Universe's, Intelligent Design

[FRIPRO]

One of the scientific and theological subjects that puzzles the Earth's people most, is the origin of the Universe. In the pass few years our technology has given us a greater insight into the birth of the Earth; however, it has not shed much light on the Universe itself.*

 

There are constant theoretical arguments, as to where did man come from? Where did the earth come from. Where did the Universe come from? Is there a God? Is there a hereafter for humans? Is evolution important or is Intelligent design (meaning a creator) more important.

 

If there was creation, where was the creator before creation? Are there other beings in the Universe? When was the Universe created? Was it really created or does it exist forever?

 

What is gravity? Does the Universe have an Ether atmosphere? Can one travel faster then the speed of light? Are we alone in the Universe? Is the Universe god? Is the Universe Expanding?

 

Does time have a beginning or end? Will the Universe end? Does the gods end with it?

 

All of the above scientific and theoretical questions are a constant source of argument. The cry from the many theoretical and scientific experts say "prove it"!

 

Earthmen know that one can not prove most the theories of the above questions. Go to any on line forum on the internet, and one will see how badly divided the worlds communities are, with regards to answers to the above questions.*

 

Can there ever be a unified theory, of the Universe, that is accepted as truth? Why do we need to know the truth? In the human, when does the first light of conscientious occur? Is the earth a living organism with a ID (mind) or conciseness?

 

Why are we humans here, on Earth? Do Earth humans possess a SIXTH SENSE? Can human and other of Earth's species viruses, be part of human intervention (hackers), if so for what purposes?

 

 

http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html

[TheFaithfulStone]

It's actually "Karl Marx" and not "Carl Marks"

 

TFS

[FRIPRO]

It's actually "Karl Marx" and not "Carl Marks"

 

TFS

 

 

THANK YOU I will change it immediately FRIPRO

[InfiniteNow]

How many times has this been posted, and in how many different forums?

 

Careful TFS, he'll ask if he can list your name and contact info in the references section next... :)

[TheFaithfulStone]

oh god...

[FRIPRO]

How many times has this been posted, and in how many different forums?

 

Careful TFS, he'll ask if he can list your name and contact info in the references section next... :eplane:

 

 

The original string in the "Theology forum" was canceled by the String administrator due to content not appicable to the string subject,. We were told to re-list under another string or subject, if still required!

 

As I believe the site string administraor had a good reason to shut down the string, due to out of hand content by some persons. I have relisted it in the SCIENCE forumn. The reason being I really want to hear from the scientific community reasonable comments. FRIPRO

 

Thank you for your consideration:FRIPRO

[TheFaithfulStone]

What?

[FRIPRO]

What?

 

 

Please expand on your coment

[Boerseun]

Does this thread contain anything resembling a point?

[FRIPRO]

Does this thread contain anything resembling a point?

 

 

I am not sure what you are driving at?

 

The point is in the introduction: One of the scientific and theological subjects that puzzles the Earth's people most, is the origin of the Universe. In the pass few years our technology has given us a greater insight into the birth of the Earth; however, it has not shed much light on the Universe itself.*

[Chacmool]

FRIPRO, I'm afraid I seriously doubt many people will ever read your entire manuscript. It is very hard to read due to the endless language errors, the cumbersome construction and the unforgiveable factual errors.

 

You will be well advised not to litter your text with exclamation marks and questions marks - this is simply not the way to write a scientific text. Also, you can't have entire paragraphs of questions and then jump to some wild conclusion - science does not work this way. For each premise you must have a test or at least a decent argument, then scientific observations, and only then a carefully considered conclusion.

[FRIPRO]

FRIPRO, I'm afraid I seriously doubt many people will ever read your entire manuscript. It is very hard to read due to the endless language errors, the cumbersome construction and the unforgiveable factual errors.

 

You will be well advised not to litter your text with exclamation marks and questions marks - this is simply not the way to write a scientific text. Also, you can't have entire paragraphs of questions and then jump to some wild conclusion - science does not work this way. For each premise you must have a test or at least a decent argument, then scientific observations, and only then a carefully considered conclusion.

 

 

Thank you for your recommendations. My manuscript is in its infancy, and is in great need of reconstruction. I have chosen to build the manuscript on the Internet as I write, and have requested forums readers (members of the Hypography Science Forums) to coment on the concept of UIDE.

 

We members of the scientific community on Earth, find it hard to accept the premis that the Universe is eternal, not created from a big bang.

 

Your advise:"not to litter your text with exclamation marks and questions marks - this is simply not the way to write a scientific text". I would say that I reserve the right to not write in the standard scientific text method.

[Boerseun]

I would say that I reserve the right to not write in the standard scientific text method.

Spicing up a bland text by ignoring the set standards might be a good idea under certain circumstances - but I should also remind you that the scientifically-minded people that you might imagine as your target audience also reserve the right not to read your text and/or take it seriously.

[FRIPRO]

Spicing up a bland text by ignoring the set standards might be a good idea under certain circumstances - but I should also remind you that the scientifically-minded people that you might imagine as your target audience also reserve the right not to read your text and/or take it seriously.

 

Boerseun:

 

Pioneers always find it difficult to swim upstream. I am moved by your encourgement ("Spicing up"). What you say about the target audience is true.

 

T. J. Blasing ([email protected]) Knoxville, Tennessee, who Wrote: To 'The Opinion piece by Lee Smolin'. "I would add a note on a related problem with the present system: Editors of the principal journals reject manuscripts that challenge prevailing theories or fall outside mainstream research. This practice eliminates new ideas in fundamental physics and encourages routine articles in established fields.

 

The editors protect themselves from many crackpot submissions, but also from the few potentially great concepts. An organization or journal that screens original articles specifically to identify great ideas would be a valuable asset.

 

T.J. continues: "Another part of the equation is that original ideas can come from physicists ( or common folks) who, like me, are retired. We no longer have a career to worry about, and may have received graduate training in broader, more fundamental physics.

 

We do not have the pressure of publishing papers. The search for new Einstein's should not be limited, as Smolin suggests, to a few young scientists who are set aside to develop creativity. There are greater numbers of retired scientists, many having proven their creativity in diverse fields"

[Chacmool]

I don't see how your reply relates to Boerseun's remarks. :hihi:

 

I can, however, assure you that nobody is going to take a badly written text seriously. In fact, it's often very hard to understand just what you mean. If that's the way you choose to write, so be it. But I think my advice is valid and for your own benefit.

[FRIPRO]

I don't see how your reply relates to Boerseun's remarks. :shrug:

 

I can, however, assure you that nobody is going to take a badly written text seriously. In fact, it's often very hard to understand just what you mean. If that's the way you choose to write, so be it. But I think my advice is valid and for your own benefit.

 

 

Any manuscript written in its infancy will have countless errors (for example [Chacmool]the too many "!!!!" (I agree it is being corrected).

 

Most authors would not dare to write live on the internet, and ask your recommendations. They clean up their manuscript (spelling included) and then out it goes, published in finished format. Please look at the concept and make recommendations, and I will change the grammer and spelling as we go.

[TheBigDog]

I think that what my fellow moderators are getting at is that we are attempting to hold articles posted here to a set of standards which include grammar, structure, content and factuality. While I applaude the effort you are putting into your work, it needs to be elevated past the "infancy" stage to be posted here. It will soon be moved to another area where discussion and work can continue. At a later stage it may return to this forum.

 

Bill