LOL.. have you done this alone... wow, by yourself.. wow!!

how smart, independent, wise, beautifull.. I believe the chapter two is wrong.. The evolution of men kind has a new divisor.. Ohh no.. Share the calendar again with BH and AH (H of Helland course)..

now serious.. I was not being sarcastic.. just kiding to show you how innocent is when we try to decide complicated questions by the way that we see the reallity..

But, here is a chapter on the bible (the real one, made by Jesus of Nazare) to make you think a little deeper on questions of religion and science:

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Corinthians 13:9-12

Even chapter like that is fully accpetable by scientist.. How do you talk about something that you know only a very thin piece? So.. At this point, by science it is fully impossible to have a full awnser of: Creation and evolution..

Well.. Revolution every one is free to create it own one..

Claudio

>A pro-scientific version.
>
>The Holy Bible 2.0 (beta)
>
> 1. The Creation
> 2. The Evolution
> 3. The Revolution
>
>Chapter 1 - The Creation
>
>You are real. I am real. We exist in reality.
>
>Reality is everything you can think of. All the matter across all of space throughout all of time. That means every place on earth, and every person is real.
>
>Reality includes what people think and feel: their culture, their art, their technology, their knowledge, and their emotions and sensations.
>
>Of all the words in all the worlds languages, only a few concepts do not fit nicely into reality.
>
>God doesn't fit at all, because God is a reality altogether different than our reality.
>
>God is not literally above or below or beyond or behind or inside or outside reality, because space is part of reality, and God is a different reality.
>
>God is absolute reality. Absolute reality has its own absolute space, absolute time, and absolute matter.
>
>The mind is a concept that doesn't fit into our reality, because the mind exists in absolute reality. A mind is made of absolute matter moving in absolute space and absolute time.
>
>The ever changing states of a mind in absolute reality are like a dictionary, an encyclopedia, and a stage all rolled into one self-contained story.
>
>That story is the conscious experience. Complete with its own relative space, relative time, and relative matter, the conscious experience is a reality itself.
>
>Your mind exists in absolute reality. It creates your relative reality.
>
>Chapter 2 - The Evolution
>
> Your mind exists in absolute reality. It creates your relative reality.
>
>This idea has been popular for thousands of years and will soon be scientifically confirmed.
>
>The distinction between the divine (absolute) and the common (relative) is actually the definition of Holy, and is the starting point of nearly all the world's religions.
>
>The first line of The Holy Bible (the original one) separates everything into The Heavens and The Earth. The first line of The Tao into The Way and The World.
>
>Through the centuries those theologies of ancient cultures were given to more modern cultures, starting with the Greeks and going through the Enlightenment.
>
>The result was philosophy. Theology had evolved into philosophy.
>
>In the definitions near the beginning of "Principles of Natural Philosophy", Newton wrote about the absolute and relative natures of time and space.
>
> 1. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called "duration"; relative, apparent, and common time is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.
>
> 2. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces, which our senses determine by its position to bodies and which is commonly taken for immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneous, an aerial, or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative space are the same in figure and magnitude, but they do not remain always numerically the same.
>
>He applied the absolute/relative duality which was popular at the time (and many times before it) and decided that his mathematical formulas described the absolute nature of time and space.
>
>Though he would later be corrected on that point by Einstein, Newton's work marked a new evolution in how we describe and understand our world.
>
>Physics was born from philosophy.
>
>Einstein provided us with new and improved mathematical formulas for space and time, but he also corrected Newton's definitions of space and time.
>
>He convinced us that the space and time we study and measure in science is not absolute. It is relative.
>
>But that does not mean Einstein didn't continue to believe in the absolute/relative duality.
>
> "But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"
>
> "Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in some surprise. "After all, you did stress the fact that it is impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the determination of time."
>
> "Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe."
>
>It only meant that his mathematical equations were specifically dealing with relative measurements.
>
>Chapter 3 - The Revolution
>
>Despite having philosophical roots in absolute/relative dual realities the mathematical equations that have defined physics for centuries have focused on one or the other.
>
>There would be nothing wrong with that, if all the mathematical equations of physics nicely agreed with each other and caused little controversy.
>
>But today that is not that case. Specifically, the quest for quantum gravity is wide open.
>
>The result will be something roughly like this.
>
>A researcher will create a computer program to represent absolute reality.
>
>And in the complexity of the computer program, there has to exist a system which is making measurements of the other systems in the computer program.
>
>Finally, those measurements created by the internal observer of the computer program have to be gathered and interpretated.
>
>In the event that this ever happens, a first-of-its-kind event will have taken place:
>
> Mathematics will have modeled absolute reality and relative reality in a single program.
>
>This land mark achievement will be made possible by the future of information technology and medicine. It will be accomplished using programs instead of equations. And the following discovery will be made:
>
> The measurements of space and time made by the internal observer will demonstrate time dilation, length contraction, and the results of the double-slit experiment even when the data for absolute reality fails to demonstrate these phenomena.
>
>The only conclusion is that this technique is the proper way to understand the phenomena of relativity and quantum mechanics and is the best path to quantum gravity.