GOD ? or Evolution?

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.

 

True!

 

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

 

Nither

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

 

Nothing is real. Everything is real.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

Then you don't understand it.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Yes.

Nothing is scientifically proven, per se. There is enough evidence for it to be considered true by those who study it.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

-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.

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.

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?

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?

 

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.

Ok I understand that.

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 left footprints in powdery volcanic ash solidified in Italy. Homo heidelbergensis is the common ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis and 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.

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

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.

 

Human evolution
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.

If you want to believe that, go ahead. It's a completely unfounded theory with no evidence for any part of it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not murder any more than invasive species murder the species they're taking over, but you get the idea.

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.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

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?

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...

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 that explains this well.

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."

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

 

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.