Aliens? To me that's just a cop out. You don't get to what created the "Aliens".
But Tom, how is that any more of a 'Cop-Out' than saying it was (a) God?"
Aliens (or, at least what we define as "aliens") are limited, mortal/physical entities. God, being (defined as) Eternal would not have had a creator.
Oh yeah... This topic should probably be moved to War Room I think.
It should be mentioned that "Creation(ism)" shouldn't always or automatically associated with "Intelligent Design". Look at it this way...
Let's say you're an Archeologist digging at a site. You find a structure, it clearly has an aspect of design to it. You wouldn't say the patterns and/or functionality it has came about by random, unguided chance. ...Not sure I have to explain that but you get the idea (hopefully). Anyway, you'd suppose that the object or structure you discovered was made by an advanced, intelligent civilization.
Case in point (regarding nature and the human body)...
This ratio throughout the human body (to me) shows that we could only have been designed.
I suppose I could address the idea of "Creationism is not appropriate for Children". Well, what does the account of creation say (pretty much)?
Not exactly an exhaustive account of the processes that took place to bring about those 'things' (other than "God said Let there be _____"). So there's essentially nothing more to 'LEARN' here except the accounts given. How these passages/verses are perceived is up to the reader -I suppose. And, I can understand why it seems unbelievable by itself. Obviously we weren't given the DETAILS of how all this could have happened.
But one clue one might consider is cymatics. Where sound waves (particularly high frequency sounds) produce complex and sometimes symmetrical patterns in particles. But what would cause any 'sound' before anything was there to make sound? If not (audible) sound -then at least vibrations (since that's what sound is -waves carried through the air and detected by our senses).
Ban this fucking linkbot. I'm sick of him: never contributes to anything, just shows up once in a blue moon to post a bunch of links, then disappears up his own arsehole for a while.
> Aliens? To me that's just a cop out. You don't get to what created the "Aliens". > > But Tom, how is that any more of a 'Cop-Out' than saying it was (a) God?" > > Aliens (or, at least what we define as "aliens") are limited, mortal/physical > entities. God, being (defined as) Eternal would not have had a creator.
He really didn't say anything there that he hasn't said before. He could have asked what was meant by the phrase first, but would likely not have gotten a useful reply.
> Oh yeah... This topic should probably be moved to War Room I think. > > > It should be mentioned that "Creation(ism)" shouldn't always or automatically > associated with "Intelligent Design". Look at it this way... > > Let's say you're an Archeologist digging at a site. You find a structure, it clearly > has an aspect of design to it. You wouldn't say the patterns and/or functionality it > has came about by random, unguided chance. ...Not sure I have to explain that but you > get the idea (hopefully). Anyway, you'd suppose that the object or structure you > discovered was made by an advanced, intelligent civilization. > > Case in point (regarding nature and the human body)... > > > This ratio throughout the human body (to me) shows that we could only have been > designed.
It's just the most efficient way for things to be.
> I suppose I could address the idea of "Creationism is not appropriate for Children". > Well, what does the account of creation say (pretty much)? > > http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=KJV > > Not exactly an exhaustive account of the processes that took place to bring about > those 'things' (other than "God said Let there be _____"). So there's essentially > nothing more to 'LEARN' here except the accounts given. How these passages/verses are > perceived is up to the reader -I suppose. And, I can understand why it seems > unbelievable by itself. Obviously we weren't given the DETAILS of how all this could > have happened. > > But one clue one might consider is cymatics. Where sound waves (particularly high > frequency sounds) produce complex and sometimes symmetrical patterns in particles. > But what would cause any 'sound' before anything was there to make sound? If not > (audible) sound -then at least vibrations (since that's what sound is -waves carried > through the air and detected by our senses).
Now you're just trying to stir things up. You proposed a thing that wasn't mentioned, then tried to shoot it down.
> > But one clue one might consider is cymatics. Where sound waves (particularly high > > frequency sounds) produce complex and sometimes symmetrical patterns in particles. > > But what would cause any 'sound' before anything was there to make sound? If not > > (audible) sound -then at least vibrations (since that's what sound is -waves > carried > > through the air and detected by our senses). > > Now you're just trying to stir things up. You proposed a thing that wasn't mentioned, > then tried to shoot it down. >
I thought of posting this vid with my previous reply, but figured 'Nah'. But now I gotta go and post it. T'wasn't my intent to 'stir things up', just reinforce whatever I was trying to say.
Index 
Threaded 
You know it makes sense.
Reply
[Re: 
