly said that my reality is correct to me. Which is all that matters in a world of ME. Where you are the only person you're ever going to be. You will never experience this reality through another person directly. You will never experience reality through another person. That doesn't mean each person has his own reality. As I did state (as opposed to what you said I stated) you don't have to accept reality. You can alter your mind so that whatever you're percieving is as far from it as possible. But what you are percieving is less representative of reality than unhindered senses. It even goes as far as to mislead you from reality. There is one reality. If you were talking chocolate or women, yeah, to each his own, but reality isn't a choice you can make.

I didn't say purple unicorns, your obviously a neo-con right wing turd, that thinks hes a liberal douche. You perverted what I said with anti-drug propoganda and thought humor would back you up. I didn't say you said purple unicorns. I didn't remember what you said, so I made it up. Just add a horn onto the purple deer you mentioned, ok?

Maybe I just a liberal douche who likes a good perception of reality. But I guess anyone who doesn't do funkin' drugs is a neo-con right wing turd, huh? That makes sense. Just like the rest of this thread.

You don't even know what your talking about, and then accuse me for not knowing a few facts that obviously aren't in the everyday understanding of Evolution. No I don't do drugs. I know all about reality. I know about logic, and evolution, and plenty of other stuff. So you can be the drug expert, and I'll cover all the other stuff, ok?

Evolution is bullshit. Your bullshit. Nu-uh!

Go to Jail. ok. Heeeere I gooooo...

Goooing to jaaail...

But seriously.

I'm going now.

Lookout, jail, cause here I come.

And all that.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

Are they unrelated at all? Logic is a part of reality. If you deny logic, you deny reality.
Logic only is what it is, because of things being illogical. So then that is all envolved in your view of objective reality that is the biggest lie that has raped your mind.


It doesn't make reality less real, but it makes your perception of it non-representive of reality. What you are percieving is not real.
Reality is not objective, what you peceive is the only way to measure it. Lets try and measure reality without any data from the senses. How far would you get then?
You have no concept of bigger pictures in this issues. Thats obviously why you deny a deity.

No. That's a dumb metaphor. Logic is not in a constant battle with any forces of illogic or whatever you'd call it. Logic is. Illogic isn't. It'd be kinda like bringing a sword to a balloon-popping party. Then when you've used logic to pop all those balloons, there will always be some little snot holding his string and denying that his balloon was popped. That's illogical.
In a debate where its logic (evolution) vs illogic (god). Then it is a perfect metaphor, that you call dumb because you are a closed minded fool. Nothing can ever beat logic. Thats why its lead to the destruction of the planet.

What damage can a balloon do? Nothing? Your saying religion then can do no damage or illogic. Your really dumb when it comes down to it. So what you memorized a few science books, but what does that prove? You fail when it comes to free thinking. You are controlled by the all the powers religion wants to control you with, and you don't even beleive in it. Go on beleiving the earth is flat. its ok buddy. No matter what you think intelligent design is making a comeback, cuz people are fed up of douchebags like you trying to outsmart them with subatomic particles, and proteins, and self-replicating molecules. When they don't explain where humans came from, or the galaxy.

You didn't address my point of logic only allowing ties either. What about Freud Science boy? You never payed attention to his "truths"! Your subconciously avoiding all my strong points, and playing them off as garbage, because from your perspective they are. From my perspective they are strong points. YOU ARE NOT THE DECIDING FACTOR OF REALITY. As science has bred you do think. Reality is not an object.

Have you even read philosophy?


Not coming from you. You've demonstrated little knowledge of evolution, and fail to understand it even when I go as far as to write out the basic mechanism for you.
You never cited anything where I was wrong. Your bullshittting, thats your reality. Again reality does not exist, its only a compilation of peoples paradigms. WIth agreeing characteristics that people make into a chart of Yes and Nos.

That sounds like something a little kid would say. You didn't say you weren't a stinky-head, so you must be a stinky-head.
Your icon sucks, and your name sucks. I bet your fat and bald, and have never been laid.

Yea I am a stinky-head. So therefore using your logic, you did concede.
You fucking are trying to make circles into squares here.

You will find out one day science's overconfidence will backfire on it.
What gives you the right to make such rigid borders for everything. Like its Imperial Europe dividing Africa or something.


I was still exhausted from that ride your mom gave me.
Nice one buddy. You think of really gay shit to say.
Stinky head! Ride your mom gave me!

Yea your mom sucked my cock and I jizzed in her eyeball, then stabbed them out and made a fuckin shake out of them for my dog.
Your an asshole, why would you start something personal.
I was proving points, speaking in metaphor (which Jack Nicholson wouldn't like me for) but hes not reading this.

Your a faggot, your amoral. Your a prick, I would call you a Jew if I thought it would hurt but Im not racist. So instead just go fuck your mother motherfucker.

There is one reality
Then this all surpassing one reality obviously includes illogic. Which means illogical ideas would be present within it.

Nothing can be whole and then only allow half inside.
Another bullshit answer.
There may be one universe. Not one reality. There is no object in reality, its a subject.

didn't remember what you said
Does this one reality give you the right to lie? The fuck do you mean you don't remember my text was right in front of you, you retarded faggot. Obviously the cro magnons comin back dude! Your the first one! MONGOLOID!


Maybe I just a liberal douche who likes a good perception of reality
HEY!!! YOU ADMIT IT!!! YEAA!!! YOUR A DOUCHE!

Who likes a good perception of reality.

PERCEPTION. Its only yours.

THere is no whole reality, until man becomes telepathic and clairvoyant. Another perfect example for the Communist agenda, wait who funded darwin again? Oh yea THE COMMIES. Theres one reality!!! No god! No morals! Science proves everything! Yet it only proves man is a virus to this planet!!


No I don't do drugs. I know all about reality. I know about logic, and evolution, and plenty of other stuff. So you can be the drug expert, and I'll cover all the other stuff, ok?
Wanna piff?

No you know about your paradigm. Reality if it was as big as you say would involve my views as well. And charlie manson would be Jesus christ.
Again another Ego-centric crapfeast.

I KNOW! YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT.
Your brain interprets shit in a certain way, so you think you know. Enlil put this lock mechanism on all the slaves, so they would have no ideas of revolution and free thought, and would never care too. Even feel pains of stupidity and anxiety when doing so.

ok. Heeeere I gooooo...

Goooing to jaaail...

But seriously.

I'm going now.

Lookout, jail, cause here I come.

And all that.
MAN YOU GOT OWNED!

FUCKIN STRAIGHT UP PWNT!

Thats right tuck that little tail between your legs.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

If the coin toss is not performed in an error-proof setting like any place with just a floor, it becomes a different experiment
Yea one where the X factor that exists in life is present.
Which science cuts out of its experiments entirely, then puts them back into the puzzle. Again you lost. Poor example. Read up bitch.


Reality is not a personal thing. Reality is absolute, objective, and is defined with ever increasing accuracy by science. It's also defined by logic. If you do not follow logic, you do not accept reality, and choose to call whatever skewed perceptions you hold in your head reality.
If you experience it through your person. Its personal. Its not absolute, if it is a whole. It would be subjective as well. Or its only some half reality. With aspects being defined by science. It is defined by logic, and illogic. Again imagine someone without any senses. Then what the fuck is reality.

IT IS NOT OBJECTIVE. THATS THE BIGGEST LIE YOU CAN FALL VICTIM TOO.


Yes, everybody can do carbon dating. Get the training, the materials, and whatever else you need, and you can do it. It doesn't take a special perception, although if you don't believe in logic you might just interpret it wrong. Just because some people can't see doesn't mean objective information can't be visual.
Can a person with down syndrome?

How about someone that can't read or write.

No it doesn't mean it can't be visual, it just makes it subjective.

Mushrooms are the only things connecting life and death?
1. Bullshit. Fungi in general do that, along with any number of plants, animals, and bacteria.
2. What does that have to do with anything at all?
They didn't form out of nothing. Amino acids have been created from basic inorganic compounds in lab conditions made to be similar to pre-life earth. All you need to start evolution is one self-replicating molecule. THAT'S ALL. As long as replication occurs, evolution will happen, whether idiots like it or not.

All organism have similar DNA, huh? Doesn't that suggest something to you? Maybe something contrary to the entire point you're trying to make?
Yea fungi, woops didnt mention the entire kingdom. It proves the supremacy of fungi and bacteria over human life. Thats what. If a mushroom can feed of your dead decaying ass. Then it owns you.
No question about it. So fit that into your man at the top of the food chain bullshit.
IF bacteria can kill you it owns you. If you have fungus growing OFF your ass you get owned.

What was that self replicating molecule?

WHat was before that? Just like what was before god! What was before the biug bang what was before anything!

Doesn't explain it, therefore it is not an enitre truth. What setup this climate for that one self-replicating molecule to dick around and come about.

Did you forget? I never denied evolution up to a point. I never denied that all organisms contain close to the same dna. I just said alien manipulation was the reason for our rapid acceleration to chaos and excintction of ourselves or the planet. WE HAVE TO GO ONE WORLD WARS. For population control. It is virus-like no matter what the fuck you think about it.


Again, humans have 30 times the DNA that nemotodes do. Now that's just misleading.
So is saying humans developed civilization so fast.

Well what about this final question? Do you think the internet is a reality?
Cuz it seems pretty real to me. Yet its fake, and madeup.

Answer that one bitch tits.

[FreakerSoup]

Illogic only exists in ideas.
I don't know the first self-replicating molecule, and science, unlike religion, doesn't claim to have all the answers.
If reality is subjective, then reality is nothing, and then what are you, if not nothing?
The internet is a part of reality. It is bits of information. It just doesn't have matter.

In conclusion:
1. Grow up.
2. Learn a thing or two about science.
3. Then come talk to me about it.
Your points are crap, the childish way in which you presented them doesn't make them any more convincing, and you still fail to grasp not only evolution, but apparently science in general, too.

[FreakerSoup]

And BY THE FRICKIN' WAY...

SCIENCE and LOGIC are what have come up with medicine, computers, THE INTERNET, machines, law, modern architecture, and pretty much everything that governs, surrounds, and aids you.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

Illogic only exists in ideas.
Therefore it exists Im glad you can admit it now.


I don't know the first self-replicating molecule, and science, unlike religion, doesn't claim to have all the answers.
Good answer. OF course it doesn't. I tried to show you my religious views and they were crankdust. So its str8. Religion sucks more than science.



SCIENCE and LOGIC are what have come up with medicine, computers, THE INTERNET, machines, law, modern architecture, and pretty much everything that governs, surrounds, and aids you.
Science has always been around. Egyptian alchemy involved physical chemistry and science. The've only evolved! Your favorite thing in the world! I love logic dude. I just wanted you to admit that illogical is rad too.

And stop treating me childish and speaking down to me.
Saying Im acting childish. You started the namecalling. My examples were strong deep metaphors. You only were floatin with the crap on top.

[justsherri]

Would you not believe in the wind if you didn't watch a tree branch sway?

I have a hard time believing that God and the bible belong in the same sentance. I asked these very same questions, and as cliche as it sounds I didn't start believing in G-D until a heavy acid trip.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

Would you not believe in the wind if you didn't watch a tree branch sway?
If I couldn't feel the wind either you mean?

Then no I would not believe in the wind.

Im just saying your only seeing the illusion of a tree swaying. There is not a tree really there. It is only a coded section of the matrix, that your brain interprets as a tree. The wind being another section that your brain sees pushing a tree branch.

The fact that your brain is whats telling you what you see. You cannot be 100% certain it is not lying to you.

Or steering you one way.

[themnax]

Would you not believe in the wind if you didn't watch a tree branch sway?

I have a hard time believing that God and the bible belong in the same sentance. I asked these very same questions, and as cliche as it sounds I didn't start believing in G-D until a heavy acid trip.

i don't believe god and 'the bible' belong in the same sentence. god speaks to anyone who will shut up long enough to listen. christians think this is a myrical because they never do.

speaking not in words of course, because there's nothing tangable about it.
i don't know if i had to have believed first to have noticed it,
but i have seen the branches sway.

sometimes i feel like i absolutely have to explain my perceptions
sometimes i just feel tired of trying to
and sometimes i realize there's no reason to expect everyone to understand them, no matter how much how many claim to understand a few small things, when there is such an infinity of things none of us have even yet noticed.

[bamboo]

And BY THE FRICKIN' WAY...

SCIENCE and LOGIC are what have come up with medicine, computers, THE INTERNET, machines, law, modern architecture, and pretty much everything that governs, surrounds, and aids you.Yesterday 11:48 AM



Science and Logic did not come up with medicine, computers, the internet, machines, law, modern architecture and the rest. PEOPLE with FAITH in science and logic did these things with out the people and their FAITH and courage to act on what they believe, then science and logic are just empty, inanimate philosophies. In all things it requires a faith in a certain outcome for people to act and react to get results. The down side of some of your examples are, however...medicine kills 150,000 people a year (results AMA) from mmalpractice drug inter-reaction etc. Computers and the internet have made the inexcaple hand of "Big Brother" just that much closer. Law...well draw your own conclusions there. Modern engineering allowed two shuttles to fail, sunk the Titanic, allowed the twin towers to fall after they were damaged, allowed a walk wat in KC to collapse and kill dozens...etc. Machines have reduced true craftsmanship to something to be gawked at places like Silver Dollar City or in museums.

[FreakerSoup]

Science and Logic did not come up with medicine, computers, the internet, machines, law, modern architecture and the rest. PEOPLE with FAITH in science and logic did these things with out the people and their FAITH and courage to act on what they believe, then science and logic are just empty, inanimate philosophies. Yeah, ok. People did it. But without the premises and knowledge contained in science and logic, these advances would not have been possible. Faith is different. How much has religion contributed to that?


In all things it requires a faith in a certain outcome for people to act and react to get results. The down side of some of your examples are, however...medicine kills 150,000 people a year (results AMA) from mmalpractice drug inter-reaction etc. Computers and the internet have made the inexcaple hand of "Big Brother" just that much closer. Law...well draw your own conclusions there. Modern engineering allowed two shuttles to fail, sunk the Titanic, allowed the twin towers to fall after they were damaged, allowed a walk wat in KC to collapse and kill dozens...etc. Machines have reduced true craftsmanship to something to be gawked at places like Silver Dollar City or in museums. Now that's just pessimism. Of course advances come with bad uses. Fire can burn houses down, electricity...uh...electrocutes people AND can cause fires, airplanes crash sometimes, as do cars, buses, trains, submarines, etc, boats sink, the supermarket tracks all your purchases. Is it worth it? Nothing is foolproof, and I would argue that yes, the advances of modernity are more than worth the accidents that occur. Even with the big brother on my computer thing. Without law, or a basic system of punishment for crime, the people that would be murderers and thieves if it weren't for the threat of jail would be murderers and thieves. Those that do anyways would be largely on the loose, 'cause without law, there aren't crimelabs either.

Are you making a point or arguing for the sake of arguing?

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

SCIENCE! has FAILED! our world! duh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuhh
SCIENCE! has FAILED! our mother eaaarrrrttthhh
-system of a down

[mynameisjake07]

how about neither....

maybe just simply LIFE

[bamboo]

Yeah, ok. People did it. But without the premises and knowledge contained in science and logic, these advances would not have been possible. Faith is different. How much has religion contributed to that?
Chicken or egg???? Did the people come first or did the science and logic?? Or is the result influenced by the observer as in quantum physics??? Did science and logic require the creation of a sentinent race to further the cause of science and logic or did the evolution of a sentinent species require the creation of science and logic to further its aims??? Why were the four and a half billion years of earthly evolution the needed neither science or logic to evolve and prosper?? I fear you greatly over extend the importance of man and his frail mechinizations in relationship to the rest of the cold, uncaring universe.

[bamboo]

Now that's just pessimism. Of course advances come with bad uses.

No thats not pessimism...those are just cold logical facts...logical and scientific facts. After all, science is just interested in facts and nothing more and each of the items that I listed are nothing more than statistics and facts. If it were pessimism I would have said something like, "all science and logic lead to is disasters." But i didn't because i do not believe that. Science has its place with people who are predisposed to that mentality. Religion (the other half of what we have been arguing) has its place with those folks predisposed to that mentality. My original statement was that each represents "reality" to those people who believe...what ever that belief might be...AND each belief system is valid within the framework of those folks conceptual dogma. What I do wish is that the religous folks and the science folks would get off each others backs about it. the ultimate arbiture of reality is what is between each individual' ears. The primitive villager that is somehow hexed by the local witch doctor and diludes himself into dying is just as dead regardless of the explanation...psychologically induced trauma, the stain of sin or the effects of evil spirits...doesn't matter to the dead guy because his "reality" was hex from witch doctor means death and therefore he died.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

If god is energy and light power manifested. Then couldn't you say Evolution came from God? And that it is solely dependant on God?

This is why the god of Akhenaten the 18th Dynasty Pharoah was as close to a monotheistic god as science could ever recognize. He knew this in 1200 bc.

Energy transfered is how beings are sustained, light came from the Sun, which heated the Earth at its particular distance and orbit and made it a worthy place for Life to spawn.

Light and Energy are everything. If plants could not exist, the whole of higher Kingdoms could not survive. Plants are only dependant on Light, and water.

Water is a version of Energy particles. Or a density perhaps.

So if your God is the Aten, (the powers of enery and light). Then God is the mastermind behind evolution, and the force perpetuating it.

I beleive that the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Corrupted this worship of a scientific god of cosmic radiance. Then turned into a patriarchal slave driver. Since the historical and archaeological evidence proves that Akhenaten was around before historical Judaism. Aside from the mythological origins.

The Sun is what allows us to live, and have civilization and everything. Yet the Sun is only powerful because of light. That light is the first cause in the energy chain.

[Dr Phibes]

"god" is a meaningless term and therefore any debate about god is illogical.
If it is illogical to speak of god then why would any rational person interested in the
tennets of the Existentialist movement within philosophy discuss it?

[citrus_seas]

I think to believe in something is a good thing, butorganized religion is the reason all of these pointless fucking wars are going on, people killing other people in the name of some false "god". It's asinine to even inflict pain onto someone else because of some "higher power" When will people see that nothing and no one is above us in power? Until we get rid of organized religion, there will be no end to war.

[Last Stand]

I'm not scared of dying
and I, don't really care
if it' s peace you find in dying,
well then, let the time be near

If it's peace you find in dying,
well then dying time is near
just bundle up my coffin,
'cause it's
cold way down there,
I hear that it's
cold way down there, yeah
crazy cold, way down there

And when I die, and when I'm gone
there'll be, one child born
in this world
to carry on, to carry on

[Piano Solo]

Now troubles are many
there as
deep as a well
I can swear there ain't no Heaven
but I pray there ain't no hell
Swear there ain't no Heaven
and I'll pray there ain't no hell
but I'll never know by livin'
only my dyin' will tell, yes only my
dyin' will tell, oh yeah,
Only my dyin' will tell

And when I die, and when I'm gone
there'll be, one child born, in this world
to carry on, to carry on
yeah yeah

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

"god" is a meaningless term and therefore any debate about god is illogical.
I just gave you a rational logic origin for this monotheistic slave master in the sky the capital g God.

If Light and Energy are substituted with god. Then does it become meaningless?
Or illogical? Therefore the logical mind would have to ponder it.

[MichaelByrd1967]

Because we have no proof that there is a God. All of the Biblical Prophets were just insane.

[bamboo]

We have no proof of anything beyond what our five imperfect senses deliver as chemo-electrical signals to a fragil, gelatenous mass of squiggly cells, grease and fat that so many of you rational types like to worship as the somehow grand arbiture of all truth and "reality." I posit the response that none knows what reality might be, or god, or time, or gravity, or curved space-time, or whatever convention you wish to prescribe to is. It is infathonable to assume that something so imperfect as the human mind, or any edifice created by the human mind can be assumed to be the ulimate arbiture of any "truth." And as long as folks continue to get "locked" into ANY view as being the sole and only right view then those folks will fail to grow and evolve beyond the indefencable arbitrary spot that they have sought to irrational defend. In short...all things are possible if you are open to change and new ideas. I would like to add that NO ONE ON THIS THREAD HAS PERSONALLY PROVEN ANY POINT BY SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT OR DOCUMENTED RELIGOUS EXPERIENCE THAT THEY HAVE SOUGHT TO DEFEND ALL OF THE POSITIONS WERE ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS AND HERESAY>

[MichaelByrd1967]

We have no proof of anything beyond what our five imperfect senses deliver as chemo-electrical signals to a fragil, gelatenous mass of squiggly cells, grease and fat that so many of you rational types like to worship as the somehow grand arbiture of all truth and "reality." I posit the response that none knows what reality might be, or god, or time, or gravity, or curved space-time, or whatever convention you wish to prescribe to is. It is infathonable to assume that something so imperfect as the human mind, or any edifice created by the human mind can be assumed to be the ulimate arbiture of any "truth." And as long as folks continue to get "locked" into ANY view as being the sole and only right view then those folks will fail to grow and evolve beyond the indefencable arbitrary spot that they have sought to irrational defend. In short...all things are possible if you are open to change and new ideas. I would like to add that NO ONE ON THIS THREAD HAS PERSONALLY PROVEN ANY POINT BY SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT OR DOCUMENTED RELIGOUS EXPERIENCE THAT THEY HAVE SOUGHT TO DEFEND ALL OF THE POSITIONS WERE ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS AND HERESAY>
Here's my laymen's translation:

We can't prove God or anything else associated with God...
Don't assume that your religion is the solution to your problems...
You'll be unable to grow as a human being if you follow a religion...

And...
NO ONE ON THIS THREAD HAS PERSONALLY PROVEN ANY POINT BY SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT OR DOCUMENTED RELIGOUS EXPERIENCE THAT THEY HAVE SOUGHT TO DEFEND ALL OF THE POSITIONS WERE ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS AND HERESAY...

Didn't have to translate that last part, but it bears repeating...

[bamboo]

pretty much....hemmmm...yep that's about right.

[Nimrod's Apprentice]

Jesus Christ ROX!

[MichaelByrd1967]

Jesus Christ ROX!
Possibly, back in his day but 2000 years later, I think he's a bit outdated.