Nature is more truthful than science
Science derives truthfulness from nature and nature derives truth from its creator, the ONE Creator God.
Got anything for us that isn't new age gobbledygook?
By the way, science studies nature primarily by directly observing it. The only reason it deviates from nature is because we don't have all the answers yet, incomplete information leaves us with only some of the answers.
Science should keep on doing what it does; religion supports it; beyond its reference points, it is absolutely useless; there it should not be accepted blindly; then one tries to make it a religion which it is not.
There are many questions that religion does not answer. You come in this world alone and die alone. I do believe in a creator but many questions are unresolved. The Bible nor does the Koran answer those. Science has many answers but also cannot explain some things the Bible does. It is interesting
Please start asking valid questions one by one; I will try to help you .
Science also does not answer all the question; it is not designed to.
I would say that pure science is as truthful as nature. Interpretation of it can definitely be skewed, but scientific tests never have the wrong result. They always go according to nature.
In my opinion, you've hijacked and monopolized the word 'is'
I don't get you; please express yourself fully. I am a good listener.
There is no truth in nature; it simply is. Truth comes (as does falsehood) in descriptions of nature; if those descriptions are accurate they are "truth" and if not they are "false".
A rock cannot be "truth" while a description of that rock can be either true or false. If the rock weighs 10 pounds and your description claims 12 pounds that description is false. A description cannot, of course, ever be completely true as it cannot completely describe the rock. How many atoms are in it? Where are the individual electrons? Is there one atom of Uranium hidden in the 10 pounds of granite? We consider the description to be "true" when it correctly describes only those attributes it is directed at, such as weight or composition, even while recognizing that it probably isn't 100% accurate. Just 99.999999999%.
You think he is going to listen to logic and reason???!!!
You come up with reason; if you have any. It may benefit me and others and in case it is going to harm you anyway.
Human beings do learn from one another; and there is no shame in it.
I understand you; absolute truth is beyond human imagination and comprehension.
Yet you believe that you know the "TRUTH" about God Allah the Creator?
Yes, of course. He's been posting here long enough to show that.
There is a world of difference between "believe" and "know" however.
Wasn't the trerm "A Believer" a made up word ...created by unbelievers, that they put on the other people that believed what Jesus said.
Thereby, finding their own identity. from that day forward ... they called themselves "Non Believers" And the world has been divided ever sense.
Sounds a little far fetched. More likely the believers didn't like the labels applied to them and designed that one instead.
But the world as certainly been divided - that much I'll go with!
I was just funing with YA.
But come to think about it?
Everyone believes in something ... SO everyone is in the process of believing ... SO doesn't that mean that everyone are believers?
Probably, depending on your definition of "believe" and "know".
The biggest difference, to me, is that one "believes" based on desire, one "knows" based on at least some evidence. Know is never 100%, but belief is seldom much more than 0% factually based.
I "know" the sun will come up in the morning, but it actually may not. I "believe" that predestination is a invalid concept, but have no evidence that that is true. I just want it to be true.
It is because the Creator God himself had Converse with His chosen people called messengers prophets of the Creator God.
[72:27] He is the Knower of the unseen; and He reveals not His secrets to any one,
[72:28] Except to him whom He chooses, namely a Messenger of His. And then He causes an escort of guarding angels to go before him and behind him,
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=26
Oh? Just how does he converse? What language? Does He use sound or sign language? Write on stone tablets? Or just implant the answers directly into your brain, whereupon you don't know if He answered or if you came up with the answer yourself?
It would be completely naive and foolish of me if I took your word for these extraordinary supernatural claims without any evidence whatsoever...just whimsical wishful thinking.
Do you understand that by using my common sense, I have no choice but to dismiss your claims...as they lack any objective truthfulness?
You could have just as well told me that you are Napoleon reincarnated!
And what is logic other than a fiction and imagination? Please school me!
You may enjoy the following:
Quotes about logic
Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.
Joseph Wood Krutch
Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice.
It is always better to say right out what you think without trying to prove anything much: for all our proofs are only variations of our opinions, and the contrary-minded listen neither to one nor the other.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
James Harvey Robinson
Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge.
Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities.
He was in Logic a great critic,
Profoundly skill'd in Analytic;
He could distinguish, and divide
A hair 'twixt south and south-west side.
Samuel Butler, Hudibras.
We must beware of needless innovations, especially when guided by logic.
Sir Winston Churchill, Reply, House of Commons, Dec. 17, 1942.
...logic, the refuge of fools. The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians—and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse.
H. L. Mencken. The American Mercury. p. 75.
What does random preaching have to do with the concepts of nature and science anyway?
what i think supports intelligent design is that in nature, male animals are more colorful than females. Take birds for example. Peacocks are interesting, but the male bird, being brighter distracts preditors aways from the nest, while the camouflaged female sits quietly on her nest hatching eggs.
Now how would, could or in what way does evolution decide that this is a good plan? and then how does it decide that the male should be brighter to be used as a distraction?
back to the peacock
on the male all those eyes are to hypnotize the female so he can breed with her. What part of evolution concocted that?
Oh I KNOW I'm gonna get hounded on this one, but I do agree with the first sentence of the OP posting.
From Nature, science evolved.
Any other thinking would be wrong.
Another interesting point is that in the insect world it tends to be the other way around I believe. The males are smaller and often get eaten after mating.
"Now how would, could or in what way does evolution decide that this is a good plan?"
If that is really the reason, it would be because a bright colored male produces more offspring on the average. Average being found over tens of thousands of generations.
"What part of evolution concocted that?" The part that "counts" offspring - it would happen because males with many "eyes" have more offspring on the average. Average being found over tens of thousands of generations.
This is the same basic answer to almost every evolution question that concerns why something happened evolution wise. If it produces more offspring over many generations then a particular trait spreads itself.
One may question and try to figure out just why more offspring is produced, but if they are then evolution is happening. For instance, the bright colors - males may draw predators away (and perhaps die trying) from the female and nest, but those peacocks then survive and produce ever more descendents from the (now dead) male. If the male did not draw off the predator the female and all chicks or eggs die, maybe leaving the male to try again if he survives until next year and maybe not leaving him alive for now.
Brother O, I've seen you many times on these forums in discussions of evolution. Are you truly that ignorant of the basics of the theory or do you ask for a different reason?
Here's an honest question for you since you seem to have an authority on the subject. Evolution is based off of the mutation of a specie, but the dominant genes tend to determine the trait of the offspring, correct?
How does a mutation, a accident, become the dominant, the perferred?
If mutation produces a recessive gene to go alongside a dominant one 50% of offspring will carry the recessive gene. If offspring mate together, 1 out of 4 will have two recessive genes and thus have the trait.
A mutation could also produce a dominant gene, whereupon 1/2 of the first set of offspring will carry the gene and exhibit trait. Species age of a particular gene does not determine dominant/recessive and there is no particular reason a mutated gene cannot be dominant. It's the luck of the draw.
There is also the matter of a recessive gene becoming more common than the dominant through evolutionary forces; blue eyes (at least in America) is such an example. Blue eyes is a recessive gene, but has become much more common than brown, which is the dominant gene. I guess people like blue eyes much better in their mate.
Does that answer your question?
Yes, in a way. However I wonder if plants evolved in the same fashion? I have never heard of the evolution of plants before but after discovering the Bee Orchid of Israel it baffles me to think that a plant and a specie of bee would have evolved together on the same page for one to mimic the other.
It seems to me that if evolution were the truth and bases of life then evolution would have to have a plan of action for such a thing to occur correct?
Plan indicates intelligence. Evolution has no intelligence.
I agree, bare with me here, if a specie of plant and a specie of insect evolved over time one mimicing the other, doesnt that suggest that there is something more than chance at work? If evolution relys on mutation for the evolution jumps to occur then isn't the likley hood of two entities being completely seperate, evolving to be so intune with the other that they would have had to have built off of each other.
The break away here is that if evolution has no consciencness an it is the term to describe the "auto-matic bettering of a specie" then how is it that life evolved into three different levels, water, land and air and of those there their are millions of specie that have evolved. How is it that if evolution is the bettering of a specie that life complicated itself into mating as opposed to A-sexual repoduction? That seems like it's backwards to me.
This is all coming to me as I write it so bare with me please.
Further more which came first the female or the male and if it were the female how did the A-sexual creature impregnant it?
It doesn't suggest anything. Evolution is nothing more than a process.
Remember, consciousness doesn't mean intelligence. Evolution is just a process.
I don't know enough about the process to answer your question.
Again, I don't know enough about it to answer your question.
Everything which is animated has 'intelligence'.
How does a stream of water know which path to take which requires the least resistance?
How do trees know that growing upwards (as opposed to downwards) achieves a greater catchment of sunlight?
How does a lion know that slower prey are easier to catch?
BASIC INTELLIGENCE!!!! THE ABILITY TO LIVE IN A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT!!!!
There is NOTHING special about intelligence and EVERYTHING has it!!!
Can you define intelligence for me sir?
Intelligence is the ability to navigate through the obstacles that the physical world throws at us. Intelligence is often wrongly defined as something only humans possess - all creatures have some level of intelligence.
I personally believe intelligence is present in everything and is widely misunderstood. We can find the quickest way to our place of work using our intelligence, but then running water can find the quickest route to earth just like electricity.
How does water and electricity 'know' the quickest route to earth? How do humans 'know' the quickest way to get out of bed? How do cats 'know' the quickest route to the catflap? How do ants 'know' the quickest route to their nest?
Intelligence is born from our need to survive the best way we can. Intelligence is about our instinctive need to take shortcuts. Nature is lazy. Nature will always take shortcuts and in doing so give the illusion that it is 'intelligent'.
Intelligence is about obeying nature and it's tight hold it has on us. Do we have free will? To a certain extent yes, but ultimately, no!
So you agree that evolution has intelligence? That was he bases for which this question arose. Is evolution aware of itself to which it has a plan that it is carrying out. Cagsil and I seem to agree that it doesnt not and that evolution is not aware therefore has no intelligence.
I would like to touch on this subject though if I may, how can you say that we even compare to natures intelligence when we are the only specie on the planet that completely destroys its habitat? What other creature has created weapons to very possibly destory itself? What other creature has hunted its prey to the point of extinction or exhausted its resources? Do we obey nature when we smoke cigarettes that only kill us and have no benifit? If we are obeying nature does that mean nature is aware and in fact possessing an intelligence of its own?
As far as electricities route to earth, it's magnetic. The strike is pulling to another electric source on the ground.
Humans getting out of bed seems to be a bad argument since we were built to be on our feet and not lay on our backs or sides or however it is you sleep. Getting out of bed is an auto matic lik breathing, you don't have to think about how to do it, you just do unless you have Lupus like myself and then sometimes it's just too d*mn impossible to get out of bed because your legs do not want to work.
The last two examples I think suggest intelligence from repitition. A cat isn't born knowing what a capflap is anymore than a dog knows what a dog door is when it sees one. Most dogs have to be pushed thru it the first time in my experiences with them
Ants know their way home due to the chemical traces they follow when they leave the nest, they simply follow them home. So they are able to pick up on cues to do the things they should, that could be defined as intelligence I guess.
You didn't understand my point.
As I said, intelligence is misunderstood. Self-awareness is NOT intelligence (a common misconception). Self-awareness is more to do with the accumulation of 'knowledge' and past experiences and how we deal with it, which is why we have little memory of the early days of our lives. So when we argue whether evolution is aware of itself we need to ask if evolution accumulates knowledge and experiences, which it doesn't.
Also, you're twisting what I said. My point wasn't about knowing what catflaps are or our need to be on our feet (which is false anyway) - my point was about knowing the quickest route to our destination (it can be anything; catflaps are just an example).
Everything in nature (humans included) takes the 'path of least resistance'. If you can come up with an example in which something does not take the path of least resistance, then you might have a good argument against what I'm saying.
The fact we are forced to take the quickest route to our destination, just as nature does, refutes our assumption that we have free will. And that is my point.
I didn't mean to twist your words, I apologize. I am grateful that you are taking the time to talk to me when others have simply walked away when the questions got too difficult for them.
I have five kids and after watching them all get up on their feet on their own to stand I see that by nature we are to be up on our feet. An infant can't be influenced by our encouragement or prompts to stand on their feet, almost as soon as their born they straighten their legs out to stand on them. I would really like to hear your point of view on how humans being designed bipeds by evolution or God or any other thing another time, another forum or hub.
As far as an example for something that takes a path of least resistance I would have to say it is humans. Every other creature in nature works to the rhythm of nature so to speak. The ants stay in the dirt, they don't try to improve the ant hill with forging steal or enslaving the spider for it's silk.
We as people have complicated our lives by government and oppression and if you say that humans take the path of least resistance you obviously have never been or had a teenager living in your home! People by nature are thick headed, we corrupt our bodies with addictions to alcohol and drugs, we eat chemicals that are disguised as food and we do not work together as a specie. We are divided and war mongers and hedonistic by nature. We certainly do not do anything easy.
One example of animals not taking the path of least resistance would be the sea turtle. When the females lay their eggs they go out of the water and crawl on flippers in the sand to a spot and then dig a hole to lay their eggs then have to try and make it back into the ocean with out harm coming to them. They then expect their babies to crawl to the ocean as well. It's estimated that only 1 in 1,000 hatchlings will survive to sexual maturity, adulthood. This is not a picture of least resistance. If you study the first few hours, just the first few, of a sea turtles life you will see that it is filled with strife, struggle and endangerment.
Another would be pollination wouldn't it? What is more resistant to the furthering of generations then the inability to copulate and depending on wind, bees and other variables? That doesn’t sound easy to me. I would say that just because something is doesn't mean it's easy or got there by a path of least resistance.
Humans stand on their feet to free their hands to do the things our hands evolved to do (making tools, for instance). There's nothing remarkable about our need to stand to move forward and allow our hands to hold, gather, and shape our world. But then most of our days are not spent standing up - we wouldn't be able to do it as we need to sleep and rest.
Turtles lay their eggs on land because there are far more predators in the sea! This has nothing to do with taking the path of least resistance - you might as well point out that humans need to give birth in hospitals (they don't, but it's much safer to do so).
Plants also use the path of least resistance. If they didn't they wouldn't bother evolving bright colours to attract specific insects, or more bouyant pollen to travel further in the wind. Plants cannot move themselves and are pretty helpless so they 'use' creatures that ARE mobile to do their work for them and the more successful creatures they can attract, the less effort is required to achieve their goal.
This is why evolution has the illusion of intelligence. It's as if evolution 'knows' what to do to be successful, but all that is happening is obeying natural laws that dictate in which direction we flow.
I know how difficult kids can be, but again this has nothing to do with taking the path of least resistance. They absorb information and learn through trial and error. They learn that doing some things makes their life difficult and other things make their lives easier. If you watch a child taking its first steps it will always take the path of least resistance to its target (which is most probably it mum or dad ).
Well I thank your for your time in explaining some of these things to me. Before we start going in a needless circle I think I have asked enough questions. This conversation has been interesting.
I agree that Evolution and Science are deaf and dumb; they don't know what they are doing; they do as the Creator God has commanded to do. The Creator God is All-Intelligent and All-Wise.
Plants have genes so the evolve the same way
Animals and plants are in the environment so they are part of the selection pressure on the species.
Plants do evolve. Trees grow upwards in order to absorb more sunlight. Flowers evolve colour to attract the insect with the best performance in spawning polen (some insects can see colours in a particular part of the spectrum but not others). Some plants evolve to encourage a particular type of nectar consuming bird to grow a longer beak by evolving a longer 'bell' containing the nectar so the beak can carry more pollen (gathered as the bird pokes its beak into the flute) and therefore polinate a greater area.
Even plants share a common ancestor with humans!
Don't fall into the trap of judging mutation as 'monsterous!' as in horror movies. Mutations can be beneficial as well as a hindrance.
The mutation can be in the dominant gene.
Also, it can be in the recessive and be inherited while not being expressed and then exhibited when two carriers mate.
What part of evolution concocted that?" The part that "counts" offspring - it would happen because males with many "eyes" have more offspring on the average. Average being found over tens of thousands of generations.
That is a nice bit of reverse mechanics... but how did the eyes get their in the first place was my point, not that those with eyes produce more offspring. How did the eyes come to exist in the first place.
Eyes are made up of millions of light-sensitive cells depending on the creature. There are microscopic creatures that have only one light-sensitive 'eye' cell and can only differentiate between light and dark. Over millions of years our eyes evolved to become more intricate and better at seeing things - all important to the success of the species.
Some deep sea creatures have eyes that have evolved backwards! With no need for eyes at the bottom of the ocean they are left with simple 'marks' where the eyes would once have been, indicating that the species would have been living in lighter conditions in the past, or even on land!
Wrong "eyes". We're referring to the circles on a peacock tail that resembles eyes but is simply colored spots. Used for display purposes only.
Richard Dawkins claims that the eye could have realistically been formed in less than 500,000 years and not millions. That's from a animal that only has a flat eye to a fully functioning eye. Seems unlikely to me but who am I to argue with a professor in evolutionary biologist.
If you read his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" I think you will grasp how this is possible. You should look at evolution in terms of 'generations' rather than years and define what a 'fully functioning eye' actually means!
Yes, but Dawkins was referring to an animal that had a very short life span, hence the short time frame in evolutionary terms. A one year life span, imsc.
Correct, but an eye is an eye is it not?
Not really. If we check out all the different eyes from the various species of the world, we find a tremendous variation amongst them.
Correct, but an eye is an eye is it not?
You are an atheist; why don't you doubt what Richard Dawkins claims ?
I am not an atheist. I don't doubt what Richard Dawkins says at all, I believe 100% that he believes what he is saying.
Why do you believe that whatever Richard Dawkins says is 100% correct? He has no such claim himself; if he has please quote from him.
This is a prime example of your poor reading comprehension. Captain Redbeard didn't say Richard Dawkins said is correct. He said that he believes 100% that Richard Dawkins believes what he is saying.
There wasn't anything stated about it being correct.
Yes, I believe that he believes he is correct or he wouldn't speak so adimitly about the topics he speaks about. I believe you believe what you speak.
I'm not dumb enough to say there is no evolution. It's proven all around us everyday when you look at people of different nationalities. The fact that I have white skin with red undertones and my wife has white skin with slightly tan undertone means we geneticly are different. Not to mention the hair color, or my uncle who is black! Asians have more fat over their eyes which gives their eyes the almond shape so on and so forth. What I am seeking Paarsurrey is truth. Truth is not wholey contained within one book or one prophet as you muslims would think. Truth is all around us. If we have eyes to see and ears to hear it, it will be self evident to us.
Quran does not limit truth to one book or one man; it mentions that the Creator God sent truthful messengers prophets with truthful Word of revelation to all the regions of the world.
If the creator sent truthful messengers, prophets, with truthful word of revelation to all the regions of the world, why is Islam not the only faith then?
Primarily mutation. Radiation, chemicals, misstep in the gamete or zygote stage, whatever it takes to change a gene.
I like to think I listen to everyone with respect so if this comment sounds disrespectful I apologize, I just don't know how else to word it.....
How can we say that man has actually evolved into the perfect state for his surroundings? We cannot survive the elements, we have to cook our meat before we eat it and if we take away all technology we would be extinct with in one generation.
The things that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and apparently since Comper says we are also connected to plants, the plant kingdom is the fact that we use our minds over our instinct. We are the only creature on the face of the plant that strictly ignores the "instinct" within us and tries to reason every situation and problem we are faced with.
How or when does the evolutionary step take place that replaces the only thing that has served the rest life without fail to ensure it's survival, instinct, with reason which has caused every single horrible thing in our specie be it, war, famine, slavery, genocide.
You can throw up all the examples you want to of animals forcing other animals to do work for them as slavery or tribal war between chimps or what ever but you know that they don't hold a candle to the things we have done with our superior evolved mind to reason.
I doubt that mankind would become extinct without our technology. After all, we survived for hundreds of thousands of years without it, and the rest of the animal kingdom manages to exist without technology. True, medical and scientific advances have improved our lives dramatically, even if it has been at the expense of the environment and of the other animals we share this planet with. And our lifespans would decrease without the advances we have made, but we would still exist, even though it would be at a more primitive level. Man has faced many threats, from plague to famine, yet we still manage to survive.
Having said that, if man follows the natural order of things, we will become extinct eventually, in spite of our technology. Of all the species that have ever existed on this planet, 99% of them are now extinct, much of this extinction happening before man was even here. So, it is part of nature for species to become extinct, but I doubt that for humans, this will happen anytime soon.
Like you I have to disagree with nearly everything you say, and with no disrespect intended.
Anyone that claims man has evolved to the perfect state for his environment is a fool. We DO survive the elements, and while we cook our food it probably isn't necessary. Should we approach it slowly, giving our current bodies time to adapt, I doubt we would see too much death; certainly not enough to kill the species. Nevertheless, there are thousands of things that could be improved for better survival; eyes that don't wear out too soon. Teeth that last, given our diet. Better resistance to cancer. A better form of childbirth. Lots of things.
I find that few people actually try to "reason" their way through life; for the most part our wants and desires take priority over the great effort that seems needed to actually reason, and usually overrides any negative conclusions that reason DOES supply.
While reason has caused many, many things that we determine to be horrible, evolution doesn't care about that. Survival wise, we are the single most successful large animal on the face of the planet by the only yardstick evolution uses; the ability to fill ecological niches and survive. Give us time and well will wipe out most insects and small animals just as we have larger ones and take over their habitat, too. Evolution has produced the ability to reason and that has produced the ability to take whatever we want, reproduce and grow in numbers as a species. No other animal can compete.
Thank you for you entertaining a fool lol
I just have a problem with the idea that one day we were eating from the earth and the next or serious of days, we were cutting slabs of meat and cooking it over a fire because in our animalistic state we thought, "hmmm I bet this would taste better if I seered it on all sides." Because it certainly had nothing to do with the knowledge that bacteria decays meat from the outside to the inside. Does that make sense? This is where evolution has always thrown me. Not that there was a progression from creatures living closer to the surface of the waters that have dived down to where their eyes are near useless. It's Mans progression. I can entertain the entire theory up until things like this, evolution wouldnt have told us to cook our food over a fire or wear clothes to keep warm. Evolution would have given our stomach acids the ability to break down the bactiera that would have otherwise made us sick right? Evolution would have made sure we would have kept our hairy bodies to brave the weather, right? I'm not trying to argue, I am trying to understand.
Who said evolution leads to perfection? It doesn't, it leads--over typically quite long periods of time-- to the species being somewhat adapted to the environment it lives in. Which for humans is predominantly the savanah
Evolution doesn't have to "know" anything. The variation can be random, and the selection is based on who makes the most babies. So if it works, it doen;t matter why you did it, you get to have the babies.
But I can't ever have any babies! Does this mean that evolution has passed the male sex by and left us as hairy monkeys, scratching our armpits and bouncing around the savannah or swinging from the trees?
Well, I don't know about you, but that accurately describes my life. And evolution has left us men with nipples which have no other use than decoration.
ftclick has not asked any questions.
Nature is more truthful than science ; science is only a part; nature compared to it is whole.
That is not true; I cannot make such an obvious blunder.
Your words are false. You are an atheist hiding behind a religious mask. You are a liar without fear of going to Hell! You entertain yourself by kidding your fellow friends and will one day admit it.
I can see through your charade!
I don't mind.
You can hold whatever opinion you like about me; I have stated what I sincerely believe,practice and declare.
No no no!!! Don't try too hard! People will start to suspect you.
Play it cool and take 'em in. Once you have their confidence you can start to take a little bit of 'innocent' money. You know, 'a fool and their money are easily parted' and all that.
Hubpages is a GREAT place to draw fools in! Grab 'em while you can.
by Csaba Bebesai 8 years ago
We often get *intuitions* which we can not establish with evidence. If someone tells a lie, we may detect that, but we can not instantly show evidence. Is this the case for God. Is it possible that some people know and feel God, but can't demonstrate to others?
by Obscure_Treasures 9 years ago
what is the reason behind it......
by paarsurrey 10 years ago
All scientific truthful laws discovered by science are to be accepted by Religion as they are derived from the nature or the universe- the Work of the Creator-God; it is not that nature is run by the science or scientific laws; but that the science has attuned with nature- the Work of the...
by paarsurrey 9 years ago
Catholics Protestants think Jesus was god; rather as some say he was "god-the-father"; then the Christians say that Mary was begotten by god-the-father.It is a wrong concept; because that would makes Jesus , I take refuge with the Creator God, husband of Mary.I don't think it is a correct...
by SwordofManticorE 8 years ago
Does a creator have the right to give and take from his creation?
by gobible 9 years ago
Looking back or even today, man always invented things for his own purpose and satisfaction. So why not think God as a creator and we as His creation and He made us for his own purpose. And why struggle to prove there is no God especially when all the modern science and technologies are becoming...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|