Homo Sapiens Vs. Adam & Eve

[Persona]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=DarkRed][CENTER][I]?The universe is constructed from a multitude of various materials. It is dynamic in form and shape due to a multitude of various processes and interactions between these materials. To the human, however, in his need to establish his place and purpose in the universe, the most important material is biological and the most important process is evolution, far it is only here that the human can learn to understand himself, an understanding that is vital to his survival.? [/I] Anonymous[/CENTER]

[B]O[/B]ver the centuries of theoretical and religious beliefs about how human began to walk on earth?s soil is still questioned. We the people have always listened, read, ect. about such things as this, causing hatred and racism (Practically more than that?.I?m just pointing out the facts), have you ever truly questioned how your first ancestors were born or have even constructed your own theory of human evolution. Well lately I have been, since I am taking philosophy is religion. It hit me there and suddenly I felt inspired to post a topic about this. I mean what is really the truth??Can either side (Religion or Paleanthropologist (scientist, ect.) actually prove this or have one of them already figured it out? Well unfortunately both sides say they have proven it, therefore still continuing the argument. But do you actually believe what they show you or read??I want your opinions as well as which side you go for. Here are some links...there are thousands?but I went for the first three ^.^.


[URL=Link]http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html[/URL]



[URL=Link]http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/genesis.html[/URL]


[URL=Link]http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/adam_eve_theory/index.asp[/URL][/COLOR][/FONT]

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=blue]I don't think either side has said they have proven it. Rather, science uses circumstantial evidence, and religion is built on faith.

To illustrate, there are various things (fossils, DNA, etc.) that point to the possibility of "this and that" happening, which lead up to the creation of man. That's the science half of it.

On the other hand, you have religion, that says, "It went like this," and, to a large extent, has not been disproven. Granted, it hasn't been proven either, but it's stood the test of time, haha.

Personally, I like to think that science compliments religion, rather than the standard "polar opposites" view most people take. I'm not saying atheists are idiots, but I've noticed that those who can grasp abstract ideas better tend to believe in God.

For instance, there's the whole "Can God create a rock so big that he himself cannot lift?" paradox. Apply that to the idea of fate and God knowing what everyone will do in the future, and you have a paradox that most people don't like. That is, God can only know what will happen next if you are fated to do so. Of course, those who see it as such merely don't see the infinitesimal creativity of an all-powerful being. We don't even have to tread beyond the realms of logic to prove God can know what will happen and free will can coexist.

That's my two sense. ^^[/COLOR]

[Persona]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=DarkRed]Well i say this, due to the fact that there has been a show based upon my thread. Of course in Discovery channel. They came up with some theory with a little proof of Eve. That is why I made such a statement. Your point of view is well respected.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Semjaza]

To me, evolution just makes sense. We share something like 98.2% of the same DNA as chimps do. Obviously we're very different, but I think it's still incredibly significant.

I'm not someone who can claim to know which is right. No one is and I really doubt anyone will ever know unless we can document evolution's course. There hasn't really been enough time since the theory was introduced to be like "This animal has specifically evolved and we have complete, documented records of it". Even then, I don't think that completely would disprove the existance of some high power anyway.

At the same time, I've never really understood why the two cannot mix together. If you believe in some sort of creator god (in whatever sense), I don't think the idea of evolution is necessarily a direct enemy. If god can create a million other things, I don't know why he can't control their evolution as well ("Hey, these monkeys were a good idea... Now I'll make some better ones. I'll call them humans"). Obviously this doesn't work in reverse... if you're not religious, you're not going to buy into any of that whatsoever.

I really cannot buy into creation stories simply because they've been so similar throughout the ages. They're obviously based on eachother... whether it's the great flood or whatever else. They share many common links. I don't think this really can answer for anyone ""Is there a god?", but I don't know how people can take it so literally either. There's obviously a starting point for every species, meaning there had to be an "Adam and Eve". Not in a literal sense, I think, but in the sense of being the first true members of their kind.

I saw this excellent documentary awhile back about a scientist who traced DNA all the way back to its original source... meaning the people we all come from in one way or another. It was in some area of Africa and I think the people were the Suni Bushmen. I believe the film was Origin of Man or something like that. It's really worth seeing.

That's just my lame idea.

[elfpirate]

[b][size=1]Personally, I am rather fond of something called "immediatism". [/size][/b]

[b][size=1]That is to say, that I really don't care too much about the origin of man- and am much more interested in where we are at right now.[/size][/b]

[b][size=1][/size][/b]
[b][size=1]Who's to say that both popular theories of our origin aren't correct- perhaps God created the Big Bang and that it was within His design that we should evolve in order to survive over time...wouldn't that just irritate the hell out of everyone if the debate was suddenly stopped?:D [/size][/b]

[b][size=1][/size][/b]
[b][size=1]Wherever our species came from, here we are now... neh?[/size][/b]

[Persona]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=DarkRed][QUOTE=elfpirate][b][size=1]Personally, I am rather fond of something called "immediatism". [/size][/b]

[b][size=1]That is to say, that I really don't care too much about the origin of man- and am much more interested in where we are at right now.[/size][/b]
[b][size=1][/size][/b]
[b][size=1]Who's to say that both popular theories of our origin aren't correct- perhaps God created the Big Bang and that it was within His design that we should evolve in order to survive over time...[/size][/b]
[b][size=1][/size][/b]
[b][size=1]Wherever our species came from, here we are now... neh?[/size][/b][/QUOTE]


Yes of course, look to the future or to say where we are now. But do you truly want to forget about the past?...or just leave it as is. of course nothing will change about the past, but it will give a better understanding. Looking ahead is nieve, you have to loo at both past and present to give your future a better understanding....so i say.

Generic, i truly do agree with your theory. ^.^[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Retribution]

[SIZE=1][QUOTE=elfpirate][b][size=1][/size][/b]
[b][size=1]Who's to say that both popular theories of our origin aren't correct- perhaps God created the Big Bang and that it was within His design that we should evolve in order to survive over time...wouldn't that just irritate the hell out of everyone if the debate was suddenly stopped?:D [/size][/b][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm thinking along the lines of you. That God started the Big Bang, which we obviously not understand the orgins of. Naw, it wouldn't really annoy me if the debate were to stop dead right now.

[QUOTE][b][size=1][/size][/b]
[b][size=1]Wherever our species came from, here we are now... neh?[/size][/b][/QUOTE][/SIZE]
True, but by understanding our origins, it would aid us in so many uncountable other fields of research. We could apply the knowledge to other species, or maybe discover something about human DNA that we could apply [b]now[/b]. It's always good to know the past, so that we have a good idea of where the future may take us. I'm sure you've heard the saying that "History repeats itself," so it's good to know what might happen.

Anyway, I think that Adam and Eve was a symbolic story, as was the entire creation story of God creating the universe in 6 days. We have good reason to believe that the creation of the Earth probably took many trillions of years to create, so the "day" thing must be a metaphor. Or maybe a day to God is like a trillion years to us. That would explain alot...

[elfpirate]

[QUOTE=Simplicity][font=Comic Sans MS][color=darkred]


Yes of course, look to the future or to say where we are now. But do you truly want to forget about the past?...or just leave it as is. of course nothing will change about the past, but it will give a better understanding. Looking ahead is nieve, you have to loo at both past and present to give your future a better understanding....so i say.

Generic, i truly do agree with your theory. ^.^[/color][/font][/QUOTE]
[b]I have no desire to forget about the past... but I do find the "religion vs science" thing a wee bit irritating, seeing as there cannot be tangible evidence of God's existence, and the scientific mind generally thinks only within the confines of the tangible and directly measurable. [/b]

[b]Until God can be observed with the five physical senses, and can therefore be measured with the precision of scientific protocol, people will argue and argue and argue. [/b]

[b]I truly do believe that (some) God created us to conform to the laws of science and evolution- that we were created from (and to be) a spiritual being... and that we have since physically evolved in order to withstand the changing environments of our planet.[/b]

[b]I do, however, have an obnoxious habit of living in the grey... not because I can't choose a particular side of an argument, but because I usually believe both sides simultaneously...[/b]

[AzureWolf]

[COLOR=blue]Wow, Generic, you are one cool dude! It's not lame at all! You approached both sides of the argument without creating any hostility whatsoever!

I wholly agree with the idea that any discovery in science doesn't immediately equate to debunking the "higher being" belief. One thing you said really stuck out: you said that creation stories are alike. Is this more incentive to believe that the stories are true (since different sources say the same thing), or do you feel that just makes them less reliable (like they just ripped off one another)? Just asking your opinion, heh.
[QUOTE]Wherever our species came from, here we are now... neh?[/QUOTE] Don't you think that's like asking how to get to point B from point A and not knowing where point A is? That is, a better understanding stems from knowing what happened before, because we know the result of things (i.e., the now). Therefore, if we look at the past, looking to the future becomes easier, don't you think?[/COLOR]

[elfpirate]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][color=blue]
Don't you think that's like asking how to get to point B from point A and not knowing where point A is? [/color][/QUOTE]
[b]No, I don't think it's like that at all... did you see this part o' me post?[/b]

[i][b]I have no desire to forget about the past... but I do find the "religion vs science" thing a wee bit irritating, seeing as there cannot be tangible evidence of God's existence, and the scientific mind generally thinks only within the confines of the tangible and directly measurable. [/b][/i]

[b]I actually really love History... but the unknown parts of our history are still only theory and speculation...[/b]

[b]So it's more like asking how to get from Atlantis to New York, if you take my meaning[url="http://www.otakuboards.com/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=1&forumid=0#"]:smirk:[/url] .[/b]

[Brasil]

Obviously, me being an Atheist means I don't believe in God. I lean more towards evolution because like Tony has said, there are some pretty interesting similarities between man and ape, and I've seen parts/heard of the documentary he's talking about.

And regarding the creation myths...somehow, I don't think placing African tribes' creation myths of goddesses coughing up the universe in some massive spontaneous regurgitation next to the Christian creation myth is really going to "tru-ify" the creation myth. If anything, it just eschews it even more.

With that said, I'm with elfpirate on this one, honestly. Given where we are today, with what's going on in the world today, and in general, the state of society, I don't think a circular discussion of Evolution vs Creation or Homo Sapiens vs Adam & Eve is really worthwhile.

Yes, knowing where we came from is a good idea, but I think trying to figure out what really happened some 150 million years ago isn't exactly going to allow us to understand our lives any better, lol.

When I hear the phrases like "if you don't understand the past, you're doomed to repeat it," Evolution vs Creation never crosses my mind. That idea more relates to sociological, political, socioeconomic historical movements more than anything else...I don't think EvC is included at all, so to use that phrase to spurn on a discussion like this is kind of moot, because the phrase doesn't relate to EvC at all.

It does relate to religion, but again, its religious roots are tied into sociology and politics.

[James]

[color=#B0251E]The only thing I'd point out is something about what Azure said. In actual fact, just about all of Genesis has been disproved...and long ago, too. lol

I can understand why that may not be so widely known or discussed in America, but yeah.

There's a book by an Australian geologist (which I've mentioned before here), which basically goes into great detail in terms of disproving, point-by-point, the biblical account of creation (from the great flood -- where did the water go and for that matter, where did it even come from? -- to the ark -- what about animals that need to live in swarms? Those that require fresh water? Single-cell organisms? Noah and his wife would have had to run at the speed of light to feed them all, lol).

So yeah. I think that Genesis is not even worth bothering with in any serious way.

But that does not mean that the world was somehow formed without God -- I do not believe that science and God are opposites. So I agree with Azure on that. In fact, I like to think that if God exists, he himself is the creator and instigator of the various natural sciences (or the scientific understandings of our world). I find that pretty logical, in any case.

But yeah, we've had this topic so many times...I don't even know what to say anymore without being repetitive. So I'll leave it up to you guys. lol[/color]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='James][color=#B0251E']There's a book by an Australian geologist (which I've mentioned before here), which basically goes into great detail in terms of disproving, point-by-point, the biblical account of creation (from the great flood -- where did the water go and for that matter, where did it even come from? -- to the ark -- what about animals that need to live in swarms? Those that require fresh water? Single-cell organisms? Noah and his wife would have had to run at the speed of light to feed them all, lol).[/color][/quote][COLOR=blue]O_o Really? Was I around for previous origin of species debates? I don't remember hearing about any such book, but I'm interested, heh.

Need name... thank you. Granted, I probably won't check it out anytime soon, but I will sometime.[/COLOR]

[elfpirate]

[QUOTE=James][color=#b0251e]

But that does not mean that the world was somehow formed without God -- I do not believe that science and God are opposites. So I agree with Azure on that. In fact, I like to think that if God exists, he himself is the creator and instigator of the various natural sciences (or the scientific understandings of our world). I find that pretty logical, in any case.

[/color][/QUOTE]
[b]Yeah- I'm with you on this one. That was my point... that logically, God could've created us in a scientific manner. [/b]

[James]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue]O_o Really? Was I around for previous origin of species debates? I don't remember hearing about any such book, but I'm interested, heh.

Need name... thank you. Granted, I probably won't check it out anytime soon, but I will sometime.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=#B0251E]I don't know if you were, I just meant that in general we've seen so many. Hehe

But yes, the book is called "Telling Lies for God". It even has a contribution from Archbishop Hollingworth (who was also our Governor-General for some time). He basically says that the book isn't anti-God but that it tries to clear up the Creationist arguments that themselves are basically anti-religious.[/color]

[Semjaza]

[quote name='AzureWolf][COLOR=blue']I wholly agree with the idea that any discovery in science doesn't immediately equate to debunking the "higher being" belief. One thing you said really stuck out: you said that creation stories are alike. Is this more incentive to believe that the stories are true (since different sources say the same thing), or do you feel that just makes them less reliable (like they just ripped off one another)? Just asking your opinion, heh.[/COLOR][/quote]

I'm more for the latter. I've spent a lot of time studying mythology because I took Latin in school, which basically meant we talked about Roman gods more than anyone would care to. In addition to this, I spent a lot of time in Catholic schools prior to college. Plus I just read the stuff for my own enjoyment. Basically, what I'm getting at, is that there I've just read so many stories with so many core similarities. I think would could argue that perhaps this makes them more "true", but when you study up on cultures and the way they've adopted stories and other things modern people consider "mythology" I don't think that argument works out. It's almost similar to the way legends (even urban ones) are created, although they're obviously more important to people.

To me, creation stories and other such things are meant as lessons and are used to explain things that normally would have no explanation. I don't take them literally and I've never quite understood how anyone could... but I guess that's what faith is about anyway.

Personally, I don't particularly adhere to anything and I'm not an athiest. I'm more agnostic. I don't think we'll ever find any proof of an existance of a higher being, but I don't discount there being one either.

[Drix D'Zanth]

A question which invariably shall remained unproven as far as I can foresee. I have the strange feeling that our current social and ethical dilemmas are furthering away from the religious answer, to a more tangible science. This worries me. Consider the fact that science (especially) doesn?t ?prove? anything. Most research rides on the premise that only the majority can be assumed to adhere to the conclusions drawn by scientists. In fact, statistical reasoning accompanying research relies on the assumption that any conclusion is can have a probability less than 100%. That is, science has resigned to assumptions based upon observations as theories.

That?s not a problem when one?s talking about protein pumps. However, it provides a sincere ethical dilemma. I plan to disclose a bit more in the ?religion? thread.

Adam and Eve? I?m assuming they weren?t the last people God created. As it has been revealed before, scientific evidence rarely discourages my faith. Usually patterns associated with creation (there are a few ideas revolving around what the ?day? might have consisted of in God?s vision) from a scientific standpoint only solidify my faith in God?s creation. Look at the complexity of life. I recently explored homeostasis of the immunological system. It?s incredible the way various cells function, how dependent they are to the overall system. Way too complex for random mutation, I?d say.

I don?t think it makes anyone ?less? religious to believe in evolution, either. I suppose the most important thing is for both sides to learn the arguments of the other.

[Guest Alchemist]

I go with evolution because creation seems o go a bit out there, no offense to anyone or any religon. But why does maen that you are anit-god and and anti-religon, my friend parents are both minsiter and he believes in evolution but is a good christian.
I just dont se how, flash everything just appears.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]In my opinion, evolution is not possible unless there is divine intervention. Basing the origins of the complexity of life on pure chance is completely ludacris.

God could, cause evolution to occur, and we could, have evolved from apes.

But I simply don't believe that we evolved from apes because God states in his books (which I belive are the word of God) that Adam and Eve were the parents of humankind. That settles it for me. Just because apes are very similar to us, that dosn't neccesarily mean that we evolved from them. Of course you would have to be a creationist to believe that.

[quote name='James][COLOR=#B0251E']There's a book by an Australian geologist (which I've mentioned before here), which basically goes into great detail in terms of disproving, point-by-point, the biblical account of creation (from the great flood -- where did the water go and for that matter, where did it even come from? -- to the ark -- what about animals that need to live in swarms? Those that require fresh water? Single-cell organisms? Noah and his wife would have had to run at the speed of light to feed them all, lol).[/COLOR][/quote]I've wondered about that story myself, but notice that it was specifically "2 of every animal". This would not include microorginisms. The earth is massive, and you wonder how Noah possibly got to all parts of the world, to get all the different types of animals. Beats me. Maybe he really did carry out the task. Maybe there were much less animals back then. Maybe the 7 continents were actually 1 then. Or maybe Noah only had to get animals in his region.

Anyway, Noah's task was quite unneccessary, when you think who powerful God is. God could have protected Noah and his good followers and the animals, yet destroyed all the evil people without the need for creating a flood or having Noah build and arc. None of it was neccessary. But God wanted it done this way. Why? I'm guessing that God was testing Noah and the believers, he wanted to test Noah's faith and willingess to complete such and incredible task, and he wanted the believers to endure hardship, as a test of the faith and patience.

Where did all the water go? Well, only God knows, and he has the complete power to make it dissapear.

Often when engaging in the Creation vs. Evolution debate, I've noticed that athiests always ask for scientific explanations for everything. They want proof that God exists; they want it handed to them like some sort of scientific equation.

Here's where the problem lies. We are so limited with our understanding, we can't comprehend things that our senses cannot percieve, or ideas too complex for our brians to proccess. God is not like us. He is not like any of his creations. He is not a tangeable being, for he is the One who created matter and energy. And He created them from nothing. He has no beginning and no end. He has always been there and will always be there. He is eternal; absolute. Why ask for His origins when He created time and space, and matter and energy? Why ask for scientific explanations to His existence when it is God who created the laws of the Universe, and has the power to change them at his will?

This is way too difficult to understand. You wonder: "How can something be created from nothing? How can God have no beginning?", but Creationists accept this, because we know that humans and all of God's creations are limited in understanding.

When you think about the Creation theory this way, it suddenly makes much more sense, doesn't it?[/COLOR]

[Semjaza]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']When you think about the Creation theory this way, it suddenly makes much more sense, doesn't it?[/COLOR][/quote]

There's no way what you've written here will help explain or clear up anything to anyone that doesn't have the same faith based system you have. In order to accept most of the ideas you've presented (or really just reiterated because this is really the traditional argument here) you have to already believe in it. If you don't accept these ideas of faith, this simply just doesn't work and really doesn't bring either side any closer together.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your purpose in writing that, but I don't think what's there allows the idea to make any more sense than it ever has.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Chabichou']In my opinion, evolution is not possible unless there is divine intervention. Basing the origins of the complexity of life on pure chance is completely ludacris.[/quote]
[SIZE=1]Evolution occurs by random luck of the draw. And all this randomness spread over a period of billions of years could very well in fact result in organized life forms. But aside from that and like a few others have mentioned, who's to say that God and science are completely independent of one another. I believe that God probably [i]did[/i] guide the course of evolution, so that Genesis could be fulfilled.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE]I've wondered about that story myself, but notice that it was specifically "2 of every animal". This would not include microorginisms. The earth is massive, and you wonder how Noah possibly got to all parts of the world, to get all the different types of animals. Beats me. Maybe he really did carry out the task. Maybe there were much less animals back then. Maybe the 7 continents were actually 1 then. Or maybe Noah only had to get animals in his region.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]You see, back then, the "entire world" was a very small place, at least to Noah's knowledge. Therefore, it is still very hard to do, but he may have collected "all" of the animals in the "world." At least the ones that couldn't survive on land, or migrate to the other areas of the unflooded world. Yes, God could have told Noah that there was going to be a flood that covered his reigon only, but I suppose we'll never truly know what His purpose of keeping Noah in the dark. [/SIZE]

[QUOTE]Anyway, Noah's task was quite unneccessary, when you think who powerful God is. God could have protected Noah and his good followers and the animals, yet destroyed all the evil people without the need for creating a flood or having Noah build and arc. None of it was neccessary. But God wanted it done this way. Why? I'm guessing that God was testing Noah and the believers, he wanted to test Noah's faith and willingess to complete such and incredible task, and he wanted the believers to endure hardship, as a test of the faith and patience.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]Yes, probably, as well as a foreshadowing of Baptism... but you don't believe in that. But I believe that the flood purged the world of all sin (supposedly), and let Noah begin anew. It was a rebirth of sorts for the "entire human race," which is basically what baptism is.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE]Often when engaging in the Creation vs. Evolution debate, I've noticed that athiests always ask for scientific explanations for everything. They want proof that God exists; they want it handed to them like some sort of scientific equation.

Here's where the problem lies. We are so limited with our understanding, we can't comprehend things that our senses cannot percieve, or ideas too complex for our brians to proccess. God is not like us. He is not like any of his creations. He is not a tangeable being, for he is the One who created matter and energy. And He created them from nothing. He has no beginning and no end. He has always been there and will always be there. He is eternal; absolute. Why ask for His origins when He created time and space, and matter and energy? Why ask for scientific explanations to His existence when it is God who created the laws of the Universe, and has the power to change them at his will?[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]Yes, I agree with all this. But people can logic and reason their way through things all they want. Ultamitely, it'll lead to the Big Bang. Then what? You tell me. That's probably where God stepped in and gave us the first step.[/SIZE]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Generic NPC #3]There's no way what you've written here will help explain or clear up anything to anyone that doesn't have the same faith based system you have. In order to accept most of the ideas you've presented (or really just reiterated because this is really the traditional argument here) you have to already believe in it. If you don't accept these ideas of faith, this simply just doesn't work and really doesn't bring either side any closer together.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your purpose in writing that, but I don't think what's there allows the idea to make any more sense than it ever has.[/QUOTE]I was simply presenting the ideas which give the creation theory it's validity. I'm just saying, that the fact that humans are physically and mentally limited is what makes people have a hard time believing in a creator. I wasn't saying that what I had said was proof that God exisits, just that if God did in fact exist, there is an explaination for some of the questions running through our heads.[/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]This argument has come up so often, and we continuously see people intelligently put forth arguments validating the possibility that religon and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Does this tell you something? The idea of God [although not necessarily in a Christian God type of capacity] being some scientific super-wonder is appealing, and possibly the most sensible way to look at things.[/size]

[Morpheus]

I'd say creation is outdated. Back when it was created, we had no idea where we came from. The technology being limited, the couldn't dig for past objects or date anything. They came to the conclusion that they were created, because they couldn't find out any other possible way. We have come across another way, thousands of years in the future, but most hold on to their beliefs. They want rock solid proof.

The truth is, neither side has 100% proof. I believe in evolution bacuse we have some proof. Creationism seems to be geared towards simpler minded people. All it says is "God created everything." How? "He just did." Creationism has the potential to be completely right. It could also be little more than a fairy tale, passed down to give those that can't control their lives some reason for bad things happening.

The reasons above are probably why many stick to creationism. "It's God's will" is a lot more appealing than "Life sucks. Get over it." The sad thing is, I know many people that grow up without a backbone because they believe so strongly that religion will give them all the answers. I dread to think how they will survive in the real world.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]My opinion isn?t all that far off the majority in that I doubt that either theories fit the bill.

The good thing is that when a person dies they either move on to an afterlife where these mysteries are uncovered or they become a mound of rotting flesh and are privy to that particular type of apathy things that no longer exist have. [/COLOR]