Evolution or God????. . . .

[beachguy in thongs]

Rum & COCA-COLA, I don't understand this sentence:

that it all connects at the one point it started

[CocaCola]

I can't explain it either... what I meant was... the collection of everything is connected at the one point where it all started. This is God.

Like this...

@-------------------\________________|----------------
^>>>>^>>>>>>>>>>^>>>>>>>>>>>>>^>>>>>>>>>>>^
God//Everything//Present Day//Later... it hasn't happened yet.//And the time that hasn't occured yet.

Sorry for the shitty diagram. It probably only makes sense to me... figure it out, anyways!

[CocaCola]

Stupid editing nonsense! but yeah... God was the start of the universe and it has been flowing through spacetime ever since it's creation. But it goes through a constant cycle of death (crunch) and rebirth (bang) and the universe constantly has to build it's self up again... and life to evolve again... and the next time the universe comes together, maybe we'll get closer to consciousness evolution.

I'm tired. GOOD FUCKING NIGHT.

[Pyramidsonmars]

The question is invalid, anyway. You don't "believe" in evolution, just like you don't "believe" in relativity, or "believe" in electricity. These, along with evolution, are concepts that simply are, they exist. I don't "believe" in a tree because whether I believe in it or not, it's there.

but you see you have to BELIEVE in your interpretation of the evidence for evolution. That is the theory that man came from natural means. Show me where they've found remains of an ape-man, not an ape and then a man, and THEN you'll have an argument.

[F L E S H]

but you see you have to BELIEVE in your interpretation of the evidence for evolution. That is the theory that man came from natural means. Show me where they've found remains of an ape-man, not an ape and then a man, and THEN you'll have an argument.

OH LORD I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT AND BEHOLD, I DO BELIEVE.

Seriously man, stop mixing up your little faith with science because you can't win, and in the end you just end up playing with semantics. There is nothing to believe, like I said, the sky will always be blue whether you or I believe it or not.

[beachguy in thongs]

but you see you have to BELIEVE in your interpretation of the evidence for evolution. That is the theory that man came from natural means. Show me where they've found remains of an ape-man, not an ape and then a man, and THEN you'll have an argument.

Here's your ape-man.

http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/pithecanthropus

[Pyramidsonmars]

Here's your ape-man.

http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/pithecanthropus

Dubois' find was not a complete specimen, as many are led to believe, but consisted merely of a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth. A 342 page report written shortly after the find throws much doubt upon the validity of this particular specimen. Despite this, the Java Man is still found in many textbooks today. A second Java Man was later discovered in the village of Sangiran, Central Java, 18km to the north of Solo. His remains, a skullcap of similar size to that found by Dubois, was discovered by Berlin-born paleontologist GHR von Koenigswald in 1936, as a direct result of excavations by Dubois in 1891.

[Pyramidsonmars]

Dubois' find was not a complete specimen, as many are led to believe, but consisted merely of a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth. A 342 page report written shortly after the find throws much doubt upon the validity of this particular specimen. Despite this, the Java Man is still found in many textbooks today. A second Java Man was later discovered in the village of Sangiran, Central Java, 18km to the north of Solo. His remains, a skullcap of similar size to that found by Dubois, was discovered by Berlin-born paleontologist GHR von Koenigswald in 1936, as a direct result of excavations by Dubois in 1891.

that's straight from your link, thanks

That is exactly what I mean. If you're trying to determine this new find, and you, like Darwin, are doing it with the presupposition that "God has not created man, so can we say that humanity came from "X", and "X" has led us to believe that such and such is so and so, we could include that bias of our belief into our fallible human mind. That is where you have to look closely at the truth and what is absolute truthful, logical, and sensible when explaining this.

[Pyramidsonmars]

Dubois' find was not a complete specimen, as many are led to believe, but consisted merely of a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth. A 342 page report written shortly after the find throws much doubt upon the validity of this particular specimen. Despite this, the Java Man is still found in many textbooks today. A second Java Man was later discovered in the village of Sangiran, Central Java, 18km to the north of Solo. His remains, a skullcap of similar size to that found by Dubois, was discovered by Berlin-born paleontologist GHR von Koenigswald in 1936, as a direct result of excavations by Dubois in 1891.

If you can't tell, Dubois has found something that is quite ordinary; that is a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth of some ordinairy animal or perhaps human remains, and has for some reason gotten it in his head that he should assume it could be something different...

[beachguy in thongs]

That guy had to bury his findings underneath a floorboard because of skeptics back in 1895.

More than a century later, he's still burying his bones.