Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't understand how science advances a theory do you? Your ignorance to that is demonstrated by suggesting zero evidence of string theory applications. I'm using the term ignorance as in not knowing as opposed to the insult.
Sent from my Nexus 4
Well...educate me on the merits of string theory then. You clearly know something I don't. Last time I checked the LHC went belly up. What is it resting upon now?
Are we rejecting everything that does not pass the scientific method, just like science says, or are we not?
Was it man who created the seeds in plants and the fact that it holds a design in it.?. Man did not design it.. God did. Each seed has a design built in it.. God created it all. Man tries to find out the natural laws already set and designed.. when they find out something , they actually think it is their smartness that put it there.. that they figured it out. God put natural laws in place. Man did not. The ego of man cannot fathom there is a designer of the universe . They are too puffed up to even consider that.. it is no fairy tale when a seed goes into the ground the design built in that seed will produce that design.
Was it man who created the seeds in plants and the fact that it holds a design in it.?. Man did not design it.. God did. Each seed has a design built in it.. God created it all. Man tries to find out the natural laws already set and designed.. when they find out something , they actually think it is their smartness that put it there.. that they figured it out. God put natural laws in place. Man did not. The ego of man cannot fathom there is a designer of the universe . They are too puffed up to even consider that.. it is no fairy tale when a seed goes into the ground the design built in that seed will produce that design.
I agree that humans are egomaniacs...we use science to classify everything except ourselves. We are just homoerectus. And nobody bothers to ask where ego comes from. Scientists avoid "what is consciousness" like the plague. Maybe rightfully so...some problems are just too far off from solving.
Can't expect people to just swallow God as fact in the face of all the above.
Was it man who created the seeds in plants and the fact that it holds a design in it.?. Man did not design it.. God did. Each seed has a design built in it.. God created it all. Man tries to find out the natural laws already set and designed.. when they find out something , they actually think it is their smartness that put it there.. that they figured it out. God put natural laws in place. Man did not. The ego of man cannot fathom there is a designer of the universe . They are too puffed up to even consider that.. it is no fairy tale when a seed goes into the ground the design built in that seed will produce that design.
Your insistance on insisting the same premises incessantly make them no more true than they were before. Seeds? Really? Since it is obvious that realists understand that a supreme being did not create humans, it would also follow suit that the plants that have evolved were also very capapable of reproducing without the same supreme being. It is the overblown "ego" of Creationists that think they are the end all be all special creatures of the universe.
Was it man who created the seeds in plants and the fact that it holds a design in it.?. Man did not design it.. God did. Each seed has a design built in it.. God created it all. Man tries to find out the natural laws already set and designed.. when they find out something , they actually think it is their smartness that put it there.. that they figured it out. God put natural laws in place. Man did not. The ego of man cannot fathom there is a designer of the universe . They are too puffed up to even consider that.. it is no fairy tale when a seed goes into the ground the design built in that seed will produce that design.
They don't think they put it there they explain it with the concept of natural selection. It's a good explanation to a point.
We have an abundance of evidence of how life functions and reproduces and survives on earth. The question we can't answer is how all this started and why.
If a religious person answered this by "God" and then chronologically listing what came after what the atheists and agnostics would mock him or her.
But the atheists will respond with similar fictional tale (they were not there to witness it, so, they resort to imagining the beginning it their minds) by stating "Chance" instead of "God" (as if the lack of intelligence in the cause is more fundamentally brilliant) and then chronologically listing what came after what.
Imagine... a human being out of mere chance (no cause by a God as God does not exist) coming to be on a lifeless earth out of colliding molecules. Imagine that human being was male. Then imagine that male human being jerked off until he reached orgasm and ejaculated on dirt and water around him. Then imagine all the aquatic, plant and terrestrial life on earth evolving from his sperm he shot out.
That's the equivalent of the atheist conception of how and why all this diverse and abundant life on planet earth exists, all traced back to a single, simple, cell.
Your insistance on insisting the same premises incessantly make them no more true than they were before. Seeds? Really? Since it is obvious that realists understand that a supreme being did not create humans, it would also follow suit that the plants that have evolved were also very capapable of reproducing without the same supreme being. It is the overblown "ego" of Creationists that think they are the end all be all special creatures of the universe.
I regard myself as a realist and I believe in God and God creating life on earth.
I noticed your last sentence mentions "universe." I'll hazard a guess you believe in aliens.
Don't worry, Richard Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design as a viable explanation, so long as the Intelligent Designers were aliens. LOL.
Ben Stein is a pretty intelligent realest too. He's ethnically Jewish and so far as I can tell on the politically conservative side. But he's done rather well for himself in his life on earth, without meeting aliens, so, I think I can call him a realist.
what is reality anyway? The only thing that is real IS reality. And perception is reality. A deist is a realist to themselves, even intersubjectively.... When people are at mass, the clergyman will say PRAISE THE LORD!...maybe holding a Bible or pointing to a crucifix...And everybody else says YES THE LORD!
I regard myself as a realist and I believe in God and God creating life on earth.
I noticed your last sentence mentions "universe." I'll hazard a guess you believe in aliens.
Don't worry, Richard Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design as a viable explanation, so long as the Intelligent Designers were aliens. LOL.
Ben Stein is a pretty intelligent realest too. He's ethnically Jewish and so far as I can tell on the politically conservative side. But he's done rather well for himself in his life on earth, without meeting aliens, so, I think I can call him a realist.
Having faith means different things to different people. There are many people that observe aspects of their faith/religion and still are able to reconcile their doubt or disbelief in a creator.
Realistically, if there were "aliens", they also would not have needed a creator. I am certainly more open to the idea that there are lifeforms on other planets in other galaxies than the idea of a supreme being that created and oversees it all.
Intelligent design might base its ideas on observations in the natural world, but it does not test them in the natural world, or attempt to develop mechanisms (such as natural selection) to explain their observations.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Handz
Well...educate me on the merits of string theory then. You clearly know something I don't. Last time I checked the LHC went belly up. What is it resting upon now?
Are we rejecting everything that does not pass the scientific method, just like science says, or are we not?
..... the absence of supersymmetric particles at energies accessible to the LHC would not necessarily disprove string theory, since the energy scale at which supersymmetry is broken could be well above the accelerator's range.
Sent from my Nexus 4
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
