Intelligent Design:has the proof been staring us in the face

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4040
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:17 pm

PostThu Jun 10, 2010 10:25 am » by Mep630


When you put this into context with all the evidence of aliens and theories like Zachari Sitchin's, I think it becomes clear that there is no other possibility of intelligent design.

For the simple fact of what made the first Protein?!

How can you make proteins without the DNA blueprints to build them?!

If you help the Oppressors, eventually you and your family will be oppressed.

www.mind-wars.com

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4238
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:30 pm

PostThu Jun 10, 2010 10:37 am » by Aragajag


electrobadgr wrote:It has been pissing me off discussing this theory with friends, it seems that if you question Darwinism you are accused of being a God bothering bible basher. Why is it so difficult to accept that evolution is far from watertight???? Is this really the state of things when people have their views on the universe shaped by the narrow minded conclusions of others, why can't they admit that we know nothing/very little and to decide absolutely that they know that intelligence could not have created life is naive and arrogant!!


Good stuff, I cannot see evolution or any process but neither can I see the big hand at work today. If there was nothing to start with how could there be something and where did the something come from anyway. Its got me stuffed but keeping me alive by the WTF factor.
Image
'Gee, I wish we had one of them Doomsday Machines, Stainsey..' General "Buck" Turgidson

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostThu Jun 10, 2010 10:44 am » by Electrobadgr


mep630 wrote:When you put this into context with all the evidence of aliens and theories like Zachari Sitchin's, I think it becomes clear that there is no other possibility of intelligent design.

For the simple fact of what made the first Protein?!

How can you make proteins without the DNA blueprints to build them?!

Precisely, evolution cannot explain the origin of information, i have heard some thoeries regarding this but they are all unsubstanciated guesswork, tantamount to clutching at straws in an attempt to hold darwins theory together. see Nihilgeists last post. Lots of "may have"s. Need to read Stichins work, have heard a lot about it :flop:
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:43 pm

PostThu Jun 10, 2010 10:52 am » by Electrobadgr


aragajag wrote:
electrobadgr wrote:It has been pissing me off discussing this theory with friends, it seems that if you question Darwinism you are accused of being a God bothering bible basher. Why is it so difficult to accept that evolution is far from watertight???? Is this really the state of things when people have their views on the universe shaped by the narrow minded conclusions of others, why can't they admit that we know nothing/very little and to decide absolutely that they know that intelligence could not have created life is naive and arrogant!!


Good stuff, I cannot see evolution or any process but neither can I see the big hand at work today. If there was nothing to start with how could there be something and where did the something come from anyway. Its got me stuffed but keeping me alive by the WTF factor.


me too mate, at the moment i can think of little else, i think i am close to formuting a cohesive theory on the nature of the universe but obviously this would only be a personal interpretation(see "electrobadgrs resonance theory" for an insight, not the complete picture yet though:-)). You can read a scientific journal which can explain so much but until you put the measuements to one side and just think about things then you will never have a personal understanding and i believe that is fundamental. Ones view of the universe must come from assimilation of data which resonates, if it doesn't "feel right" then it probably isn't. You may yourself returning to theories you have previously dismissed and find merit in the future, again this is due to resonance, you will reach your understanding exactly when you are supposed to. :cheers:
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 4238
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:30 pm

PostThu Jun 10, 2010 10:58 am » by Aragajag


me too mate, at the moment i can think of little else, i think i am close to formuting a cohesive theory on the nature of the universe but obviously this would only be a personal interpretation(see "electrobadgrs resonance theory" for an insight, not the complete picture yet though:-)). You can read a scientific journal which can explain so much but until you put the measuements to one side and just think about things then you will never have a personal understanding and i believe that is fundamental. Ones view of the universe must come from assimilation of data which resonates, if it doesn't "feel right" then it probably isn't. You may yourself returning to theories you have previously dismissed and find merit in the future, again this is due to resonance, you will reach your understanding exactly when you are supposed to. :cheers:[/quote]

I defiantly reckon resonance is in play, it has to be because it is what everything is. Good vibes or bad. Everything is based on that in my opinion. I just dont have enough to give on thought and that pisses me to, to be at a spot of knowing but not quiet. All is frequency, all cells all matter is a buzz. The cohesive force that binds the universe, one ring to bind them all.
Image
'Gee, I wish we had one of them Doomsday Machines, Stainsey..' General "Buck" Turgidson

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2024
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:45 pm

PostThu Jun 10, 2010 11:23 am » by Anuki


electrobadgr wrote:The existence of this bacterial propulsion machine is the main proponent against the intelligent design theory, coupled with the reality that just because science cannot explain the formation of the flaggellum yet doesn't mean they won't in the future, however it strikes me that the majority of scientists just really don't want to accept that any form of intelligence could be responsible for lifes appearance on this planet, even though Darwinism cannot explain the origins of Information i.e. DNA.



If it don't fit their theory, they ignore it..

thnx for the vid post btw :wink:


Previous

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook