GOD ? or Evolution?

It was the only city on the globe. Not the only village.

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.”

​

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

That is the truth I was looking for.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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?

 

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?

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?

Plenty of organisms have more dna than humans. More hemoglobin genes, etc etc etc. Are you trying to use this as an argument?

Homo sapiens (human) genome = 3,000 Mb
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!

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.

Again, humans have 30 times the DNA that nemotodes do. Now that's just misleading.

 

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

Are they unrelated at all? Logic is a part of reality. If you deny logic, you deny reality.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And I wouldn't expect you to say anything to the contrary.

I was still exhausted from that ride your mom gave me.

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 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.

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?

Nu-uh!

ok. Heeeere I gooooo...

Goooing to jaaail...

But seriously.

I'm going now.

Lookout, jail, cause here I come.

And all that.

 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!!

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.

MAN YOU GOT OWNED!

FUCKIN STRAIGHT UP PWNT!

Thats right tuck that little tail between your legs.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.