There is an Intelligent Designer
Options
Comments
-
so one group believes its ? that created us... an almighty power that has emotions and getas angry if we dont conform to his rules no matter wat the religion, another group believes aliens made us thru some kinda experiment, or maybe placed brains into a species already on the planet (homosapiens) but made by who? and if so.. who made the aliens? other aliens? and who made them and so forth..... and nother group believes we came from star stuff that jus happend to land on earth i guess.. or made the earth too and we grew from the earth... every couple hundred of years we will have new developing theories... and the truth will be in the shaddows as usual.. maybe there is some truth to all of it.. maybe watever it is that we came about out of is actually our "? " sort a speak..
one ting we cant deny is we got souls and we got spirits and we are all connected somehow to each other and the planet... if ? or watevr created us is anything, it would be this Earth.. and the more we ? on it, the more it will ? on us... and we may intepret it as ? 's will or wadever... but the main thing we should be acknowledging is wat we are neglectin the most and destroying at a rapid pace....
but then again i may be wrong... -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »1. Of course Eve name is predominately announced. She is the mother of all living and the 2nd person ever created.
2. Cain lived in the land of Nod. "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden." (Genesis 4:16) No where in the text does it suggest that there were people already living there.
3. Cain was fearful that somebody would take vengeance on him for killing his brother. Cain was the first murderer on planet earth, so thus he was scared that people would look down on him and take action for the wrong he committed. He had a guilty conscience, which I am sure you need no further explanation of what that is.
why did ? protect a murderer?? -
If I had to pick one, I'd choose the "Big Bounce" theory.Which do you think is more likely and why?
Why can't this be denied?...one ting we cant deny is we got souls and we got spirits and we are all connected somehow to each other and the planet... -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Imo there is some underlying something. It seems ridiculous to me that complex beings developed/evolved without some sort of blueprint. Things appear to build upon one another, that couldn't happen if it wasn't following some specific 'order'. But are the blueprints intelligence or signs of it? It's some kind of smart cuz we can't replicate everything we've discovered.
Damn i could not have put that better. Co-siznizzle 1000%. Modern science has its ups and downs but that intelligence can't even produce one blade off grass from scratch. Sure has ? up a lot of blades of grass though (amongst other things). -
Damn i could not have put that better. Co-siznizzle 1000%. Modern science has its ups and downs but that intelligence can't even produce one blade off grass from scratch. Sure has ? up a lot of blades of grass though (amongst other things).
real ? know. orange-sized brain ? dont know about dat Tru Knowledge. -
PLASTIC RULES wrote: »real ? know. orange-sized brain ? dont know about dat Tru Knowledge.
i dont get how ? dont see that if western science's explanations was really boss like that then why cant those men in white coats replicate the alleged conditions they describe and create life. the most they cab do is simulate, manipulate existing materials, imitate and degenerate life. -
Are all of our interrelated senses (hearing, seeing, smelling, etc.) a mere coincidence? Just asking.
-
Are all of our interrelated senses (hearing, seeing, smelling, etc.) a mere coincidence? Just asking.
If you apply ? to nature in the following...you can see the mainfestation of the creator/designer...
The "Laws of Nature" are neither matter nor energy - they are the phenomena that control the action and interaction of all matter and energy in the universe. They are universally invariant, conditions may change but the "Laws" never vary. When the "Laws of Nature" came into existence the universe came into existence, they created the universe and determined its size - where the "Laws" end, the universe ends.
The concept of the "Laws of Nature" and "Universal Space" are the same. Nothing can exist beyond their domain, not even space. They are the framework of the universe that give the universe its personality. What would the universe be like without inertia or gravity, etc.. They create the personality of the universe.
Universal space has no structure, it is all one, there is no unique part of space. Space (the "laws of nature") may or may not be expanding. If they are expanding this could account for the "red shift" of the galaxies. If space is not expanding, the galaxies are simply falling toward the outer boundary of a finite universe, this would also explain the "red shift" of the galaxies.
Nothing moves - relative to space itself. The planet Earth (and everything else in the universe) is stationary - relative to universal space itself. (This should soon be borne out when the results of "Gravity Probe B" are fully analyzed.) The "energy level" of matter - relative to space - determines a body's inertial mass.
• Inertia for example is the law that requires a force be exerted on matter for it to accelerate or rise to a higher space energy level. Galileo discovered this phenomena and Newton wrote down the mathematical formula F=MA that best explains how a body of matter, acts under this law, relative to other bodies,. If there was no 'Law of Inertia' the universe would have a much different personality. (Perhaps we would not have to wear inertial seat belts in our cars, etc.)
• Newton mathematically explained why an apple falls to the ground instead of falling upward - and called this phenomena 'Gravity' - in doing so he helped explain how the heavens work.
• Maxwell explained mathematically how light travels in space.
• Einstein discovered the mathematical relationship of inertial mass of a body and energy, represented by the equation E=MC2. Inertial mass is the energy level (space energy level) of a body of matter relative to space.
• Max Plank discovered the mysterious phenomena of Quantum Mechanics which scientists don't fully understand but use anyway.
• Then there is the phenomena of life itself - another group of laws of nature that govern every aspect of life, (biology, evolution, etc.,) that scientists are just beginning to understand and explain.
These are just a few of the phenomena that run the universe - there are many others - some yet to be discovered and explained. They are universal - conditions may vary but the Laws of Nature are invariant and unbreakable. The Laws of Nature do not exist apart from the universe - they together with matter and energy - Created and govern the Universe.
Donald Hamilton, author of "The "MIND of Mankind" -
I already tried to explain this to him but apparently if we reject his opinions as what it is, "believing personal conjecture over hundreds of years of evidence; we simply didnt read enough" lolYou're making assumptions based on what you think vs science who've studied this for years. Do you think these statements would be put out if they just basically glance at it? They don't just say, oh here you go, I know all this after one day. It's years of studying and putting pieces together.
So how are you right over science? You assume because everything is so complex then it must be some type of ? involved, that's your level of thought. How is that backing up or even making a decent argument? What actual proof do you have? How can you out do science in the name of an 'intelligent designer'? -
I already tried to explain this to him but apparently if we reject his opinions as what it is, "believing personal conjecture over hundreds of years of evidence; we simply didnt read enough" lol
i've used facts and statements from researchers to back up my opinions, whereas you guys are arguing against a point that doesn't exist. its funny how the "anti-? "/pseudo-intellectual brigade will fabricate the opposing argument when they can't actually refute what is being said in a logical manner. -
fiat_money wrote: »This sounds like a reference to the popularized "Big Bang theory". The problem with calling the theory of the origin of the universe's continuing expansion the "Big Bang theory" is that it assumes a singularity of some sort; which is where the speculation begins. It could have easily been a "Big Contraction and Re-Expansion"--which reached no single point--instead (aka the "Big Bounce" theory).
So, it'd be a bit unwise for someone to wholeheartedly assume that the universe's continuing expansion could've only started with a "massive explosion of energy".
But yeh, many believe that if there were an "explosion", it was caused by quantum fluctuations.
I think you missed the point of my post regardless of whether it's a massive explosion or contraction and re-expansion something had to cause it correct? how many instances of random accidental "explosions" or "contraction and re-expansions" have there been throughout existence? I don't care about a theory of HOW it came to be i'm arguing that it was planned and willed by the Creator, whatever terms you choose to explain His work is irrelevant for what I'm saying. -
PLASTIC RULES wrote: »i made this thread cuz i was in essay writing mode.
whereas darxwell came in here with a thesis because he catches feelins everytime someone mentions intelligent design. that ? got a brain the size of an orange and chipmunk teef.
kool. not attacking your reasons/motives for making the thread, my reply is just my overall perception reading thru the thread. cant speak for Darx, i understand where he's coming from tho i dont put that much stock in science. Science is man so there is always room for error. i dont think it matters to much tho, maybe it does for the sake of argument, nothing else. Adults, usually have their mind set once its made up, it rarely changes. As for the replication argument, can anything be replicated completely in exact on anything? I doubt it, and not sure how how much relevance it has. no two things from one thing are exactly alike, they may have a certain relationship with one another tho. I dont know, interesting thread tho. -
Hyde Parke wrote: »kool. not attacking your reasons/motives for making the thread, my reply is just my overall perception reading thru the thread. cant speak for Darx, i understand where he's coming from tho i dont put that much stock in science. Science is man so there is always room for error. i dont think it matters to much tho, maybe it does for the sake of argument, nothing else. Adults, usually have their mind set once its made up, it rarely changes. As for the replication argument, can anything be replicated completely in exact on anything? I doubt it, and not sure how how much relevance it has. no two things from one thing are exactly alike, they may have a certain relationship with one another tho. I dont know, interesting thread tho.
the point on humans not being able to replicate what we see in nature is there to illustrate that human civilization is still in its infant stages as far as scientific knowledge goes, thus the assumption that intelligent beings could not be responsible for some of the things we observe is shortsighted. these science geeks are the same ? that will use arguments like "we thought the earth was flat at one point"/"we thought the sun revolved around us"/etc/etc, making them look like idiots because they should actually agree, or at the very least not rule it out, according to their own science-centered logic. -
You dont want to bring Einstein into this...cuz what he says about "? " isnt going to be pretty.
I do not believe in a personal ? and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
I believe in Spinoza's ? who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a ? who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
I can agree with Einstein on this "? " character. Who knows what is out there, I'll never pretend to know what it is about, if it's dead, or if it even exists. I believe there is or was a higher power out there, but that's where it ends.
I do know the gods that exist in the fairy tales called the Koran, Bible, and other religious sources of ? aren't true.
