s1eep

If you do not know everything about evolution then you are not a person adept enough to explain it. Any of the things you think that you do know, you don't "know", and what you say are simple rational guesses based on the partial evidence. It needs to be based on evidence, and that does not include partial evidence, to be a fact. And thus, I'm as right as you are when I say that wants may have an effect on our evolution (we are both trying to explain something we only have partial evidence for) - and don't come back at me with a simple analogy about how things are known partially and how we have reached rational ends, because you often make things seem much stupider than they sound. And I would like to see proof that other animals use words. EDIT: We could say that because the mouth consumed what it effected, consciousness could have the same personality as the mouth where it consumed what it wanted. This could be over a long period of time, or travelling at the speed of light, metaphorically; adrenaline rushes, and other chemical reactions in the body that have high user-potential, where we live to the highest degree of chaos. Acting under the influence of our subconscious, for the benefit, and good feeling, of the self, and having no outer communication except exerts of masculinity and grunts that may be in harmony with sensory data and feelings at times. And there we have it, an example of what I'm doing that's related to yours.

I'm unsure. What do you know about evolution. That is 100% knowledge.

Yeah, you could have reasoned with me instead of taking your frustration out on my semantics, while we were "passive", then. And I'm no scientist. I actually have a lot of respect for scientists, I just wish they would treat the Earth better given that much power over our intelligence. And needing something whilst actively tackling the environment. And I suppose wants would have some effect. This is not what I'm expert on. The word-virus is the topic at hand.

It's common sense that there were no man-made laws without the word. The evolution that I'm referring to is more like "giraffes have long necks because they needed to collect food from high up in the trees, or to protect their heads". Humans do not need to collect food from high up in the trees, and therefore have no need to evolve longer necks or anything that would help us reach that food. What would have been difficult, for humans, surviving in these times I speak of? Maybe humans would find their boredom difficult - and possibly we would have evolved 'something' to help us enjoy ourselves when we are not surviving.

The result of pushing ourselves to natural limits wouldn't affect what evolution's came thereafter? And we are not allowed to kill each other anymore, we were much less civilized back in the days where there was no word.

But evolving this way is a lot less "extravagant" than evolving for traditional survival reasons, where we push our base selves to the natural, mental, physical and spiritual limits. We would need to evolve to put up a fight in survival, we would have problems, but problems that would go away after the liberty that comes with evolution. Problems which we don't have in reality, most normally difficult things are done for us. Our minds are relatively nullified in comparison to how chaotic they would be in the environment I'm talking about. I think the word virus humans have is a very serious matter, and that we are destroying a possible natural harmony that was destined for much greater things than we alone could create (and it's possibly causing future generations much suffering in the future).

The beauty (or current adaptation) of life (that I consider beautiful), there's no evidence to say it isn't possible. I believe the present outcome of evolution to be great, and I expect future evolution along these lines to be great.

Well, things do create. Does it have to be creating to be a creator? It is creation possible-zone, is it the essence of some creation?

What if it is an organism that represents non-existence? I picture this as a type of excited putty at the outer limits of space that encircled space-time. I don't only believe in one God, I believe in many. I think a God may have came before that created another God; one that was God to a universe or to universes. The first God may still exist, the one that created the one that is God to a universe(s), something that has body and form. It's probably representing infinity, and the possibility of different lives. And the God before that may exist, we can trace God's back to the beginning, and imagine Gods even further back, or at least sense them.

The essence of creation.

It can be a factor of future life, and therefore be a creator in itself; how do you know space doesn't end, or isn't a loop? Finite objects live within this space; space could be finite in itself. How do you know space was the first? Maybe it was the most useful (to a creator).

I'm not suggesting that words are not compulsory to using technology or bonding in civilized reality, I'm suggesting there is a more natural world, long lost, that could be bound for greater things; which includes evolution and a much longer lifespan of the planet. Imagine removing 90% of people from the planet, and with them, the whole of man-made reality. Even though the remaining humans would be having a much harder and seemingly lesser time, are they bound for greater things, will their struggle to survive result in more in-depth evolution? Is nature progressing toward a greater reality of it's own, one that can only be constructed by natural means, and the natural harmony that most animals endure (hunting for food; not having it bought. Using the extent of their liberty; not obeying rules. Generally, being more chaotic than civilized reality)? If you didn't understand, it's because what I believe in takes major changes to properly work. In changed circumstances, are things more attuned to nature, and thus progressing to the best possible future? Minus man-made reality - it is the condition to imagine what I'm imagining; whether or not you believe it is natural, minus it. Minus the ability to talk in words - everything is how it was thousands of years ago. The remaining humans must survive unless they wish to suffer, and they are damned to their current surroundings. Give them a couple of hundreds of years to adapt to their new lifestyles - with no prior knowledge on the word. I don't think their objectivity would be enough to create the word; they would do, and that's all they would do because of the difficulty, and the essence of, survival. Not all of these humans would be together, there might be tribes, but tribes so uneducated that they didn't communicate with other tribes. They have no word, they talk in grunts and exerts of masculinity. They would hunt for food, I'm unsure whether they would hunt using their hands, or if they would craft because of their opposable thumbs, but their craftsmanship would not exceed a certain level - this is because they are using the extent of their powers to survive in their nature, and because of the essence of hunting "prey" or surviving against predators. Would their evolution be edging toward a more natural change? As these are times where survival is difficult or a certain complexity, and you may need specific change to survive; would you evolve in ways that help you tackle the environment with greater ease? Could we one day bond with the Earth so greatly with our adaption we were constant dream creatures with the ability to create universes of our own? I suggest intelligence is special, and it's related to our adaption; not word-based, but nature based; we have to tackle, and not just observe nature, to become more intelligent.

And after I read these words, the only way to make sense out of them is to use more words. Because I have a word-virus and the word is a major abstraction in my life. Because that's the only knowledge we have of the actual beings of things, sensory and feelings. As said, the word is equal to a bark.

The words I say are supported by other words, that's why they make more sense than simply "bark, bark, bark" because you associate words with other words. From the perspective of the mind, it's still equal to "bark, bark, bark" but we have conditioned our tongues to continue barking, and we lose ourselves in the bark, claiming that the barks are intelligent because we can bark them (which is more like an impulse or feeling combined with the sound). We simply make sounds and because the sounds are in harmony with other sounds, they create the illusion that they make greater sense than just a sound. This is because we could naturally use our emotions to communicate to ourselves, and govern our minds. When we say a word, we also communicate with the word using our emotions/sensory, this is why sometimes when the word "water" is used, someone may imagine an image of water; because we can use our emotions to communicate with ourselves and this is the natural wordless communication we used prior to the word - using the actual being of water. The word water is a simple bark, the reactions we have when water are said are more than that, the words do something, but by no means is a collection of words intelligence, in the same way a collection of barks is not intelligent - they are simply sound, and sound is not the mind or mind-fodder. They have ability, they do something, they have intelligence of their own, but I believe it's lesser than human intelligence, which is made out of 3D, or the actual living beings instead of their nullified word form. All knowledge gained through sensory/emotional data, all intelligence is sensory/emotional-related.

A bark is referring to a dogs bark, and when a human produces a sound in word form, it does not magically make the sound the same as the mind, where mind-related processes take place. Therefore, when you process the word in mind, you are processing a sound, and it is not equal to intelligence (which is related to the minds capacity). Intelligence would be something attained through the mind, and not via the tongue. Wording something with your mouth is not comprehending something, I'm suggesting you haven't ever comprehended anything, and when you think you're comprehending something it's really nullified non-intelligence. This is because intelligence is to do with the mind and the word is to do with man-made creation. Therefore, words are equal to barks, grunts or whatever it is humans did before they spoke fluent language, but can be repeated which leads them to create the illusion that they are intelligent. Tag each part of your body; each part is different to the other, neither part is the same. What you produce from your mouth is not a medium by which you can connect the mind and the sound, they are both separate individuals. What I'm suggesting is that thinking in words is thinking on the level of your tongue, and not on the level of your head. Thinking in word is not head strong, it is tongue strong. We somehow bond our minds and tongue to create harmony, but we say that people are intelligent if they are educated (i.e. full of words), but words are not head-fodder, they are not the correct material, they are the tongue. Remember the two are separate on your body tags, changing your 'bark' to a word does not make a bark, the mind.

address Someone with no hair can be put in the position to exhibit hair style because of it's other potential users. If we are discussing a topic, such as God, then there are those who do and those who don't, such as with stamps. What Atheism is, is pronouncing the fact that they are not believing in God, which is the same logic as saying "I'm not a collector of stamps", and following that as a religion. Here, collecting stamps is a significant - it's what you believe against. You're not one of the general public who does not collect stamps; you're someone who has been asked the question "Do you believe in God?" and you've based your beliefs around science saying that it disproves God; you are following the answer "I do not believe in God", instead of simply not believing in God. You promote Atheism. You are exactly like someone who promotes the Bible.

But you can relate not collecting stamps with collecting stamps; look at both contexts, one where collecting stamps was significant; someone asks you "do you collect stamps?", you say "no", then you are not 'collecting stamps', a style of collecting stamps in this context. Like associating bald with a hair style. It depends if hair style is a significant. In a belief for collecting stamps you could have Atheist and Theist type cults, one that believe in it and ones that believed against it. You are not collecting stamps, in response to "do you collect stamps?" a style of collecting stamps, in this only context, and others probably. You can be thought of as a religion, atheists are opposite in style but, part of the same nature and have some common characteristics. You speak as if you are opposite to religion, but you obey the same natural social laws as them and act relatively the same about your non-belief, which is a belief in non-belief. A style of belief, why aren't you silent about it, and why does it matter to you whether people follow what you are preaching? Isn't this the belief in some type of beneficent factor to what you are doing? I suppose after arguing with you about it, when we finally reach the conclusion that Atheism is a religion, the question is, why is science intelligent? (or why is it correct?) And you are indoctrinating with the knowledge that you use to challenge children's beliefs, you can't hide the fact that your preaching knowledge that you have considered as correct. Again, why is science intelligent? Or why is it correct? You had recently expressed your social power over me when you first posted to this thread to nullify it. In situations where scientists object something and numbers agree, which can often be socially (and often stupidly) conformed, close friends, people are demonized and all powers are abused to remove them, because they are deemed too hot to handle; simply because they don't agree with what you are saying and, you are all pedantic. I don't agree with any of your post.

You need to elaborate on your post. I have experienced first hand most of these things. And the kind of response where your words are social bound after, are nullification of my words; like you were part of a greater conversation, and there was nothing to see here. Your competition is unfriendly, you do not reason, and you do not state why these things are wrong; for all I know you could say something like "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair style" which is a false statement, there are others that sound relatively correct but aren't, such as "fight fire with fire", no, you should fight fire with water. The removal of hair is a way to style your hair, it's like having it cut really short, but all completely gone, and that is your style, no hair. It's a style if it's done for style purposes, it is a way you wanted to dress your head, and that's what hair styling is about, dressing your head (unless it's done for other purposes, but it's still dressing your head). It can be conceived as a hair style in certain contexts- you wouldn't say that it was different to a hair style because it had no hair; you would still include it for styles of hair. That was simple wordplay. Atheism possesses all the characteristics of a religion, but it perceives itself from the perspective of it's God, science.

The human species is the only species to use a definite word system; other species in the known universe communicate with action and sensory data. The word does not occur naturally; humans do not learn the alphabet by example, we learn via word rote-education conducted by word experts. It occurs because of others. Some people assert that we learn through socialization, which is not true, because there has to be experienced individuals with prior word-knowledge to teach into society (someone learns how to talk before they can talk – the method of obtaining knowledge of definite words is by rote education; words are not meant to be definite, we define them to be definite; definition is man-made education routed). The word and worded data are distinguishable; there is a difference between Water, the scientific definition of two oxygen, one hydrogen atom, and Water itself. The word doesn't quite comprehend the being of Water in all its glory; it’s a nullification of fluctuating life. Upon reading the word Water, you do not reproduce Water truly in mind, and you facilitate null-intelligence. You think inside the box, and don’t treat the actual being of Water the same as you would without the word – as a personality of its own, you haven’t figured out whether you should help it, or if it is useful to you in its natural form; you nullify it, and then define it as a simple mixture of atoms; you do not understand what it truly expresses because you employ a different word. Let’s not forget that words are man-made products and not truths, but they can make the illusion of truth when supported by other words; stupidities supported by stupidities. Are humans educated the word to be mentally nullified, for purposes of mental slavery? A criminal is considered to be unintelligent, but there is nothing to suggest he is unintelligent if he is a successful criminal – man-made laws are not part of the human mind, we do not have to obey defined laws until they are forced upon us. The law is a burden put upon us if we consider the path of crime in a reality, but after and before the crime there are no human laws. Science is based on laws, Atheism is based on laws; but the defining matter is that the mind is greater than man-made laws. Atheism is a religion, it shows all the same characteristics as other religions; it talks about God religiously, and Atheists support their ideas with science – it is a belief in science, for the belief alone and not conducting science; an Atheists God is science. God doesn’t exist, but something else exists that is omnipotent, that bares all the characteristics of a God; life. A person may do what he chooses so long as it doesn't kill him in the process, if he believes in a God there is nothing wrong with his belief apart from it is a word-belief. He can believe in God because it was taught to him by example, he took the characteristics of his life and replicated them. If we don’t believe in Atheism, it just means that we do not want to pursue science, or believe science. Atheists, like Christians, preach their beliefs and support their words with scientific information. They are indoctrinating children’s minds with science as Christians do with the bible. Science is also unfair – if you don’t believe in science, a scientist will say you are stupid. On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist, you are isolated as if you were a disease. Scientists suppress any non-scientific theories with shouts of stupidity and exerts of power, such as with isolation and hard criticism that can involve bans. Children are forced to believe in science. There are plenty of reasons not to, but good luck trying to tell them that. If you think disproving science is impossible, without wordplay and dodging the point at hand, address the next paragraph. A bark is different from the mind, and the mind is different from the heart. A word is not a mean between all parts of a human; each part stands out in its own light. You say "cat", but you didn't comprehend the cat in mind; you worded it, with sound. Word-knowledge is not real knowledge, it is nullified life. The reactions you have when “cat” is said are comprehended in mind, this is stemming from our emotions, but this is what happens naturally, and when in combination with the word, it becomes abstracted. Usually, we would have communicated ephemerally without putting true definitions on things - a simple movement says a thousand words. Indefinite communication works, and it would be fun and understandable, and it was the natural means that our ancestors used before they evolved into humans. When I imagine this greater harmony of life that we could be experiencing with natural communication, I imagine it with greater peace and happiness, and greater wars, emotions and senses. A wordless world can be imagined, is it meant for greater things than a word world?

I don't find your idea of evidence discussion worthy, you are the ones who don't believe in discussion. As said, you nullify imagination. If you can tell me why it doesn't exist, with proper evidence, I may change my mind (I take back what I said), but I think you'll just post with the old "Water is two oxygen one hydrogen", when water is much more than that when treated as relative (which it can be). Your nullifying life is not effective to me, but, please feel free to explain to me why dreamstates can't possibly exist and after-life can't possibly exist when you know next to nothing about the universe,

No. I'm saying that it's so complex you'll never be clever enough, and that somewhere out in its complexity may be heaven, or the capabilities for after-life or reincarnation. You are, egotistical, "how do you know?" I am "I know I don't know and will probably never know... Something might be out there, seeing as it is that complex." I possess belief. Yours is clouded with words. You have a word-virus.

I'm sure we were discussing life after death. It's very difficult to defeat your wordplay, for that is all it is, and it's considered credible by other proclaimed experts. Expertise shouldn't only be a chance to be egotistical and lazy, and only respond to things that you like. You should be adept enough to respond with effort, instead of being reliant on your reputation. The only way to prove you are childish, and that your wordplay is egotistical nullifying of statements? A word-virus, which is a major significance in your life. That's why you can't see that life after death might exist, because you're so below the opinions of others, and word-facts which aren't true facts. I treat the Sun like a relative, you treat it as resource, the facts about life from my perspective are different from yours, and definitely more beneficent in the long-run. And I mean no insult to homosexuals, I'm simply stating that they are abnormal, and science, like them, is also abnormal.

It's not baseless because we have dreams and experience whole dream states. It's asserting that dream states may exist in the universe, and just because science hasn't got the range to find it, doesn't mean it's non-existent. You can hardly pass the borders of our solar system. Just like you phase into existence as a baby, why can't we fade into a new existence. I believe, all we need is time. Anyway, you have a word-virus, therefore I'm more intelligent than you, purely because I'm above the word. Life after death is more probably existent than it is non-existent, because the universe is too complex for you to figure out. You can nullify fluctuating life, but you can't explain life's true meaning. Because of the stupidity of the word-virus, these questions aren't even considered scientific even though the importance of them for natural morality. You are as abnormal as homosexuals, but like them, you believe your ineptitude to perceive the true universe is normal. Go ahead and ignore what I said again, and use science-based rules to defeat religious-based rules, because, as you will say egotistically, "it's better". Do I believe there are things science can't discover? Yes. I don't think you'll ever visit an entity outside of our solar system, let alone travel to the far reaches of the universe, or outer-limits, to discover a living dream state. What you promote is to not have this belief, and follow the very simple in comparison, stream like a dead fish. I possess belief, and this belief is based on things I have experienced.

It wasn't inaction, it was a denial.