zorro

I vote for " CONTACT ". It is not only a place but a exciting presentation of a intelligent entity sending a message in a mathematical form set to the beat of a human heart. zorro ............................................. Contact Film (Wiki) ......... Contact often suggests that cultural conflicts between religion and science would be brought to the fore by the apparent contact with aliens that occurs in the film. A point of discussion is the existence of God, with several different positions being portrayed.[8] A description of an emotionally intense experience by Palmer Joss, which he describes as seeing God, is met by Arroway's suggestion that "some part of [him] needed to have it"—that it was a significant personal experience but indicative of nothing greater. Joss compares his certainty that God exists to Arroway's certainty that she loved her deceased father, despite her being unable to prove it.[8] Contact depicts intense debate occurring as a result of the apparent contact with aliens. Many clips of well-known debate shows such as Crossfire and Larry King Live are shown, with participants discussing the implications of the message, asking whether it is proof of the existence of alien life or of God, and whether science is encroaching upon religious ground by, as one believer puts it, "talking to your god for you."[24] The head of a religious organization casts doubt on the morality of building the machine, noting: "We don't even know whether [the aliens] believe in God." The first machine is ultimately destroyed by a religious extremist, in the belief that building it was detrimental to humankind.[8]

I am a retired Engineer. I have been doing good things for the civilizations and have taken my expertise to many places worldwide. The Civil Engineering side includes the design of levees, dams and military infrastructures at the Corps of Engineers. Engineering is a very challenging career; offers a nice retirement and is generally layoff proof. zorro

The "Big Bang" theory and the discovery of the "God Particle" have just confirmed creation (Everything from Nothing). ..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlf9qX1RP2Y zorro

hello again moo: The bible is an excellent ref for the Big Bang, Creation, Heaven, the Creator, salvation, Babylon War, Persian was, the Creators' plans, future events, .... Particularly for this thread, which do you use??? It is His word as Darwin - Species and Copernicus. ...Web of Life, The 10 commandments were even in stone. Which books in the bible do you agree with??? seriously, do you think that the Big Bang was the instrument describing how the Creator created everything and the rules??? zorro Thanx, you youngins will eventually glam on to a bit of class. despite the consternations.

hello moo very good idea and videos too. it getin me up. for you young fells to. here is a video to get you in the Moses mood. hope you like it. hello, moo: can't get enough huh?? Do you have any evidence of a virgin birth in humans? ..... None other than Christ and Mary. Google: Mary virgin birth. Can you show any evidence of this? .....What year do you have. Google: Cross, risen from the dead, Messiah. Do you have any evidence that heaven exists? .....Yes, Google: Quran, Talmud, Bible, heaven Musical proselytizing is not allowed either........ Good point, but fun, entertainment, point illumination and sheer class are. seriously, do you think that the Big Bang was the instrument describing how the Creator created everything and the rules??? zorro

hello, que: Surprisingly, I agree with what you are saying and, so to, do many others. Being human was his major trait. Being born of a human virgin is proof of that and His claim to be the Son of God. Many today even claim to be born of a virgin. So what. Was the calendar (a warpage of time) reset for them?? He was the sacrificial lamb for the redemption of Original sin, and is to be the real Messiah one day. IMHO Science doesn't have these. Go ahead, put Hubble to the test they cant find heaven and won't let you know how to get there. Someone to chicken to reveal themselves didn't like my Stattler music and gave me a zap. Do you know who it is?? zorro

hello: moo: Thebible is not evidence of anything........... Jerusalem is still there, Romeand the Emperors are still found. Jesus' tomb is still there. Daniel's Tomb isstill there, The Mentioned Ejyptians are still shown, Darius's Tomb isstill there The remnants of the seven churches are still there. ….. It'sa book written by bronze age people about the legends of gods that werebelieved at that time. Much of it can be shown not to be true, thinkabout that, much of it is nothing but tall tails, most of it is just a rehashof other religions from that era. None of it can be shown to be true... none ofit. ……..… No things were transferreddown by ancestry in the Verbal Tradition back since around 6,000 BC. Much of itis stories and symbology so that it can be translated to us down through todaythrough many languages, and still understand the meaning. The Adam and Evestory tells of Man's original Sin. But their never was a rib, a snake, Apple,tree, or even a garden of Eden. This was done so the Original Sin concepts andconsequences could be understood by human primitives and even to some today. Alot is a rehash of the Tora, Quran, because the same God is at the hart of thetexts. The bible tells similar stories as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyriansand later the Zarathustraism, …..and many more. Christ (or their equivalent)dying and raised in 3 days is told by many ancients. So What. I suppose that this was so because they all lived in a similar region.It is very much true if you are a new father with a wife and mother in pain and you need some realistic answers to where we go from here. Life is the resolution of reality by faith not Science. Yes it does in some instances describe real places and maybe even some real peoplebut the rest is fiction. It's no better than a novel written about aliensinvading New York Cityand using real people places and events to make it look good, it cannot besupported by any evidence. ...... I prefer story telling of God's Word and faith truths where it is found in no other place. New York tales and most modern music is crap and leads to the abyss. If you have evidence that can be confirmed feel free to show it but to claim thebible as evidence of it's self is simply not going to fly……….... The best evidence is that you are here and your eyes and love for mother wife and child and father…... The bible getsinto these and offers a resolution of death and a relationship with God. Astudy of the 10 commandments I all you need to get a start. hello, que Agree, Many stories have been misinterpreted and need others to help Get them right. IMHO Jesus was a real person (The Son of God) and not God or a God just look into Mary Magdalene. No,No,No, .....This is a religious thread so Biblical ref are OK. No religious addenda here. What is yours?? What concept bothers you the most??

How can I get a listing of which post and who gave us a + or - ??

It is all backed and is simple High School Religion 101. Science can't go from nothing to everything and the rules whereas creation is exactly that. Bible presents, In the begining God created the Heavens and the earth. Science can't take you to an after life the Creator can. The passage to Heaven is all over the OT and NT. Science can't find the God particle the Creator made it. This is explained as the goal for the NHC. http://ngm.nationalg.../achenbach-text The vast majority of scientist down to the High School knows this. Science can't create species and set in-place the engines of evolution, the Creator did. Bible, God created the fish Land Animals and Adam. With them God Created the Genome and other engines of evolution. The Creator can do anything that Science can even create Science itself. Sciences sits oround stiring the Petri Dish vs the Creator makes it all happen. By definition. The Creator can do anything that Science can even create Science itself. IMHO You may want to dust off off your Bibles off before you make similary rash statements.

No preaching here! This thread asks for differences between Science vs Religion. I offered a few. In any event, Biblical fact preaching is allowed in a Religious thread as is this one. ....

Science can't go from nothing to everything and the rules whereas creation is exactly that. Science can't take you to an after life the Creator can. Science can't find the God particle the Creator made it. Science can't create species and set in-place the engines of evolution, the Creator did. The Creator can do anything that Science can even create Science itself.

Ridiculous! You are not reading what I said apparently?? 1. But gave no conclusionary ruling on it since it was a separation of Religion and State Case not a Scientific resolution. This as in WIKI, ruled that it was religious and contrary to Church and State as I have said. 2. He wasn't condemned, his tests on some blood stuff was. To argue that the Scientific Community somehow rejected his testimony would necessitate a listing of the community and their credentials, which wasn't done because this was a Church and State Case. His problem with the judge was that he was ill prepared and wouldn't furnish experts to back up his experiments for some reasons. 3. For sure It wasn't a "The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2] as moo put it. The Courts findings are as an interpreter of the Constitutional officer as to the Church and State Case. Science nor personalities were not addressed, Weather ID was religious. To condemn Behe would require a complete listing of the stated Scientific Community for him to counter and condemn their credentials and scientific work.. 4. In any case, you seem to avoid the instant case for complexity that put forth in Post #85 which argues from an MD> outside the Court and the Court's inherent Political twists.: # 85 Thanx, schr: This is a Religion Thread. The assertions as you seem to say cover many grounds and may never fit in your faith mold. I present fact that many others here do that offers a solution to questions stymied by other disciplines. The proof is in the observable reality, the complexity and everything comeing from nothing, which are precepts of the Big Bang and other assertions of the Pseudo sciences. The proof of creation surrounds us. One is the complexity of the eye. It comes from something, is extremely complex and time is to short for it to evolve even if it could. http://www.detecting...m/humaneye.html Others have made similar posts which is an indication that it is true and relevant. They as you have a high purpose to present their facts and faith, do they not? All is relevant to the Forum as it is to the illumination of the Cosmos. Wouldn't you agree??? Sciences and atheist's don't have many of the answers as of yet, but they are low on the learning curves. 5. Your post statment "Behe and his claptrap have been dismissed by the scientific community over and over and over again, and he most certainly was dismissed by the court. " Isn't inline with either moo or I . It also denegertes his ref which is in my view acceptable to forum rules. ...so thus you are totally rejected.

No, No, No. Per Wiki " Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature. Nothing was said about his rejection by the Scientific Community, What was said is that generally the Scientific Community dismissed some of his blood complexity works. But gave no conclusionary ruling on it since it was a separation of Religion and State Case not a Scientific Critique. see: ...http://www.pamd.usco...zmiller_342.pdf Page 78..... We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory ofevolution. As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Beheand Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-oneinside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 79 of 139 Professor Behe conceded thatthe proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could,Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design.(22:107-10 (Behe); 2:15 (Miller); 38:82 (Minnich)). We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity hasbeen refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by thescientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally,even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID asit is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66(Fuller)). We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for designencompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnichthroughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.”Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we seeparts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference isquantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, thestronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects ofbiology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has beendemonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 80 of 139 claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design isrationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). Aspreviously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the ReverendWilliam Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paleyreach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed usingthe same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify thedesigner, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6-7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductiveargument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruledout. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller)). ...... H. Conclusion The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the factsof this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates theEstablishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed theseminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, andmoreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,antecedents. .....To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an orderpermanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any schoolwithin the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate ordisparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer toa religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratoryjudgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them bythe Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants toliability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominaldamages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costsincurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. fine print: This is not a legal review and no ascertains has been made of appeals if any that finalized the Court or Scientific issues. Zorro FYI; The Professor Behe rebuttals : http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html

Mr. Krauss is an unreliable theorist and an atheist with an ax to grind. http://www.slate.com...f_anything.html Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case WesternReserve University, has a reputation for shooting down pseudoscience. Heopposed the teaching of intelligentdesign on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. He penned an essayfor the New York Times that dissedPresident Bush's proposal for a manned Mars mission. Yet in his latest book, Hiding in theMirror, Krauss turns on his own—by taking on string theory, theleading edge of theoretical physics. Krauss is probably right that stringtheory is a threat to science, but his book proves he's too late to stop it. There is no anti-matter, anti-universe, anti-energy. They are all figments of the psudosciences theoretic religionists , IMHO. You can't destroy matter or energy so extrapolating back to before the Big Bang for this Universe you get to nothing. Then, majestically out the open space, it explodes, makes all matter and energy, it's rules then set on its way and still travels making the Cosmos, and it's species. Yes. In this context, "everything" is all matter, energy, rules, entropy ….. in this Universe. "Nothing"is a theoretical extrapolation back to time zero an instant before the Big Bang when nothing existed of this universe just a hole in space awaiting a command. String theory is all but debunked now. The all serve to define the pieces of the atom and must be true at the Big Bang past this time and on to the end. These theories have to pass thetests of the extremely hot Big Bang time as well as the cold of dark matter. Wearen't there yet. Very true, however there were, are and future, many Universes with many Big Bangs and we have yet to find any yet.

You are soooo right. The Psudo Sciences will dismiss this and go on to a newer song and dance to keep Creationist back even if there is no basis at all for their proposed way to go to everything from nothing. BTW, there must have been trillions of Universes prior to the Big Bang according to miltiverse theory.

I'll stick with wiki on Michael Behe. It measures Behe on a case of Separation of Religion and State and Intelligent Design is heavy into religion and seeks to be a factor in competitive biological dogma of Darwinistic thought . The courts didn't rule on Intelligent design but on his blood views anyway. Woo did not distinguish or refute it so is still vulnerable. His retort is: ....Well then, you need to report me, in fact I think I'll report me....

dh Moontanman infractions are as I stated above in misquoting wiki. ..... Behe may be a problem with you and moo, but don't corrupt the record of him. Like I said before, this is the inquisition in reverse where pseudo sciences is on the throne with it's daggers pointed at people of religion.

Correct Quote: http://en.wikipedia....ehe#cite_note-1 You have falsified the Behe record. This is what the court said:.....Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.[2] Your corruption: http://en.wikipedia....ible_complexity What you fraudently issued was: Instead of ....The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2] Behr was religious in nature and not dismissed by the court or the scientific community. This is a critical infraction on the Forum ! http://en.wikipedia....ehe#cite_note-1 Irreducible complexity and intelligent design See also: Irreducible complexity and Intelligent designBehe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.[14] Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. The logic is very similar to the watchmaker analogy given by William Paley in 1802 as proof of a divine creator. After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, some creationists felt that new strategies and language were necessary to return religious notions to science classrooms.[citation needed] The supplementary school textbook Of Pandas and People was altered to change references to creationism to use the term intelligent design. The books of lawyer Phillip E. Johnson on theistic realism, which strayed away from direct statements about a Young Earthand stuck to criticisms of evolutionary theory and purported biased "materialist" science, aimed to legitimise the teaching of creationism in schools. In March 1992 a conference at Southern Methodist University brought Behe together with other leading figures into what Johnson later called the wedge strategy. In 1993 "the Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars" met at Pajaro Dunes, and Behe presented for the first time his idea of 'irreducibly complex' molecular machinery. Following a summer 1995 conference, "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture," the group obtained funding through theDiscovery Institute. In 1996 Behe became a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (later renamed theCenter for Science and Culture) dedicated to promoting intelligent design.[15][16] In 1993, Behe wrote a chapter on blood clotting in Of Pandas and People, presenting arguments which he later presented in very similar terms in a chapter in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Behe later agreed that they were essentially the same when he defended intelligent design at the Dover Trial.[17][18]

Fuz, Please read the Ref. Not Much Else to Go On . . . If one looks carefully at the average time required for the evolution of such a multipart system of function, Dawkins and other evolutionists will most likely be waiting for a very long time for any experimental confirmation. No wonder hypothetical claims of design flaws are so common. There does not seem to be too much else to go on as far as a significant example of real evolution in action. The statistics are against such a process actually working in real life (kind of like a perpetual motion machine). So, evolutionists are left with the design flaw argument - an argument that relies upon the assumed understanding of the identity, motives, and abilities of any possible designer or collection of designers. Such arguments prove nothing except for the arrogance of those who use such arguments - especially when the very ones proposing such arguments cannot make anything even remotely comparable to much less better than that which they are disparaging. last page

Thanx, schr: This is a Religion Thread. The assertions as you seem to say cover many grounds and may never fit in your faith mold. I present fact that many others here do that offers a solution to questions stymied by other disciplines. The proof is in the observable reality, the complexity and everything comeing from nothing, which are precepts of the Big Bang and other assertions of the Pseudo sciences. The proof of creation surrounds us. One is the complexity of the eye. It comes from something, is extremely complex and time is to short for it to evolve even if it could. http://www.detecting...m/humaneye.html Others have made similar posts which is an indication that it is true and relevant. They as you have a high purpose to present their facts and faith, do they not? All is relevant to the Forum as it is to the illumination of the Cosmos. Wouldn't you agree??? Sciences and atheist's don't have many of the answers as of yet, but they are low on the learning curves.

Creation The Creator (He/She) created everything from nothing. Sometime called cause and effect. The Creator created the rules that govern them as gravity, magnetism, force fields, conservation of angular rotation, entropy…… The Creator created the purpose and plan. The Creator developed the deaths of the Cosmos. ************************************* Creating everything from nothing is a principal feature of the Creator. By definition the Cosmos exists and formed from the Big Bang. Back at time zero, before the Big Bang nothing of the Universe existed and then emergedfrom the Creator. How ever it is explained, The entire mass and energy of the Cosmos exists and has blasted into space. To deny a beginning from zero is tothwart the Big Bang. To espouse another measure of this singularity is but to describe the Creator in another way. Nothing of this glob of mass end energy would work without the rules that govern it. It is impossible to imagine a universe without gravity and the remaining rules. These are all measureable Scientifically effects are observable and flow in all equations and nit the Cosmos into its configurations. The rules do not evolve but are subject to Einstein's modifications. On the basis of complexity and a fundamental feature, a Creator had to derive them. Sciences uses them but has no idea how they originated. The purpose and plan is a reflection of a builder and a creation this is the concept of Will. In this case the cosmos is an exquisite ballet of form and motion embraces complexity, form and elegance. This is the attributes projected by the Creator and signifies that He/She extends to the infinite. With Life and the nanoworld. This elegance and complexity is without equal. Death is a reality of Creation. All entities come to adeath. The cosmos will be overcome be entropy just as life dies to make a place for the new and a new God is not formed. Death means a new beginning and is as real as a white dwarf that makes the large elements some of which are here on earth. Death brings about new evolvement and development of entities that counters other threats. This to isn't known by conventional science and predicting the perfect time and places for this to happen is beyond our reach but in the realm of the Creator.

The inquisition upside down. Now it is pseudo science Papals lashing an religionist intelligent design folks. LOS ANGELES — A computer specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is going to court over allegations that he was wrongfully terminated because of his belief in intelligent design. http://www.msnbc.msn...e/#.T197r3ic-uQ