Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

Evolution is a fraud, that's true, because the higher the science of human education is not the better and the other way around, with high science, human beings create things that make us kill each other, from evolution alone create many people who are only selfish.

How do you propose then how we came to be? So far, evolution, though still has a lot to prove, is the most logical among all other creation theories. A lot can be argued about this theory however if you compare it to other's it explains a lot more than just basing on faith. Sometimes it's not all about faith. For now, until a better alternative is presented, i think i'll have to believe in evolution

Yes, that's what it is. There is really no other model to explain what evolution explains, evolution is the only scientific theory right now. You don't need faith to believe in evolution because you have the evidence. People who deny evolution are only doing so because they have their own agenda, mostly believers in god. That's why religion is toxic.

[1715625571]

1715625571

[1715625571]

1715625571

[1715625571]

1715625571

[1715625571]

1715625571

[BADecker]

Evolution is a fraud, that's true, because the higher the science of human education is not the better and the other way around, with high science, human beings create things that make us kill each other, from evolution alone create many people who are only selfish.

How do you propose then how we came to be? So far, evolution, though still has a lot to prove, is the most logical among all other creation theories. A lot can be argued about this theory however if you compare it to other's it explains a lot more than just basing on faith. Sometimes it's not all about faith. For now, until a better alternative is presented, i think i'll have to believe in evolution

Yes, that's what it is. There is really no other model to explain what evolution explains, evolution is the only scientific theory right now. You don't need faith to believe in evolution because you have the evidence. People who deny evolution are only doing so because they have their own agenda, mostly believers in god. That's why religion is toxic.

All the evolution evidence can be applied to other things that are not part of evolution.

This means you need to make a choice as to what the evidence applies to.

The choice is a faith choice.

Evolution is as much of a religion as any other.

[Astargath]

By the way if you guys want to find out more about evolution and specifically creationists claims check out this : http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
It has basically all the stupid questions creationists ask and use to try to disprove evolution

[IadixDev]

it is a theory. Do you have any evidence to support your opinion that evolution is a hoax?

The fact that evolution is a theory is the basic proof that it is a hoax. If it were a fact, it would not be a theory.

The fact that you still don't understand or chose to be ignorant about what scientific theory means it shows that you are delusional. Everyone already explained to you what it means yet you don't care because your religion brainwashed you this hard. It's sad.

Having irrational and ignorant bias against religion doesnt make you more scientific.


https://youtu.be/CAj5aJRB3HE  

Vandal & the dsc no time to gaze  

What?

Nothing, it was probably too complicated for you to understand. Go back to your lab.

You said something about religion for some reason while I was only explaining that badecker ignores what a scientific theory means ??

The thing is i see you more insulting religious people, with full of a priori, while you didn't even study religion, than making scientific point on evolution, other than anti religious points.

Being anti religious doesnt make you more scientific.

And I see you more making scorning comments on other than posting interesting facts or studies.

There is very few scientist who are atheist btw.

[IadixDev]

Maybe or maybe not. There still lots of unanswered questions in order to convince myself whether this theory is a hoax or not. For example, If evolution is true, why there is no evolution of monkey to human from time to time? It should be still happening up until now right?

There is very little empirical evidence of it.

Most of the evidence is finding only certain species at a certain time, with c14.

Lot of darwin work, and the more interesting is not empirical. There are some empirical study with morphology etc that seem to point in an evolution, but even in the creationist theory that would not be too surprising all creature of a same god in the same universe would be similar.

But we still have no idea how to turn a monkey to einstein.

Even turning a mussel to oyster would be a scientific miracle.

But the amount of work / computational power to achieve this is tremendous.

The biggest mining farms are for 256 bit hash, which much less work than finding all the good genes for any animal.

In any case science say very little about the force at play with this.

Even saying it's "random" mutation is an admition of their lack of knowledge of this force.

But we still have no idea how to turn a monkey to einstein.

But we still have no idea how to turn a Coypu into a beaver..

But we still have no idea how to turn a beaver into a otter ..

Coypu - YouTube
Video for Coypu▶ 0:37
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taZBYXcGTbM

Turn a coypu into a beaver.. Can a coypu do what a beaver does?..

Beavers
3:19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL5SD6z7AG8

Turn a beaver into a otter ..can a beaver do what an otter does?..

 Otter
 5:18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptkytDOVFN0


3 creature that are so alike but act different in many ways..
But evolved from the same specie ..      
Doesn't take a genius to see how close they look all 3 different BUT the same specie sort of..

Can a human swing from a tree as good as a monkey ..
Well a monkey is a different BUT the same specie ..

Just the same as a coypu beaver and otter all look alike but are not..

Also i wonder if a beaver understands what a otter is saying?
Or can it talk the same as an otter?

John Crick who discovered dna and also LSD user told deep things on this link between all species through dna. He saw dna as common link between all forms of life.

It's generally easy to understand other animals or vegetals aka if a cat is meowing in demanding or agressive maner, or if a plante is in good health or not.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Mad_Pursuit

He was atheist but also didn't believe too much in earth abiogenesis, it's a bit cognitive dissonance where scientist get into if they are too much atheist.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/  

The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation. The most startling revelation in Overbye's article is that scientists have resuscitated a proposal once floated by Crick. Dissatisfied with conventional theories of life's beginning, Crick conjectured that aliens came to Earth in a spaceship and planted the seeds of life here billions of years ago. This notion is called directed panspermia. In less dramatic versions of panspermia, microbes arrived on our planet via asteroids, comets or meteorites, or drifted down like confetti.


But it's the problem a little in our modern society, scientist hate religion because of certain number of nuts ( who very often know very little of their own book and often do the opposite of what is told in it), and religious hate scientist because of the coldness and lack of interest in human affairs.

[IadixDev]

By the way if you guys want to find out more about evolution and specifically creationists claims check out this : http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
It has basically all the stupid questions creationists ask and use to try to disprove evolution

I have read some this most of the point are moot actually lol

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB402.html

I just pick this one among other, and Edelman explain how language formed.

Many other points are not up to date with latest science.

They have a very naturalist take on things, and it's already almost sure most brain advanced function are not made to understand natural environment but self and maintain cohesion among large group of individual.

But need to read Edelman, it out date most of the points in that link.

And it's based on experimental study of neurology.


http://www.agenthuman.com/product/evolution_social_consciousness_in_animals.html

=>

The Importance Of Categories

I see nowhere in this link and the external links where they even mention self understanding as the basics of consciousness evolution whereas from neurology study it show brain advanced function form to accomodate what they call "Primary consciousness" more than to understand nature / environment.





http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.html


Intelligent design implies philosophical naturalism. As noted above, all science, industry, agriculture, and so forth is based on nature. That does not stop evolutionists, other scientists, engineers, manufacturers, and farmers from being able to look beyond the materialism and find spirituality in their lives.

The intelligent design crowd, on the other hand, seems unable to make that step. They seem to require objective, material evidence to back up their spirituality. But that, of course, makes their spirituality naturalistic. For all their complaints about materialism, people like Dembski and Johnson are trying to expand materialism into the field of religion.


This one also clearly lack philosophical perpective.

This is a very old debate that started between plato and aristotle in antiquity.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] argues that non-physical (but substantial) forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form or idea is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only objects of study that can provide knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.[6] However, the theory is considered a classical solution to the problem of universals.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good

The first references that are seen in The Republic to the Form of the Good are within the conversation between Glaucon and Socrates (454 c–d). When trying to answer such difficult questions pertaining to the definition of justice, Plato identifies that we should not “introduce every form of difference and sameness in nature” instead we must focus on "the one form of sameness and difference that was relevant to the particular ways of life themselves” which is the form of the Good. This form is the basis for understanding all other forms, it is what allows us to understand everything else. Through the conversation between Socrates and Glaucon (508 a–c), Plato analogizes the form of the Good with the sun as it is what allows us to see things. Here, Plato describes how the sun allows for sight. But he makes a very important distinction, “sun is not sight” but it is “the cause of sight itself.” As the sun is in the visible realm, the form of Good is in the intelligible realm. It is “what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower”. It is not only the “cause of knowledge and truth, it is also an object of knowledge”.

Plato identifies how the form of the Good allows for the cognizance to understand such difficult concepts as justice. He identifies knowledge and truth as important, but through Socrates (508d–e) says, “good is yet more prized”. He then proceeds to explain “although the good is not being” it is “superior to it in rank and power”, it is what “provides for knowledge and truth” (508e).




http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html

This one is also inaccurate if not plain false.

Language, although symbolic, is still material.

It's even self defeating in the sense we have a word for god who according to them is not a material object.

Parmenides show the fallacy of this claim 800 bc.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB421.html

This one no comment ..

Maybe he should investigate who invented the first music scale, how and why.

It has nothing to do with social dancing.



90% of points in that link are not up to date science and ignore very basics of philosophy that are at the very root of rationalism.

[Palmerson]

Evolution is a fraud, that's true, because the higher the science of human education is not the better and the other way around, with high science, human beings create things that make us kill each other, from evolution alone create many people who are only selfish.

You contradict yourself. Evolution is not a hoax. If people are poor and are constantly creating new ways of killing it is also an example of evolution. Only that the evolution of human thought and weapons. Therefore, it is foolish to deny evolution can be challenged only some of her theories.

[BADecker]

Evolution is a fraud, that's true, because the higher the science of human education is not the better and the other way around, with high science, human beings create things that make us kill each other, from evolution alone create many people who are only selfish.

You contradict yourself. Evolution is not a hoax. If people are poor and are constantly creating new ways of killing it is also an example of evolution. Only that the evolution of human thought and weapons. Therefore, it is foolish to deny evolution can be challenged only some of her theories.

Evolution as you are explaining it is simply a string of changes. The word "evolution" might be a great word to explain this, but it mixes people up with the evolution that is impossible.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today... without divine intervention.

The marvelous thing about what God has done is, God has given us (people) reasoning ability so that we can "evolve" things, like the string of changes that take us through philosophy, or the string of changes whereby we can make greater and more powerful weapons.

[Astargath]

Evolution is a fraud, that's true, because the higher the science of human education is not the better and the other way around, with high science, human beings create things that make us kill each other, from evolution alone create many people who are only selfish.

You contradict yourself. Evolution is not a hoax. If people are poor and are constantly creating new ways of killing it is also an example of evolution. Only that the evolution of human thought and weapons. Therefore, it is foolish to deny evolution can be challenged only some of her theories.

Evolution as you are explaining it is simply a string of changes. The word "evolution" might be a great word to explain this, but it mixes people up with the evolution that is impossible.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today... without divine intervention.

The marvelous thing about what God has done is, God has given us (people) reasoning ability so that we can "evolve" things, like the string of changes that take us through philosophy, or the string of changes whereby we can make greater and more powerful weapons.

The problem is that evolution is not the theory of how life came into existence so your whole argument is just wrong. I already told you this a few times but you ignore it, as usual.

[BADecker]

Evolution is a fraud, that's true, because the higher the science of human education is not the better and the other way around, with high science, human beings create things that make us kill each other, from evolution alone create many people who are only selfish.

You contradict yourself. Evolution is not a hoax. If people are poor and are constantly creating new ways of killing it is also an example of evolution. Only that the evolution of human thought and weapons. Therefore, it is foolish to deny evolution can be challenged only some of her theories.

Evolution as you are explaining it is simply a string of changes. The word "evolution" might be a great word to explain this, but it mixes people up with the evolution that is impossible.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today... without divine intervention.

The marvelous thing about what God has done is, God has given us (people) reasoning ability so that we can "evolve" things, like the string of changes that take us through philosophy, or the string of changes whereby we can make greater and more powerful weapons.

The problem is that evolution is not the theory of how life came into existence so your whole argument is just wrong. I already told you this a few times but you ignore it, as usual.

Well, of course that isn't all that there is in evolution. Bit abiogenesis is part of evolution. At least there are many evolutionists that say so. Perhaps you should write a book that corrects them, hey? I mean, evolution is your science fiction religion that you got hoaxed into. You might as well make your religion up how you like it, right.

[Astargath]

Evolution is a fraud, that's true, because the higher the science of human education is not the better and the other way around, with high science, human beings create things that make us kill each other, from evolution alone create many people who are only selfish.

You contradict yourself. Evolution is not a hoax. If people are poor and are constantly creating new ways of killing it is also an example of evolution. Only that the evolution of human thought and weapons. Therefore, it is foolish to deny evolution can be challenged only some of her theories.

Evolution as you are explaining it is simply a string of changes. The word "evolution" might be a great word to explain this, but it mixes people up with the evolution that is impossible.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today... without divine intervention.

The marvelous thing about what God has done is, God has given us (people) reasoning ability so that we can "evolve" things, like the string of changes that take us through philosophy, or the string of changes whereby we can make greater and more powerful weapons.

The problem is that evolution is not the theory of how life came into existence so your whole argument is just wrong. I already told you this a few times but you ignore it, as usual.

Well, of course that isn't all that there is in evolution. Bit abiogenesis is part of evolution. At least there are many evolutionists that say so. Perhaps you should write a book that corrects them, hey? I mean, evolution is your science fiction religion that you got hoaxed into. You might as well make your religion up how you like it, right.

Since you like definitions: Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today (prove it)

[IadixDev]

What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology
By Addy Pross




Just some perpective to illustrate what can be meant by "low probability" and how "astonishing" it is to think life which is orders of magnitude more complex than a fridge would just popup like this out of the "primordial soup".

Not saying it's impossible, but just to weight the complexity and low probability of it.

Today people seem to have fascination for iPhone, consider google genius ( only using the tablet for a few week I want to hang à few of them),  but find it totally normal and natural that form of life popup like this with some natural chemistry. Kinda cognitive dissonance full throttle.


For me it still very basic metaphysics, and rather classic take on thermodynamics, he is not getting too wet on this one, but it already show something.


https://aeon.co/essays/paradoxes-of-stability-how-life-began-and-why-it-can-t-rest

The second insight is even more momentous. Evolution exhibits an identifiable driving force, a direction if you like, and this ‘teleological’ tendency acts at both the chemical and biological stages; that is, it operates both during, as well as after, what we think of as abiogenesis. Thus the purpose-driven character of life, the very thing that seemed to distinguish biology from the rest of nature, turns out not to be unique to life after all. Its beginnings are already discernible in certain inanimate syrstems, provided they are replicative and able to evolve. And this driving force can be described in strictly physical terms.

[IadixDev]

Evolution is a fraud, that's true, because the higher the science of human education is not the better and the other way around, with high science, human beings create things that make us kill each other, from evolution alone create many people who are only selfish.

You contradict yourself. Evolution is not a hoax. If people are poor and are constantly creating new ways of killing it is also an example of evolution. Only that the evolution of human thought and weapons. Therefore, it is foolish to deny evolution can be challenged only some of her theories.

Evolution as you are explaining it is simply a string of changes. The word "evolution" might be a great word to explain this, but it mixes people up with the evolution that is impossible.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today... without divine intervention.

The marvelous thing about what God has done is, God has given us (people) reasoning ability so that we can "evolve" things, like the string of changes that take us through philosophy, or the string of changes whereby we can make greater and more powerful weapons.

The problem is that evolution is not the theory of how life came into existence so your whole argument is just wrong. I already told you this a few times but you ignore it, as usual.

Well, of course that isn't all that there is in evolution. Bit abiogenesis is part of evolution. At least there are many evolutionists that say so. Perhaps you should write a book that corrects them, hey? I mean, evolution is your science fiction religion that you got hoaxed into. You might as well make your religion up how you like it, right.
 

Since you like definitions: Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today (prove it)

If you had 1% of this rigor when talking about religion you could almost look intelectually honest.

But unfortunately you never opened a bible of your life. And make cheap judgment on people who read it none the less.

[BADecker]

Evolution is a fraud, that's true, because the higher the science of human education is not the better and the other way around, with high science, human beings create things that make us kill each other, from evolution alone create many people who are only selfish.

You contradict yourself. Evolution is not a hoax. If people are poor and are constantly creating new ways of killing it is also an example of evolution. Only that the evolution of human thought and weapons. Therefore, it is foolish to deny evolution can be challenged only some of her theories.

Evolution as you are explaining it is simply a string of changes. The word "evolution" might be a great word to explain this, but it mixes people up with the evolution that is impossible.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today... without divine intervention.

The marvelous thing about what God has done is, God has given us (people) reasoning ability so that we can "evolve" things, like the string of changes that take us through philosophy, or the string of changes whereby we can make greater and more powerful weapons.

The problem is that evolution is not the theory of how life came into existence so your whole argument is just wrong. I already told you this a few times but you ignore it, as usual.

Well, of course that isn't all that there is in evolution. Bit abiogenesis is part of evolution. At least there are many evolutionists that say so. Perhaps you should write a book that corrects them, hey? I mean, evolution is your science fiction religion that you got hoaxed into. You might as well make your religion up how you like it, right.

Since you like definitions: Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today (prove it)

The evolution that you talk about is part of evolution theory. There is evolution within evolution theory, and there is evolution outside of evolution theory. They are different kinds of evolution.

Evolution outside of evolution theory is simply change with a fancier word.

Evolution within evolution theory is science fiction, because it doesn't exist outside of evolution theory.

The most simple, easy way to show that evolution inside evolution theory doesn't work outside of it, is to look at cause and effect. Natural selection doesn't exist in reality. Cause and effect dictates everything, and it operates according to the physics of the universe. In addition, this is common knowledge with all scientists, including evolution scientists.

The only selection that occurred was the selection that God made when He set cause and effect in place, and started it moving.

[Astargath]

Evolution is a fraud, that's true, because the higher the science of human education is not the better and the other way around, with high science, human beings create things that make us kill each other, from evolution alone create many people who are only selfish.

You contradict yourself. Evolution is not a hoax. If people are poor and are constantly creating new ways of killing it is also an example of evolution. Only that the evolution of human thought and weapons. Therefore, it is foolish to deny evolution can be challenged only some of her theories.

Evolution as you are explaining it is simply a string of changes. The word "evolution" might be a great word to explain this, but it mixes people up with the evolution that is impossible.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today... without divine intervention.

The marvelous thing about what God has done is, God has given us (people) reasoning ability so that we can "evolve" things, like the string of changes that take us through philosophy, or the string of changes whereby we can make greater and more powerful weapons.

The problem is that evolution is not the theory of how life came into existence so your whole argument is just wrong. I already told you this a few times but you ignore it, as usual.

Well, of course that isn't all that there is in evolution. Bit abiogenesis is part of evolution. At least there are many evolutionists that say so. Perhaps you should write a book that corrects them, hey? I mean, evolution is your science fiction religion that you got hoaxed into. You might as well make your religion up how you like it, right.

Since you like definitions: Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.

The evolution that is impossible is the string of changes that it takes to go from inanimate material, to life, to life as we know it today (prove it)

The evolution that you talk about is part of evolution theory. There is evolution within evolution theory, and there is evolution outside of evolution theory. They are different kinds of evolution.

Evolution outside of evolution theory is simply change with a fancier word.

Evolution within evolution theory is science fiction, because it doesn't exist outside of evolution theory.

The most simple, easy way to show that evolution inside evolution theory doesn't work outside of it, is to look at cause and effect. Natural selection doesn't exist in reality. Cause and effect dictates everything, and it operates according to the physics of the universe. In addition, this is common knowledge with all scientists, including evolution scientists.

The only selection that occurred was the selection that God made when He set cause and effect in place, and started it moving.

How do you know it was god

[IadixDev]

Most of scientist today come to this same conclusion.

Either

1. There is a force at play that we dont understand ( forget about thermodynamics ) , maybe it's too subtle for us to really see it, like relativity is almost invisible at our scale. Call it god, tao, dharma, newton of the blade of grass, monad, or whatever.

2. There are intelligent being who created life on earth millions years ago.


There is not really a way to explain evolution and life dynamic with bare newton or classic mechanics.

And anything based on Metaphysics/entelechy is logical dead end. All metaphysics when pushed lead to some form of monism. Or to a force beyond objects. It took 1500 years to the arab to swallow aristotle and make it monotheist, but al jabir did it. And liebniz finished the job. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#BeiSucFirCauUncThi ).

Neurology of "higher consciousness" tend to show this too. Otherwise there would be no evolutionary interest to neural plasticity. We would just have a dictionary of all objects prebuilt in our brains.

Atheism as a form of Aristotelian metaphysics or naturalism is actually illogical / irrational.

Metaphysics is always arbitrary, and defender of philosophy or science based on this are always defending oligarchy.

http://wiki.c2.com/?ThereAreNoTypes  

It's why google non determinist algorithm are more efficient than things based on preterdemined ontologies.


https://youtu.be/s765wPKjNRk fat boy slim star 69

https://youtu.be/ub747pprmJ8 fat boy slim right here, right now

[Rigorous]

1. There is a force at play that we dont understand ( forget about thermodynamics ) , maybe it's too subtle for us to really see it, like relativity is almost invisible at our scale. Call it god, tao, dharma, newton of the blade of grass,  or whatever.

2. There are intelligent being who created life on earth millions years ago.

What is the difference between 1 and 2?

[IadixDev]

1. There is a force at play that we dont understand ( forget about thermodynamics ) , maybe it's too subtle for us to really see it, like relativity is almost invisible at our scale. Call it god, tao, dharma, newton of the blade of grass,  or whatever.

2. There are intelligent being who created life on earth millions years ago.

What is the difference between 1 and 2?

2 might imply there are some place in the universe where life formation can be explained by simple physics, due to some particular conditions.

We still have to find such place.

[Rigorous]

1. There is a force at play that we dont understand ( forget about thermodynamics ) , maybe it's too subtle for us to really see it, like relativity is almost invisible at our scale. Call it god, tao, dharma, newton of the blade of grass,  or whatever.

2. There are intelligent being who created life on earth millions years ago.

What is the difference between 1 and 2?

2 might imply there are some place in the universe where life formation can be explained by simple physics, due to some particular conditions.

We still have to find such place.

Maybe aliens planted the seed here, but don't know where they came from either. Then we're back at point 1 again.

[IadixDev]

Its a bit like the plot in starcraft 2 legacy of the void with the xelnaga but I didn't finish it yet  


http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Xel%27naga

"The xel'naga were the first, born within the Void. Their sacred purpose was to cultivate life and perpetuate the Infinite Cycle."
- Hierarch Artanis(src)

Originating from the Void,[8] the xel'naga were incredibly long-lived even by protoss standards, but not immortal; eventually their species would come to an end. In the interest of survival they planned to create new xel'naga by uplifting two species. A pair of qualities was required and these were defined by the xel'naga as purity of essence and purity of form, and each uplifted species would be targeted for one of them. Over an extraordinarily long period of time, the two species would naturally come together and merge, forming the next generation of xel'naga and beginning the cycle anew.[9]

The Infinite Cycle
The cycle was repeated in numerous universes; at the start of a universe's creation, the xel'naga would take on physical form and enter the universe, seeding it with life.[8] The cycle repeated so many times that time itself was affected by it.[5]