Well, we already know that part of our DNA contains viral information, maybe that was one way to accomplish the task or something similar. But I hope all the research continues to be shared internationally it might prevent any single power from corrupting the findings or the release of data from those findings.

Even the atheists speak about "Natural Processes Evolution". That's already an idea of an on-going continuous creation. In fact, as ironic as this may seem, the atheistic "Natural Evolution" picture of "Creation" only verified that Jeanniebean is right on the money!

If the atheists hold that this universe is 'created' by "natural processes of evolution", then they have NO CHOICE but to bow down and worship Jeanniebean as speaking the untimate wisdom of enlightenment!

For all she's doing is saying, "Look here you idiots! If you believe that natural processes of evolution is what "Created" this unvierse, then guess what! We have already evolved to a state of sentience, therefore by your very own definition that "creation" is a "natural process of evolution" then You have BECOME Gods! Because now you are able to take control of the "Creation" of your own lives!"

Sheesh!

All Jeanniebean is telling the atheists is that if they could take themselves seriously even for two seconds they'd recognize that they have just concluded that they are the "Creators" of this universe NOW!

They are no longer "victims" of natural processes and they need to start recognizing that the "process of natural selection" is OVER, it has now become a "process of conscious selection!

So wake up and start realizing that YOU ARE GOD! You are the creators of your own lives and you are the "process of conscious evolution" now!

So quit preaching utterly stupid atheism and start realizing that You ARE the conscious cosmic mind manifest in physical form!

What does it take to get through to you half-evolved morons?



Whew! This was fun post to write.

So my question would be: Are things that don’t follow any known laws of physics considered to be external to the system under consideration?

QUOTE:
Why do those extremely few atoms just happen to be in the abundances they are?

If you were familiar with big bang instead of that watered down version they start teaching kids in first grade you'd-
well, I'll just try to describe it a bit (but I admit I'm leaving out some important things to keep it from getting much much longer than this.)

Picture that moment after the very start. There was a whole lot of energy uniformly spread everywhere in the universe but things were very compact then so you had so much energy at any particular point that it was just too hot for atoms.

-but as the whole universe stretched there was more room and less dense energy means lower temperatures so in a fashion a little bit like raindrops forming from a cloud of water vapor you had protons, electrons, and neutrons form from a cooling cloud of energy. As I'm sure you know when you put these together they form atoms. One proton can grab one electron (sometimes more or less but it easily gives them away or grabs another one,) so with just one proton you get hydrogen. Things were still pretty hot though so about one in four atoms had two protons stuck together and those are hydrogen. A small number even had three which means lithium but with the temperatures changing the way they did that's as high as things went from this particular trend.

So what about all the others? Well, with enough energy you can fuse these atoms together and if it's a more stable it will even give off more energy that can fuse others and so on.
And where do we find high temperatures after the background cooled off? Well obviously those funky spots where gravity pulled a lot of those gasses together into one of those big balls we call stars.

It's easiest to fuse hydrogen but helium is heavier so after long enough it moves to the middle (down) and takes up all the hottest areas. If the star was big enough it will eventually push down with enough pressure that it will be hot enough to fuse helium. Next element builds up and so on until iron. Iron is a bit tricky as it has the lowest energy configuration- it just sucks up even more heat to be fused without giving any off. This means this whole "star" trend ends at that element.

But there's a way to get enough energy to keep going. If a star is really freaking huge and gets to the iron point of fusion there's something else that can happen. Heat is the main thing that pushes out from inside of a star but because iron just keeps sucking it up pretty soon you've only got gravity pushing things down. With small stars they hold their weight but the big ones are so heavy that the forces of the atoms themselves can't hold it up and the star collapses in on itself until things are so compact that everything turns into neutrons. It turns out at that heat it's actually smaller than the space neutrons take up and they have enough force to hold everything up so it bounces back to a bigger shape and there is so much energy involved in that that we see the star explode as a supernova. These explosions give us all of the elements up to tricky 92.
*Realistically I'd expect a lot of them make heavier stuff but since those elements decay so quickly and already take the most energy to make meaning there are fewer of those atoms anyway they all decay really quickly and we just see 1 through 92.

Well, one think is for sure we certainly don't have the kind of divinity that is typically attributed to a god. In fact it seems that it takes many millions of people creating a chain of events to influence whatever creative avenue I choose to take.

If I'm the one creating my very existence then I should have complete control over the process. Instead I am limited not only by this physical form but by the environment I am bound to and by all the interactions that affect my creativity in uncontrolable ways.

So, for me, that does constitute a valid reason to believe in the idea of a single intelligence designing/creating the universe.

And furthermore, if there is any question, I do not see any reasonable ideas to support a mult-designer idea either - without manipulative immagined communities and categories we can't even find enough commonality between us to get along, much less design a universe of such complexity.

I thing the question posed is a valid one.

evidence can only be regarded as proof when there has been a pre-existing agreement between the parties involved as to the means of validation for the kind of evidence that would constitute proof.

5. Increasing the normal life span of humans to about 1000 years.

If I were a genetic engineer, I would certainly be doing all of this. I would be called a mad scientist, I'm sure.

I don't even need to reference science to see that the Bible is false.

You say that so many of life's unknowns are explained in the Bible. Could you share a few?

I've been all through that book and I never seen anything useful in it that was even remotely unique from any other source.

If you're speaking about the Christain Bible that includes the New Testament with Jesus, all I can say about that is that Jesus didn't even agree with Yahweh. I don't how anyone could believe that he was his son. He was crucified for blaspheme precisely as Yahweh had commanded his followers to murder such heathens.

Of course, if you're sticking only to the Old Testament or Torah, then at least you avoid that contradiction. But I have tons of problems even with that. It's just looks like Zeus on LSD to me.

Even Zeus wasn't as jealous and as male-chuavinistic as Yahweh. Although I guess they were both appeased by blood sacrifices.

I have a hard time taking any mythologies seriously that have their gods being appeased by blood sacrifices.

Like wux was saying earlier, if we're going to consider an Intelligent Designer let's try to stay focused on the "Intelligent" part. Whatever being created this universe is already in deep **** with wux. No need to have the "Intelligent Designer" lusting for blood sacrifices, asking people to stone their unruly children to death, or being obsessed with desire to become the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to rule over a bunch of pathetic humans who supposedly can't even keep from sinning unless he gives them the strength to refrain from it.

With all due respect, if the creator of this universe is like the Bible describes, I'd be so disappointed, I'd rather atheism was true. We'd be better off with no god at all that to have a glorified Hilter as a God. Picking and choosing only a very few people to serve him and casting the rest into a fiery furnace?

Wasn't one Hitler enough?

I don't think we need any gods like that, thank you.

By the way, if they start designing people to live for 1000 years, they better address birth control and population control issues as well.

Like, maybe if you're going to live for 1000 years you have to give up procreation (or something like that)

Could you imagine if all the people who had ever lived were still alive today and continued to multiply at without restraint all that time? What would be the world's population today? A lot more than it already is, that's for sure! And not just from the people who lived longer, but from the increased offspring that they would have continued to produce (and the offspring of their offspring, etc, etc, etc.).

Ab, I'm not going to get into a debate about religion in the Science & Philosophy forum with anyone who is close minded. I only mentioned the Bible here bacause I was responding the "proof is agreement" statement. If you REALLY want to discuss your distorted view of religions, start a thread in General Religion and I'll respond if I don't think you're trolling...

I absolutely, totally enjoyed your post and I just had to reply before I read any more because I needed a moment to stop laughing.

Now that I have, I can only say - ABRA, it's ok, calm down now, you're amongst friends, really. OH BOY I'M LAUGHING AGAIN

It depends - do you think we have uncovered all the possible laws that govern how this universe functions???

Ab, I'm not going to get into a debate about religion in the Science & Philosophy forum with anyone who is close minded.

Well when I asked Dragoness what kind of evidence she would accept or what she would consider as 'proof' she admitted that she did not believe there was any proof or that I had any proof. Which means that she is not prepared to consider anything at all to be "evidence" or "proof" because it is outside the scope of her belief system.

It is the same as my asking a Christian for proof that their God exists or that Jesus is God and they give "The Bible says so" as their proof and I say, "that is not proof" "That is not evidence."

So I think what we failed to do is define and clarify what Creative is asking for, and define "intelligent design" before wasting our time.

You assume too much.

*I said YOU did not have proof, not that NOONE could have proof...lol

You did not resolve anything about what equates proof or evidence either.

There cannot be proof in this forum of a designer because we cannot fell or touch it or them here.

I will meet you at a designated spot and you can introduce me to the designers and the designers of the designers and we would be able to agree on the intelligent design.

Abra, I totally get what you are talking about.

*You did not resolve anything about what equates proof or evidence either.