Do you Appreciate What the Universe has Given You

[stvdv]

The oringinal point, i.e., purpose

I agree to disagree on this

This being "I do not claim to know what God's original Plan is", where you claim to know God's original Plan

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Evolution is a reality.

Which part? That different breeds within a species can create a new breed? That strains of bacteria can evolve resistance to attack?

Yes, these are facts. Who argues over this? Evolution is reality, on this scale.


But to say that those same mindless evolutionary mechanisms are the causal means by which molecules can arrange themselves & evolve into megafauna? To say that LUCA is a fact? That’s supposition.... “faith and belief.” Even within the various fields of ToE, there are, many times, dissenting experts...like with BAND paleontology. They argue. Hence, their interpretations are opinions, not established fact.

Stating that it's a theory that based on "faith and belief" that requires promoting only demonstrates that you don't have an understanding of what scientific theory means

You should specifically say the ToE. Although modern science removes an Intelligent First Cause, many other fields of science recognize design from observation. The greatest design observed though, is in life and the interactive & complex finely-tuned forces & cycles that support it.

I was making an observation,

Yes...Empirical evidence, rationally explained, carries far more weight than supposition, I.e., opinions, doesn’t it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I agree to disagree on this

This being "I do not claim to know what God's original Plan is", where you claim to know God's original Plan

I only claim to know it because I believe what the Bible states is accurate, through an interpretation which highlights its contextual harmony, from its beginning (Genesis) to its end (Revelation).

Take care of yourself, my cousin!

 

[stvdv]

I agree to disagree on this

This being "I do not claim to know what God's original Plan is", where you claim to know God's original Plan

I only claim to know it because I believe what the Bible states is accurate

In that case I withdraw the "to disagree" part in my above quote

 

[SalixIncendium]

Which part? That different breeds within a species can create a new breed? That strains of bacteria can evolve resistance to attack?

Yes, these are facts. Who argues over this? Evolution is reality, on this scale.


But to say that those same mindless evolutionary mechanisms are the causal means by which molecules can arrange themselves & evolve into megafauna? To say that LUCA is a fact? That’s supposition.... “faith and belief.” Even within the various fields of ToE, there are, many times, dissenting experts...like with BAND paleontology. They argue. Hence, their interpretations are opinions, not established fact.


You should specifically say the ToE. Although modern science removes an Intelligent First Cause, many other fields of science recognize design from observation. The greatest design observed though, is in life and the interactive & complex finely-tuned forces & cycles that support it.

As I said before, I have no intentions of engaging in an EvC debate. I find them to be an exercise in futility. People can look at the evidence and draw their own conclusions.

Yes...Empirical evidence, rationally explained, carries far more weight than supposition, I.e., opinions, doesn’t it?

Yes. And with that, let's end the derail, shall we?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Yes...Empirical evidence, rationally explained, carries far more weight than supposition, I.e., opinions, doesn’t it?

Yes, when it applies depending on what you take for granted, but it has a real life in the everyday world limit.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
"...
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.
...
Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science, but that doesn't mean that these realms are unimportant. In fact, domains such as ethics, aesthetics, and religion fundamentally influence human societies and how those societies interact with science. Neither are such domains unscholarly. In fact, topics like aesthetics, morality, and theology are actively studied by philosophers, historians, and other scholars. However, questions that arise within these domains generally cannot be resolved by science."

Now we end here. If we can agree on the grey areas of what "Empirical evidence, rationally explained, carries far more weight than supposition, i.e., opinions, doesn’t it?" means, then yes. But no, if you mean that all opinions can be done away with for metaphysics and ontology and it is not an opinion, that the world is natural.

BTW we are in the end playing with the words science and scientism.

 

[rational experiences]

As a loving caring human known by my compared interactive natural human relationships. I understand that to claim intelligence in destructive situations is abstract as intelligent.

Using a worded explanation of what intelligence implies.

What we all do first.

Manipulation of any physical present state is. Choice to change.

A healer is defined as a psychic aware human who without causing change became aware of change.

Proving a spiritual psychic human using information that first idealised medical advice took it beyond advice to use against natural.

Which is not intelligent.

Spiritually I asked information being heavenly human total experiences of shared massive human experiences like a recorded data bank advice.

As consciousness is human.

Hearing voice is real proven psychic and medical science.

Abstract from bio body speaking.

That condition recording is another over viewed human advice.

Stated the intent of change to an original spiritual body and nature was not motivated on destructive reasoning. It was not first known or advised

Change is a secondary nature.

The science argument was it purposeful? To quote motivated first origin inventor.

Only discussing science history by human thinking for human self.

The thinker who imposes design by a study.

Yet thinking is first separate by want motivation.

Then you question want first. What motivated you to want to think this way. Invention is that answer

Why I quote science lied.