Did it became either Newton or Einstein that came up with the subject of Logic, if not making it any Probability, in order to be able to state the conditions for living, when next that of the world?

Beware the wolf, but at times, particularly in bed, there are sounds being heard, which could be coming from my brain, telling not only about its processing capabilities, if not also a biological machine either, for being a product of nature, where the complex Laws of Quantum mechanics could be involved.

So, except for not any Mechanics, and also Dynamics, I still think that the human brain is not only a product of evolution, but rather the Laws of nature, as it could have been originally thought of, because if not any inception here either, the fine word for this, is not with me right now.

If I rather should be the one who could validate any successful results here, you only know that it sucks, when it the comes to the way of thinking, or perhaps inclination, regarding this project, and its possible outcome.

Even the peanut farmer could believe in that of UFO's, except for not making a direct relationship with any currently available signal processing capabilities either.

Perhaps I could make it UFOs instead, because of the comma just next after, except that some people could wish for a signal coming from a star instead.

The Method of Proof should be a valid subject for every tool which could be available, regardless of just "Knock on wood", for also that of Chaos theory, and the fields of Thermodynamics and Viscocity, if not making it any Nuclear fusion either, because that of signal detection perhaps is not that of such a thing either, but just work in progress, for a single purpose.

If not any Jacob in the Bible, it could perhaps be Isaac instead, and most likely these were both just peasants.

E.T. and humans are definitely not the same, except for the tools we could be using in order to understand nature, for that of Methodology, as well as Logic and Proof as well.

So if perhaps not any Pauli's exclusion principle either, for that of the current undertaking, I think it became mentioned here as well.

Only a philosophical thought being made at times, and I wonder if still the Method of Proof is needed, in order to make it any "Stairways to Heaven".

As an example, you could be given the order run, for also a command, if you should not be running at all, but next which one of these two are you supposed to be following?

Makes for a possible Analogy, or maybe Contradiction here, if you happen to follow me, except for perhaps not any Logical deduction, or even Fallacies either.

Playing the fine tune on the piano, and you rather need the synthesizer instead, for that of sync, except for not the music instead.

So while "Loopy music" at times, for your pleasure, also that of loopback for just control, except for not falling out, and losing all of it.

The snake could be able to eat its tail, making for an "o", or "O", rather than a "-", but next interpreting it another way, and yould also come up with a similar conclusion, because the Wikipedia also makes it Deductive reasoning here.

Is next that of Religion only a tool being used for that of a proclamation, preaching, or service, or is the Church still ahead of science, for only being just brave?

Validation could be still just only a tool, except for the fact of just having Belief for a similar purpose, while still the general thought that we could be out of luck, for any positive results.

Unnecessary to state, but the fine word for this should also be around.

Why not send me a private message that I am confusing or messing two different things with another?

Should tell that I am aware of the possible difference, and that the fine print for a couple of documents typically are located at the bottom, making for a possible footnote, or annotation.

Anyway, what a mess, for just more confusion.

If rather just "In the beginning" again, for a couple of things, because a ship having sail, could be sailing on its own.

Guess what, but Madonna could be still living in a material world, while that of "O sole mio", perhaps became mentioned.

If patterns sometimes could be delicate, no need for making it any absolutes either, for the sometimes intricicaties of nature.

If having a Belief for a certain cause, is not a sentencing for any prejudiced, or biased, when such a thing in advance, you could also be having or making it a motto for such a thing, and here I will have to edit.

Leaving it there perhaps, and pre-sentencing could perhaps be a better word.

Remember that of bacteria and viruses versus ourselves, for next that of someone who could be more advanced than us, and you could still make it betterment as well, because if any evolved or developed instead, you could be losing the whole point of it.

It is really that of the nail versus sledgehammer here, if not making it any hammer and feather either, when perhaps back at Erich von Daniken, and his faithful or loyal angels always at his side, except not making it any Ezekiel either?

Except for perhaps still not science and Religion running side by side either, it could rather be that of an interpretation, for that of a Principle, when making it a couple of things.

In the end you could summarize here with that of Evolution theory, versus that of Probability, for their respective subjects, but still both quite important.

If rather an ape or monkey in the Nazca desert, is this perhaps still not an excuse for believing in the material world?

Making it rather the supernatural instead, and you could be having a world without boundaries and limits, like also thresholds and scales, if not making it any dimensions, or even Dreams either.

When trying to understand, we also seek to explain, in order to make up for the magnificence of nature.

Pick a sentence for that of a meaning, and Credible evidence should also make for a possible Consensus, except for perhaps not any Proof needed.

Continuing in a moment, because for that of evolved or developed in the previous, I was rather more thinking about the technological part of the issue.

Both the notion of the Big Bang, and also that of Instantiation, should be subject matters related to the field of elementary physics.

We know that the Universe once came into being, for also that of its interpretation for its possible meaning.

While stupidity could still kill the cat, while perhaps not an idiot either, both levels of intelligence and conscience could be factors as being present, or set forward, except for not making it any levels, for a possible wider understanding.

Perhaps faithful angels did suffice in the previous, but here too late to edit, while the word comprehension should be still speaking for itself.

You could also have a look at the subject of Rhetoric, if time permits.

I next did so, except why not switch order here at the top, I slightly disagree with the contents, for just not forgetting someone hammering in a table, using his shoes.

For that, it rather becomes that of an argument, or claim, if still not any conflict either.

If still only humans at the top of the chain, for that of a nature which supposedly evolved, we should also be knowing our place for where we supposedly belong.

Do you really have to prove a Myth, in order to make it proven, or could you just make it Proof of the whole thing?

But rather just swing for a dance, except for perhaps a shirt needed.

I am really not the expert here, but looking at the Hubble Deep Field pictures (two or both), we are able to see progenitor galaxies for their development, like also prototype for that of a car, except for only blaming such a thing on age, distance, and the speed of light.

If the Universe should be some 93 billion light years across, the rest of it should be in the dark, and therefore constitute no meaning, so because of that, only guessing the rest of the whole thing.

Except for also the fact that a confession is perhaps not the same as any Belief either, and that "Smallcreeps day" just came out of the primeval atom which preceded all and everything.

Here one task coming up which is not in the task list on the server.

Ends with 77.vlar_2 for that of its name, and I will have to go back for a check.

Also that it continues running when at 100.0%, and that thing I may have seen before.

Anyway, found it, and makes for one more valid WU.

Perhaps not my business either, but rather that both teaching and learning, could rather make for a dogma or doctrine instead.

While not translating with tenet here, using only a book, I happen to recall someone using the word Dogma, except for myself still forgetting the other half of the question being asked, if not answered.

Alien interview

But if rather only a product of nature for yourself, and perhaps some others, should there be still a reason to believe, or should you rather make it a room for doubt?

I had four pieces of bread inserted cold in the oven at 220 C for that of heating, and will have to wait a little.

So, while E=mc2 is still just an Equation, perhaps not any smile for an expression, when only a single letter is needed ("=").

While the tools needed should also be in our hands, also that you could be replacing a pen with a pencil, except for perhaps no actual meaning for a subject going away either.

Here something is missing above, but it could be that of a Concept.

Also reminds me of the caret here ("^"), for any potentiation.

Syntax versus Semantics

Abstract and Concrete

Scientific formalism

If God were only using a finger, when creating Adam, did he ever need to use the whole hand, in order to create the Universe?

Perhaps the Universe was created, or came into being, perhaps is for no grace or virtue either, like also that of integrity, uprightness, or honesty, except for not any reason to believe that it was for any good or evil either, like still that of mercy, because as mentioned, a given Heaven and Hell could be a part of a given Creation, except for not making it any Existence, when still only that of Matter creation could be enough or sufficient for a given purpose, when still only making it a notion for a similar Heaven and Hell.

But sadly that hatred should still be better than any good, except for perhaps "better off", for the first of these two, for only our purposes.