Evolution? How?

RexRed wrote:

How do I know they are right? Because I can come into many debates and not have an internal issue because I am right.

The logic here is not sound. You are right because you do not have an internal issue? What about the Nazis? They too did not have any internal issues, though they were clearly wrong.

You speak to any racist, homophobe or bigot of any creed or colour. They will insist they are right, because they can come to the debate with no internal issues. Are they?

If you do not have an internal issue, proves nothing except that you have not or choose not to see any internal issues. Right or wrong doesn't factor in to it.

Wolf, you are arguing with me about an issue you do not fully understand... Isn't that an internal issue? Also, on both sides of the fence creation and evolution each side understands each other's points but they are both missing the theory that unifies them. This is because they cannot see they are basically saying the same thing. The theory is uniform. It has less to do with conscience, nazis and more to do with unfettered wisdom, like, "should I cut the baby in half"?. Should we cut the classroom in half?

Quote:

When I base my assumptions on foundational scripture I always end up on top.

On top of what? On top meaning I win.

Sometimes you can lose and still win and win and still lose, either way I win...

When you base your assumptions on foundational scripture, you always end up with assumptions based on foundational scripture. But have you tried to find out whether the foundational scripture itself, particularly the bits you use to prop up your pseudo-scientific beliefs, is actually true?

Every conscious thought is a test to try the scriptures and prove their meaning. The thoughts are weighed between the balances of soul and spirit.

Are you sure it doesn't prop up your beliefs just because you twist it to mean something it didn't initially mean?

The purpose is not to twist anything but untwist them and make the path straight. AFTER learning to have a "working" understanding of body, soul and spirit the Bible will finally make sense. That is unraveling not twisting and contorting it further. In this simple unraveling many passages come to light once shrouded in confusion.

Quote:

Standing on solid ground.

Standing on solid ground does not make you right.

How about starting with just standing on sound research?

Quote:

Now if people could reason me into a corner then I would concede but the indication that people have to resort to cheap shots and insult my intelligence only shows they cannot touch the doctrine. If they could I would be the first to admit it.

However, there is a problem. What if you refuse to believe you are in a corner? You have done so many times, not because you weren't in a corner, but because you genuinely did not see it.

We state that your view is unsupportable. Unsupportable but not dis-proven Science cannot support it.

Science cannot support something it cannot disprove? Science supports light yet it doesn't know it it is a particle or a wave. Science selectively supports what it wants to support, what benefits the corporation.

You then weasel your way out of that corner by invoking things that have not been proved to exist, things that may not exist and then state that science cannot prove it because it cannot measure everything.

It is true. Science cannot measure everything.

If I make something up and instantly define it in such a way that science cannot measure it, then I have made something that is out of the realms of science. I can claim it is true and can never be proved wrong. That is disingenuous.

Invoking something that cannot be proved wrong because it is defined as something that cannot be falsifiable is a disingenuous argument.

I can make up all sorts of imaginary arguments to prop up any idea I come up with. You cannot argue against it, because there is no way to do so.

Yes, you can argue that you did not make up the idea of spirits and souls. That does not change the fact that they are potentially made up and are disingenuous.

It is not disingenuous if it is true.

Quote:

I do not understand the basic theoretical materials because I did not use observation of the physical world to learn this. I learned this from the Bible which claims this knowledge was given by "revelation" and not derived from the five senses.

So this information CANNOT be derived from scientific observation of "the universe". It was God who revealed what science could not KNOW.

So, basically, you are saying you are right, because you read it in a book that said it was correct?

I am right (spiritually) only because God is right and if I study the book I will find the holy (vs unholy) wisdom of God..

Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code says the Priory of Sion existed and was founded in the Middle Ages. The book says it's true. Is it?

Dan has made no claim to be God yet...

You may argue that this is comparing apples to oranges, but how is it? Both are texts, written by fallible human beings.

(one claims to be holy and inspired by God not man)

Both claim to be correct. It is impossible to prove that any God was behind either text.

The proof is in the practice. The Da Vinci Code offers a corrupted "physical" bloodline... the Bible offers a holy "spiritual" NEW birth.

Comparing the two is not apples and oranges. It is comparing two texts that both claim to be correct. It is like comparing a Cox apple to a Braeburn.

Hint, "one is truth and one is error..."

The Bible is true because it says it is? It says its revelations do not come from the five senses, because it says so? Well, how can you prove the Bible is telling the truth?

By commitment, then believing it, then walking out on it's promises and seeing if they are "genuine". Will the spirit quicken your soul and bring you favor with God's abundance? That is up for your life to measure.

Because of my reaction? My reaction cannot prove anything about the Bible. It merely proves that I have a certain (spiritual) disposition towards it, not that the Bible itself is correct.

Your reaction can prove failure or deliverance...

You see, science itself is not limited to the five senses either.

You cannot touch an electron Electrons are in your finger, you cannot see an electron or taste Electrons are used by your eye and taste facilities too it or hear it or smell it Ditto. Yet science has proved beyond a doubt that such a thing exists. But is an electron life or alive?

Many scientist's have opposing doubts about the nature of the electron and how/why and what form it exists. Are we looking at "life/soul" with the electron or many primitive levels down?Yet the spiritual level is even higher than that of life.

Yes, it is physical. But what in this world is not physical?

Even thoughts are physical. They are electrical impulses, chemicals and electrons travelling down neurones in the brain. Even vague concepts are in a way physical, because they are held in the mind or written down on pages.

Thoughts are related to the physical but are thoughts life? This does deserve some thought. My intentions are genuine.

Your argument is a disingenuous one.

RexRed wrote:

FM

You are just mad because you can't prove me wrong.

By insulting God and me and you are only showing how shallow and demented your own soul is.

Science can NOT make "life" Dr. Frankenstein.

2Ti 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Wolf is right on the mark, Rex.

You are a mixed up individual...who simply refuses to see anything that does not comport well with your guesses about the nature of REALITY.

Wolf is blowing your arguments out of the water.

The fact that you will not acknowledge that he is doing so....does not change the fact that it is happening.

Few things are as fascinating as the psychopathology euphemistically termed "religious faith" ... and fewer still are more dangerous.

Rex and I go way, way back...Abuzz and all that.

He's a decent guy...of that I am convinced.

But...

Wolf, you are arguing with me about an issue you do not fully understand... Isn't that an internal issue?

On top meaning I win.

Sometimes you can lose and still win and win and still lose, either way I win...

The purpose is not to twist anything but untwist them and make the path straight. AFTER learning to have a "working" understanding of body, soul and spirit the Bible will finally make sense. That is unraveling not twisting and contorting it further. In this simple unraveling many passages come to light once shrouded in confusion.

How about starting with just standing on sound research?

Unsupportable but not dis-proven

Science cannot support something it cannot disprove? Science supports light yet it doesn't know it it is a particle or a wave.

Science selectively supports what it wants to support, what benefits the corporation.

It is not disingenuous if it is true.

I am right (spiritually) only because God is right and if I study the book I will find the holy (vs unholy) wisdom of God...

Dan has made no claim to be God yet...

(one claims to be holy and inspired by God not man)

The proof is in the practice. The Da Vinci Code offers a corrupted "physical" bloodline... the Bible offers a holy "spiritual" NEW birth.

Hint, "one is truth and one is error..."

By commitment, then believing it, then walking out on it's promises and seeing if they are "genuine". Will the spirit quicken your soul and bring you favor with God's abundance? That is up for your life to measure.

Your reaction can prove failure or deliverance...

Electrons are in your finger

Electrons are used by your eye and taste facilities too

Ditto

But is an electron life or alive?

Many scientist's have opposing doubts about the nature of the electron and how/why and what form it exists. Are we looking at "life/soul" with the electron or many primitive levels down?Yet the spiritual level is even higher than that of life.

Thoughts are related to the physical but are thoughts life? This does deserve some thought. My intentions are genuine.

Again it is only disingenuous if it is false and cannot produce any "profit"... The fact that my supposition does unify the "argument" then not only is my argument genuine (true) but it is PROFITABLE for sound philosophical/spiritual understanding.

However, in your quest, you will inevitably twist the message somehow. To prove this, I want you to choose a passage from the Bible that shores up your belief.

When the hell do we discuss evolution?

An assertion without proof.

Many scientist's have opposing doubts about the nature of the electron and how/why and what form it exists.