Greg1234
In the beginning was El
That's because the darwinian theory
Nice. By the way, this one is also good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej0dmNMdwYU
Upvote
0
That's because the darwinian theory
They both are basically the same mechanisms with different instructions. One produces a SEA URCHIN and the Other a HUMAN. Look at the photographs and tell me which is which:What did you prove? "almost identical"?
If you are an artist, I might let you pass.
It's a wonder you don't get into this right off the bat and try to conceal it under "I have no problem with alt med." Are you forgetting that I've been here a while and I'm already aware of the hysteria you're holding back? But it's a good thing you've already indicated that you're involved in the mainstream field of practice as you serve as an optimal poster child for the mindset of personnel operating behind closed doors. While some are led to think that they are merely indifferent scientists open to new ideas and perseveringly seeking the benefit of mankind this lollipop and rainbows scenario is overshadowed by the actual antagonistic mindset revealing itself in water-cooler fanaticism and radical smothering.
Dr Hamer's work is one in progress and as such imay serve as postulates or hypotheses to explain the undeniable link between the mind and these types of physucal changes. That link is the only one one can recognize to regard the work being done and follow the progress being made, not the more detailed research. He of course has a right to practice his work, construct a hypothesis, publish the results he obtained, and deduce without being ridiculed even if derision, for the most part, seems to be the predominant impetus behind the use of the "Mike Elphick" account. You posted his work and made fun of it. And while I admire your use here of the esoteric scientific method, I'll have to dismiss it.
You want to hear word salad about homeopathy? Try this one.
But I warn you, very severe brain dammage is possible.
Homeopathy with "Dr" Charlene Werner - YouTube
They both are basically the same mechanisms with different instructions. One produces a SEA URCHIN and the Other a HUMAN. Look at the photographs and tell me which is which:
Both photos show sperm trying to fuse with the egg. One is of a SEA URCHIN and the other is of a HUMAN!
Enjoy!
They both are basically the same mechanisms with different instructions. One produces a SEA URCHIN and the Other a HUMAN. Look at the photographs and tell me which is which:
Both photos show sperm trying to fuse with the egg. One is of a SEA URCHIN and the other is of a HUMAN!
Enjoy!
That is what I mean. This is a type of argument for artist, not for scientist. (if you shrink the image a little more, it would make no difference from a grain of sand)
That is it. As I said, this thread is no good.
I say this because creationists compare fossils of hominids and insist that they are not hominid since they resemble chimps more. Creationists refuse to accept Evolution simply because this will mean that they will have to admit that humans belong to the greater ape family and that all life forms are genetically related in some way or another.A human sperm bears absolutely no resemblance to a human but is almost identical to all sperms from the animal kingdom. How can this be? A single celled creature with a tail fusing with a round single celled creature brings forth humans? I would like creationists to ponder on this for a moment as the sperm egg example shows exactly how biological change happens and how this process is common in most animals inhabiting this planet.
It's not a religion by itself, but it is a religious belief. Nobody has ever arrived at creationist conclusions as a result of the scientific method.
As to your "mystery", again design prevails. A good design performs mechanical tasks. Why didn't evolution produce square and triangle cells? Performance reasons. Not genealogical reasons.
So....where did all this matter and energy come from? It MUST have been Created by some "thing" that is outside the realm of Science
because of "A.".
I arrive at the Creationist conclusion, because the scientific method demands that there is some "First Cause" for everything that exists.
B. Everything tends to degrade over time. We see no trends to the opposite.
SO...I must conclude....that something very warm & organized must have started everything......because all I see is information degrading and matter getting colder. Something supernatural MUST HAVE started it all up. Eventually it will all fizzle out and be cold. Science says so.....
The only alternative is that the Cosmos has been "Big Banging" in an endless cycle for eternity.
Sadly, science has ruled that out and says the big bang won't happen again.
SO the scientific method itself has ruled out an eternally cycling Cosmos. Again....pointing toward the Creationist conclusion.
Atheist science just shooting itself in the foot. Not real science.....just those who deny God's role in Creation.
First of all, this is the argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot imagine something happening without a cause, does not mean that it is impossible.
What would CAUSE such Brane rubbing?Secondly, have you studied quantum mechanics? There are quite a few theories out there at the moment which may provide answers to what caused the Big Bang. Branes rubbing against branes, etc...
This would seem to be just pushing the issue back. If everything that exists needs a cause, what caused God? The only way around this is to claim that for some reason, God doesn't need a cause, but if we can make this claim about God, why not make this claim about some naturalistic process and avoid the need for a god altogether?
Thus leaving only one natural cause for energy and matter to exist...an non natural instigator.Science would also say (using the same logic that you just used) that nothing warm and organized could exist in order to start everything. Again, this logic is just pushing the issue back a step, not explaining it.
Even if you are right, and there was some intelligent force that set the universe into motion, it does not follow that this force has any interest in humans. It's entirely possible that this force is concerned solely with the welfare of neutron stars, and we only happen to exist because the conditions that he set up to develop neutron stars are also the same conditions that make organic life possible. And it certainly does not follow that the Christian account of creation is the correct one.
It's not a religion by itself, but it is a religious belief. Nobody has ever arrived at creationist conclusions as a result of the scientific method.
Then show us the observations, tests and experiments done to arrive at this conclusion.Creationism is the only Scientific conclusion.
So you 'll have to play by the rules of science.Creationism is the only Scientific conclusion.
I am afraid he does not know what the definition of science is, let alone the rules that govern science!Then show us the observations, tests and experiments done to arrive at this conclusion.
No bible quotes here!
You used the phrase
So you 'll have to play by the rules of science.
I always trust humanity.I am afraid he does not know what the definition of science is, let alone the rules that govern science!
Creationism is the only Scientific conclusion.
Skywriting?Then show us the observations, tests and experiments done to arrive at this conclusion.
No bible quotes here!
You used the phrase
So you 'll have to play by the rules of science.
Do I believe what you say? No I don't because it makes no sense.
I ask you, Why should there be a God? why would there be a God? and most importantly of all if there is a God where did this God come from and where is this God?
Gods and I say Gods because if the people who live on planet earth are to be believed there are many many Gods,
Gods are nothing more than feelings.
The evidence suggests that Humans are the only form of Sentient life anywhere.