»The main point is to make you ask what you _know_«

One more time for your mind:
EVOLUTION
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date: 1622
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
- evo·lu·tion·ari·ly /-sh&-"ner-&-lE/ adverb
- evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- evo·lu·tion·ism /-sh&-"ni-z&m/ noun
- evo·lu·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective


This is the Merrium-Webster(and hence the popular English) definition. This has been the definition from the years 1622-2003.
It seem as though some of you are stuck on definition 4, a and b. As you can see, other meanings exist, and if they are applied to the definition 4, you can see that adaptation is evolution. Just not your X-men definition of biolgical evolution. Let's not get stuck on one narrow view. This is a Matrix forum. Multiplicity is paramount.

Also, genetics are not quite so simple, if dominant only stacked on dominant, than two brown/black haired individuals could never have a blonde child, which they can. Now, what are the reasons for the possibility of those rare genes to surface? Why do dominant genes EVER get beaten by the passive?

This thread is just going in cirlces , this is the last time I will post here .
Regarding Ogami's last question , if two people that are heterozigous for a gene get married , they will have have 1/4 chance of having a child that is homozigous for the recessive allele .

From who did they get their bits and pieces of information about the matrix and the "real" world?
Did they get it from people who were freed? Or were they freed from the matrix itself and then being told of what the matrix wants us to believe?


"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, 'cause Kansas, is goin' bye-bye."

Agent Smith has been spreading the information through media leaks to the popular press. His agenda is to confuse all inhabitants of all matrices, and to make certain that the majority of the people will be mixed up about whether they are suffering from ergot poisoning or some other accidental hallucinogenic substance, or whether they are an international freedom fighter from the future, that can "bend" the rules of reality around them, so as to defeat artificially intelligent computer programs that were too criminal or nasty to get along with the other robots in the machine city that they built on top of DisneyLand.

How do you know all this? Is it you, Larry? Andy?

knnknn wrote:

Hey, one should make god-explained.com with all the arguments and counter-arguments.

Someone did:

My facts are not off. The word evolution existed far before Darwin used it as his watchword for continual, biological change based on the environment. And that is my point. The idea of evolution predates its biological meaning. If you doubt the veracity of my research, please look it up yourself. Here is the site I use when online. Merrium-Webster:

The bible was just a book written buy some guys. If you chose to live your life by it OK. But I think there is one problem with the whole thing. The dates just don't match up. So unless you believe carbon dating is a complete lie nothing works. The dinosaurs bones are pretty real, you can touch them. You can't go find the guy who wrote some book that was edited like 50 times and ask him what the real deal is. Sure there was probably a Jesus, and he was probably a good guy. But the whole Creation, Good, Bad thing is crap. Why does everyone have to have a belief structure? If you wanna be a nice guy then fine, you don't need a book and a God to be nice. If you read this book and go kill people you're the GOOD guy. But if you read some other book and go kill people you're the BAD guy. Ok...

P.S. Sorry for the rant and I know that now I am just as bad as the next Jesus freak for arguing about this. But I was just trying to see if anyone else saw the blatant religous stuff in the Matrix when I ran into this crap.

random guy wrote:

The bible was just a book written buy some guys

My, god, how times change. A few years ago....
Probably the whole bible god thing wouldn't have started if discussion boards had been available...

random guy wrote:

The dinosaurs bones are pretty real

I heard that dinosaurs aren't kosher (orthodox jews claimed, that since they aren't mentioned in the bible it's forbidden to watch Jurassic Park)

random guy wrote:

you don't need a book and a God to be nice.

Maybe god needs us? Hehe, Wachowski style: Who needs whom?

random guy wrote:

Sorry for the rant and I know that now I am just as bad as the next Jesus freak for arguing about this.

Hey, since we are in a free forum, who says that (since the bible might be very wrong) we haven't lived many lives before and YOU have been Jesus? Or the forum admin (me!). Ooh-la-la-la, let's praise the forum admin, la-la-la

random guy wrote:

blatant religous stuff in the Matrix

The Matrix movies are pretty religious because they are pretty everything. (Matrix 2 was banned in Egypt for being too religious).

drnima wrote:

...or are they predetermined by God . Do we really chose to be good or bad or do we have no control over that , since God controls us all

Someone please get those religious out of this site. This is for free minds,
not stupid people who still believe in these jesus/god/bible crap... get back
to Church guys, and go watch The Grinch, not Matrix

Woah, this one went deep down the rabbit hole! All the way from early Christianity to evolution. Well since the balls been rolled I'm gunna jump on the site admins bandwagon here and pose a question to who ever introduced the religious arguement into this forum. Not wishing to be insensitive, argumentitive or ignorent, just wanting your view on what I see is the biggest paradox in Christianity. If you can give me a valid answer I'll be a happy man. Also I'm sure this relates to the Matrix one way or another (?).

If God is omnipitent, knows everything that has happened and will happen, doesn't that make free will a little redundant? I mean, if you are destined to commit a sin, you will do it, then why should you be punnished for it? There's either a lot of people that have been screwed into going to hell from conception or heaven is very forgiving and hell is pretty empty. It seems to me that most religious types (of all faiths) seem to like the idea of free will and destiny together. Thats just not going to happen.

Not trying to commit any crimes here or upset anybody, but I'm afraid that ones deeper than anything the W.B's dremt up. Answers on a post card...

Loki wrote:

If you are destined to commit a sin, you will do it, then why should you be punnished for it?

So if God gave us free will, he gave us the ability to Sin. And since he must have created (or allowed to be created) the Sins themselves, I'd consider this entrapment.

Let's take it up a notch further.

Why are we here?

If it's to love up god until he let's us in his club, I'm not sure it's the kind of club I'd like.

Or are we just a hobby that God knocked up during a quiet week?

Considering it's history, I'm surprised Christianity has survived this long.

Sure, thats pretty valid also, but my point was that if God knows all then there is no free will.
I guess this is pretty much the crux of the arguement for the architect and the idea's revolving around choice. Either the architect knows everything that is going to happen and therefore choice is an illusion or he doesn't and, well anything could happen.
I just think that if the first example is the case then Neo shouldn't be responsible for his sins.

ha ha ha... I laugh at the incredibly ironic statement made by strav:

"Someone please get those religious out of this site. This is for free minds, not stupid people who still believe in these jesus/god/bible crap... get back to Church guys, and go watch The Grinch, not Matrix"

well... I see how incredibly open your mind is...
Lets break down your response

1) lets get rid of all the people with a different opinion than mine.
2) this site is for people who have convinced themselves that they have "figured out" that God could not possibly have existed based on their full knowledge of the universe. It is for people who refuse to accept that there may be validity in something someone else says even though they can't back up their claims... A.K.A. "free minds." Oh yah, and everyone else is stupid.
3) put those lousy people back where they belong and where I don't have to listen to them.
4) *sarcastically ignorant remark*

Tell me, do you think that you know everything? Can you learn nothing from no one? I'm sorry, but, claiming that everyone else who doesn't agree with you is stupid, doesn't make you look smart.

marl64 wrote:

So if God gave us free will, he gave us the ability to Sin. And since he must have created (or allowed to be created) the Sins themselves, I'd consider this entrapment. ... Why are we here?

The question you are attempting to ask is why did God feel the NEED to create us? - Was God lonely? Is it possible for God to be lonely if he is perfect?

And if so, if you believe that we are made to resemble God, then why do we have faults? Should we all not be peaceful creatures that are forever good?

Finally, why was sex forbidden (the apple is a metaphor for sex)? Is that not our attempt to emulate god, whom in his image we were created, thus would be our inherent nature to recreate life?

In my opinion, religion relies on the principle of ego. Humans like to feel important. And if this life is all that can be offered to us, then how can the common man FEEL important without a higher sense of purpose.

What? Why was sex forbidden?
Sex was forbidden? When, and by whose authorization?
Somebody better tell the Fox network!

HolEavataR, if you really want to know the answers to your questions... why not read the Bible once or twice?

Anyways... God did not NEED to create us. He created us for his own glory. He created a being with a choice to go against God or accept him. If we accepted God of our own free will, how glorious would that have been? However, we chose to reject him, mainly because of the influence of Satan. Therefore, God now has a chance to show his mercy like never before. Even though we rejected him... he loved us so much that he sent his son (who was in essence God himself) to die for us.

We have faults because, when we were given a choice... we rejected God. God is perfect. Therefore, rejecting perfection leads to imperfection. You are right, we were made to resemble God in that we have a spiritual element.

Sex was not forbidden. God created sex for our enjoyment... just like the garden of eden was created for Adams enjoyment. God only made one stipulation... don't eat of the the one tree. God only makes one stipulation on sex... get married. Despite what the media and the country thinks, sex is better inside marriage. God was not making this stipulation just to ruin our fun, He knew what was best for us. Don't you see the negative reprocussions in today's society of explicit sex?


Ogami, wow... looks like you need to go here too...

stinkz wrote:

HolEavataR, if you really want to know the answers to your questions... why not read the Bible once or twice? Sex was not forbidden....God only made one stipulation... don't eat of the the one tree. God only makes one stipulation on sex... get married.

I know that I have probably insulted many religious people with my blasphemy. Stinkz, I was only trying to make a point, that the concept of God is a product or helped by our feeling og insignificance. That we would feel without purpose without him.

In the literary sense, God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree. But if you only look at the Bible as a book without hidden meaning, there is much you haven't discovered yet about religion. The Apple REPRESENTS sex. Sex was temptation for Adam and Eve, they were supposed to deny it, but they could not. Which is why priests remain celibat, in order to follow the word of God that was not followed initially by A & E. After they were cast from Eden, God stipulated that "apple eating" is a sin out of wedlock.

I'm sorry but your analogies are not correct. The tree was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eating of it took away their innocence. It had absolutely nothing to do with sex because there weren't any stipulations on sex yet. Adam and Eve were made perfect for each other, and the concept of marriage was of no use yet. God saw that Adam was lonely and made a match for him... not a test subject.

HolEavatar... my point is... why would we have this longing for purpose if there was not an innate desire for purpose instilled in us?

stinkz wrote:

I'm sorry but your analogies are not correct. The tree was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eating of it took away their innocence. It had absolutely nothing to do with sex because there weren't any stipulations on sex yet

Stinkz, there never was a tree. The tree is a metaphor. The apple eating is a euphamism. At the time the bible was written, talk of sex was immoral, so rather than write about sex, the metaphor of the apple was instilled, much like we might say today, "suck my banana" or "I popped her cherry." This way, when children hear a euphamism, due to their ignorance, they don't know what is being talked about, shielding them from immoral discussions until they are old enough to comprehend.

Those who speak to you about the "tree of knowledge" haven't made that connection yet.

Whether or not the tree has a metaphorical component or not, and understanding of the story behind it would show you that it has nothing to do with sex. There has never been a time when all sex was immoral... or else we wouldn't be here.

stinkz wrote:

There has never been a time when all sex was immoral... or else we wouldn't be here.

But that is the point. God made the gardens of Eden for ONLY Adam and Eve. This was to show his glory. But Adam and Eve desecrated his land with sex. It was a sin to breed because it was NOT God's will. In religion, we are the offspring of sinners, which is why A & E were cast out of the Gardens, not because they ate some stupid fruit.

And if you don't think that sex is viewed by God as immoral, perhaps you should read about Sodom and Gammora.

HolEavatar... that is an interesting theory... but it is not the case. The fruit does not represent sex. The fruit represents the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were totally naked in the garden. It was not until they ate of the tree that they even realized they were naked.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they exchanged normal sex acts with forbidden ones. God does not approve of the fornication which Sodom and Gommorah were filled with. However, God wants us to engage in sex in a healthy and decent way inside marriage. In Genesis chapter 35, just a few chapters after the Sodom and Gomorrah account, the Lord says to Israel, "Be fruitful and multiply;"

Stinkz, I think we could continue this discussion for far longer than we should. I guess we must agree to disagree and leave it at that. I don't want to disenchant others from posting to the initial discussion topic.... uh... what was the topic of this forum again?

Thats fine with me.... you can continue to disagree based on the fact that you just "think" that is what the fruit means, but according to the Bible, you are wrong. You can read meaning into whatever you want, be it the matrix, or the Bible. But that doesn't mean it is the correct meaning.