The God, Evolution, Darwin, Science debate - a different starting point

[blü 2]

The questions are a bit one-sided. Where are all the detailed questions about [...] the nature of truth or truths?

I agree that this question often goes unconsidered. My own view is the 'correspondence' definition, that truth is a quality of statements, and that a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality.

(In giving an objective test for truth, it rules out the idea that supernatural statements can be correctly called 'true'. Believers tend to reject it, without putting anything in its place ─ or so I gather from my experience here.

Honestly, though, one can just eschew all that and ask what someone's foundational assumptions about the world are.

I assume the following three things because I can't demonstrate their correctness without first assuming they're correct (a point about axioms that Descartes raised, though I don't draw identical conclusions) ─ that a world exists external to the self; that our senses are capable of informing us about that world; and that reason is a valid tool. Virtually everyone agrees, but ─ as you say ─ not often consciously.

 

[firedragon]

Nobody is useless. They can still serve as a bad example.

The Hovinds, Hams and Comforts are out there and they influence people. We have to be prepared for people using their arguments.

Okay. I agree with that.

 

[rational experiences]

First of all everyone thinking is a human.

You choose the topic of discuss Sion

Science its first choice to think was for reactive Sion fusion into fission.

Origin use words. To discuss Sion was not about evolution or thinking a human thesis from personal observations of all bodies present.

Thinking a liar.

Fact.

Lots of thinking involved status imposed by the thinker owning belief. Strategies of claims thinking state ideas involving when it did not exist in the form that is owned is termed lying.

Humans referenced it as egotism by human agreement group status.

First status natural. Natural human group. Life survival only. Survival thinks for the conditions that owns the results.

All other choice is status by civilization structures.

Ask a scientist about opinion.

Then the claim is group agreement as a retaliation.

What if none of the bodies existed to study? For a human to think upon and make the comparison their own selves?

Nothing to talk about.

What rationally is thinking?

We all live present inside of an atmosphere. Beginnings of the highest mass living support enabling thinking. Water and oxygen. As life supported.

One mass for all living presence existing. Highest natural life support.

When you study a non living presence then an increased lying status is introduced.

We were all taught consciousness. Self human behaviour observation was our only human survival truth.

If you know information that supports a healthy life that title was a healer.

It was only a human condition to be grateful of. It owns no human self status for social conditioning.

 

[rational experiences]

Then want.

Human self organised group status. A claim.

Single self warning. I was life attacked. Sacrificed as one self by the group.

A conscious teaching.

I want life to be artificial conditions by my want. Does not make want right.

Meaning I want to copy natural. Non reactive. But copy it by machine bring artificial status chosen. And I want to react what is not reactive by artificial thought.

We named that status satanism.

List first. Nothing is separate in reality.

Satan ist

Satanism. All the isms in false thinking.

A nation in God. A human thinking about his ground life supported by God the stone. Reference science to God the stone.

Heavens he quotes was where his human father by God terms sacrificed his life. The only son of God. God supported.

Information and description of O observation.

AI. Artificial. Recorded recording of recordings. All condition even the vision earth everything. Space owns a fake artificial vision image recorded.

The mind is told every body known is recorded. His fake mind thinking belief I can copy all bodies. As image already artificially exists.

Yet image does not own form.

Artificial self subliminal possession. Falsification of original advice.

When a human says to another human I want you to have begun as an alien. Animate image seen gas imaged feedback. An image on the ground. That status is what he wants to convert bio life into. Just an image.

Claiming now you are a spirit.

Brother liar. I was always.a human only.

 

[viole]

I think that the problem stems from both sides of this type of debate not sitting down and starting with defining terms. As an outsider to the issue, let me play the referee's advocate.

Ehav4Ever says: "Okay you two, play nice. Let's settle this dispute the right way. Before we begin I will need both sides to address the following."

1. What is a "god" and by inverse what is not a "god?"
2. How far back does this definition go and is it authoratitive?
3. Please define what is existance.
4. Please define what is natural selection.
   1. How does it work or why doesn't it work?
5. Who was Darwin, what were his credintials, and skill set?
6. How do you personally define evolution?
7. How does your oponent define evolution?
8. Is there such a thing as macro evolution or micro evolution in your mindset?
9. How would one factually prove any concept of evolution?
10. How would one factually disprove the concept of evolution?
11. Have you studied, at a high level - university or above, the various concepts that can be termed "evolution" or "Darwin's concepts of evolution?"
12. Have you actually "personally" performed experimentation to prove out your ideas for or against any form of evolution?
13. What literature have you studied to come to your conclusions?

If the debates, on this topic, started from the above you would find the disucssion would be a bit more focused than these debates normally are.

even better: if people, especially creationists, studied biology, there would be no debate to start with.

ciao

- viole

 

[rational experiences]

Humans living give their life status.

In medical biology to know is to assist your family.

Any other study model is done for an argument.

Where did we come from.

Do any of you ask why?

What relative ideal is gained from a claim I know?

I was taught spiritually by self presence. Conscious. Parent of all humans memories. Human only.

I asked why life suffered was given the answer.

Then gained another answer. What I believe was the crown of thorns effect.

Burnt intense brain prickling. Before that event skin burning. Then I saw an atmospheric effect brown or black wispy smoke that disappeared as a variation of images formed.

Lots of the ghost images male wearing clothing about the era of the Shroud of Turin. By hat styles. I saw images Michael Jackson. Elvis so concluded it was communicative constant recording.

I also saw alien images. Stone statue like images.

Hence said must have been felt in brothers sacrifice attack on life. What was physical caused. Effect to life body witnessed. Outside black attacking flashes cutting leg feelings made my ankles swell. I could only shuffle walk for some time.

The effects went away. It sure felt like whipping.

What does a human have to endure to tell a human choice in a chosen society. Just human, that you lie in science? Claim I know. Your human consciousness is only self owned in the moment.

Life lives only in one day theme. You do not own time age until each day passed.

In this status to think you compare one day moment to a history of claim of billions in time theme. Where is common sense?

Wait until we all burn to death by science warning as Stephen Hawking stated to say I told you so? When is intelligence real in a human life?

If documents state life body was sacrificed. Survived and healed by GOD advice. Then it was healing and not evolution.

Evolution states a body cooling evolved into a new body state. That description is a conversion. Our gases the same never evolved. Only the radiation effect changed. That situation means went away.

Science says life exists due to the coldest states existing also.

It however by historic mass presence does not make the origin of sciences state to be cold.

History in science want of mass they say cold. Yet it is stable.

Your motivation is to convert mass to abstract from it. So you apply the first cosmic law being thermal or heat as the highest wisdom for scientific purpose.

Which is not the law of life.

You preach we began from this point. No we were destroyed converted in this point.

We only survived due to natural law presence being cold.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hovind is a proven fraud brother. No disrespect intended, but his ministry is predominantly pseudo scholarship. His Phd came from a building, not a university. I dont think someone like you should be using someone like this guy for anything.

I think you'ld be surprised at how much of stereotypical creationist argumentation can actually be traced back to fools like him.

 

[rational experiences]

The teaching to each self present natural self, first observation, never were you your own parent. And never was anyone of us our original parent. Yet the original Father owned in his body sperm. The original Mother owned in her body an ovary.

Our consciousness quotes we came from little cells, but owned by a Father and Mother, both being human. Where they came from is the debate.

So a human in conscious awareness quotes we came from a higher place, to convert from that higher place into a lower form human self. Aware.

Quoted also a cosmological theme that said and God fell out of that body as o O bodies, eternal sound bodies, burst and burnt and God fell into Hell...formed stone as a seal and hell was sealed and God the stone angel kept human life safe on Earth.

The human quotes we came from the same place that God had/did.

So then you have to go about explaining that thesis. Which I have.

Which states, all of the O God owned stone formed bodies in mass existed first and God the stone planet owned it.

Why a thesis against science sacrifice of our spirit life quoted, No man is God.

Was that statement said for some other reason?

Argument where and what was the origin. How can a human scientist, who says self is rational claim that we personally were the body of God in Hell history? And then claim self a rational thinker?

If a human quotes, we came out of the eternal body and were a spiritual being in the life presence of 2 equals, both human. Then diversity proves that circumstance is real, as each body manifested would own its own spirit body and eternal presence and eternal sound presence. To own diversity and form, yet all come from an origin state.

We say described words in sentences to use words, owning a one of description and quote eternal always had existed, always will exist. We also quote that the spirit that created our life is unconditional....owning no description and it is the place where we are spiritually loved and not judged. Unlike our science brother, our equal who places judgements on all states to own inventive sciences, thought first to force conversion of any body. Including our own.

Knows science today is involved in irradiation heavenly gas fall out, and all forms sickness, studied it, concluded it real and yet agrees to causing it?

Do you call a God creationist theist logical?