Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design in Creation

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: TheLamb

First thing. Those are drawings, not pictures. Are you pointing out that the outer atoms look like the solar system? And what about the inner atoms? Why are you cherry picking the outer atoms? The pictures have dates on them. Why are they the same date? Where did you get this pic? Please link us to the source article. Your claim of correlations is vague. Please explain how they correlate.

Which laws of physics are you using to describe how atoms behave?

You get lambasted because you posted a minimalist thread with a vague pic, and no explanation, and you are surprised when nobody understands what you are getting at? Vague pics do not make scientific evidence.

The image of the molecule is real. Pentacene molecule atomic bonds The solar system images are calculated : Solar system. The molecule image is dated 18 Sept 2012. That's when the microscope imaged it. The solar system configurations are the same date. Why use different dates?

Think of the inner atoms as the sun.

I would go into more detail but it's obvious people have a limited attention span in this day and age. If you can't see the correlation that's not my issue.

If you have to 'think of the inner atoms as the sun' then the entire analogy falls apart. You're taking a vague resemblance to an image of the Solar System as providing proof for a philosophical viewpoint that has no evidence for it. So no, it still fails to take off.

It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is already closed to exciting new opportunities. Explain why the outer atoms align with the inner and outer planets rather than just come up with negatives. Or is that all you are capable of? I shared this thinking it would intrigue and interest the general population. Has it been presented before? No. What have you introduced that challenges the consensus view of the solar system? Nothing. Have you tried to contribute to man's understanding of life, the universe and everything? No. You're just angry and that is a waste of energy.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: TheLamb

According to the Bible, God created all things on Earth and the stars, ie the planets

Genesis doesn't at all reflect what we now know to be true about cosmology. You're right that the Bible says god made all the stars, problem is it says they were all made after Earth was made. That's completely wrong. So if there is an intelligent designer behind creation it's certainly not the one represented by that silly old book.

It doesn't matter. There is a direct link between matter on Earth and the positions of the planets that isn't explained by gravity. Who cares which came first? You should be more concerned by the implication that everything from the macro of the solar system to the micro of the atomic is fixed. That includes us. Are we automatons or free spirits? Science and non-believerism would say the former. Is that comfortable for you?

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: TheLamb

According to the Bible, God created all things on Earth and the stars, ie the planets

Genesis doesn't at all reflect what we now know to be true about cosmology. You're right that the Bible says god made all the stars, problem is it says they were all made after Earth was made. That's completely wrong. So if there is an intelligent designer behind creation it's certainly not the one represented by that silly old book.

It doesn't matter. There is a direct link between matter on Earth and the positions of the planets that isn't explained by gravity. Who cares which came first? You should be more concerned by the implication that everything from the macro of the solar system to the micro of the atomic is fixed. That includes us. Are we automatons or free spirits? Science and non-believerism would say the former. Is that comfortable for you?

Please provide a cite for the above, because as far as I am aware there is 0% proof of any of it. All you have is speculation.

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: TheLamb

First thing. Those are drawings, not pictures. Are you pointing out that the outer atoms look like the solar system? And what about the inner atoms? Why are you cherry picking the outer atoms? The pictures have dates on them. Why are they the same date? Where did you get this pic? Please link us to the source article. Your claim of correlations is vague. Please explain how they correlate.

Which laws of physics are you using to describe how atoms behave?

You get lambasted because you posted a minimalist thread with a vague pic, and no explanation, and you are surprised when nobody understands what you are getting at? Vague pics do not make scientific evidence.

The image of the molecule is real. Pentacene molecule atomic bonds The solar system images are calculated : Solar system. The molecule image is dated 18 Sept 2012. That's when the microscope imaged it. The solar system configurations are the same date. Why use different dates?

Think of the inner atoms as the sun.

I would go into more detail but it's obvious people have a limited attention span in this day and age. If you can't see the correlation that's not my issue.

If you have to 'think of the inner atoms as the sun' then the entire analogy falls apart. You're taking a vague resemblance to an image of the Solar System as providing proof for a philosophical viewpoint that has no evidence for it. So no, it still fails to take off.

It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is already closed to exciting new opportunities. Explain why the outer atoms align with the inner and outer planets rather than just come up with negatives. Or is that all you are capable of? I shared this thinking it would intrigue and interest the general population. Has it been presented before? No. What have you introduced that challenges the consensus view of the solar system? Nothing. Have you tried to contribute to man's understanding of life, the universe and everything? No. You're just angry and that is a waste of energy.

???????????? "Exciting new opportunities"??? No, once again all you have is a picture that shows a vague resemblance if you clump things together and then squint really, really, hard. There is nothing behind your speculation (other then 'Goddidit') and as a result it's not intriguing, or interesting. And by the way there is no scientific evidence behind any religion, anywhere, at all. Once again - the bible's a book of Bronze and Iron Age myths.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: TheLamb

According to the Bible, God created all things on Earth and the stars, ie the planets

Genesis doesn't at all reflect what we now know to be true about cosmology. You're right that the Bible says god made all the stars, problem is it says they were all made after Earth was made. That's completely wrong. So if there is an intelligent designer behind creation it's certainly not the one represented by that silly old book.

It doesn't matter. There is a direct link between matter on Earth and the positions of the planets that isn't explained by gravity. Who cares which came first? You should be more concerned by the implication that everything from the macro of the solar system to the micro of the atomic is fixed. That includes us. Are we automatons or free spirits? Science and non-believerism would say the former. Is that comfortable for you?

Please provide a cite for the above, because as far as I am aware there is 0% proof of any of it. All you have is speculation.

Citation. Proof. Ah yes, the tools of the skeptic and the academic. Heavens forbid creativity and innovation outside the field which filters out dogmatically any threat. You're no different than the Inquisition and Galileo who eventually was proven correct.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: TheLamb

First thing. Those are drawings, not pictures. Are you pointing out that the outer atoms look like the solar system? And what about the inner atoms? Why are you cherry picking the outer atoms? The pictures have dates on them. Why are they the same date? Where did you get this pic? Please link us to the source article. Your claim of correlations is vague. Please explain how they correlate.

Which laws of physics are you using to describe how atoms behave?

You get lambasted because you posted a minimalist thread with a vague pic, and no explanation, and you are surprised when nobody understands what you are getting at? Vague pics do not make scientific evidence.

The image of the molecule is real. Pentacene molecule atomic bonds The solar system images are calculated : Solar system. The molecule image is dated 18 Sept 2012. That's when the microscope imaged it. The solar system configurations are the same date. Why use different dates?

Think of the inner atoms as the sun.

I would go into more detail but it's obvious people have a limited attention span in this day and age. If you can't see the correlation that's not my issue.

If you have to 'think of the inner atoms as the sun' then the entire analogy falls apart. You're taking a vague resemblance to an image of the Solar System as providing proof for a philosophical viewpoint that has no evidence for it. So no, it still fails to take off.

It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is already closed to exciting new opportunities. Explain why the outer atoms align with the inner and outer planets rather than just come up with negatives. Or is that all you are capable of? I shared this thinking it would intrigue and interest the general population. Has it been presented before? No. What have you introduced that challenges the consensus view of the solar system? Nothing. Have you tried to contribute to man's understanding of life, the universe and everything? No. You're just angry and that is a waste of energy.

???????????? "Exciting new opportunities"??? No, once again all you have is a picture that shows a vague resemblance if you clump things together and then squint really, really, hard. There is nothing behind your speculation (other then 'Goddidit') and as a result it's not intriguing, or interesting. And by the way there is no scientific evidence behind any religion, anywhere, at all. Once again - the bible's a book of Bronze and Iron Age myths.

Clump? Squint? Nothing is clumped in the image with the red circles. You are just being obtuse. Lots of ????? doesn't make an argument. Where is my scientific evidence flawed? I've followed an established procedure. Produce a detailed counter argument with citations and proof as to why there is no relationship between atomic states and the planets and I'll respond. No? You're a time waster with only 135 flags in four years. I've only been here a fortnight and got 25.

a reply to: TheLamb

The first image of a Pentacene molecule was done in May 2009!
www.sciencemag.org... 5514438855699&cm_mc_sid_50200000=1443885569

And it looked like this:



news.bbc.co.uk...


The image you posted is actually graphene, done in early 2012 and as you can see yours is upside down.

Here are the two original images and article (both the same graphene molecule):





www.sciencemag.org...


Can you match the planetary positions in early 2012 with the original picture of a graphene?
Can you match the planetary positions with the real Pentacene molecule image?

If there was evidence of intelligent design as you stated then I'm sure you won't have a problem doing both.

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: TheLamb

According to the Bible, God created all things on Earth and the stars, ie the planets

Genesis doesn't at all reflect what we now know to be true about cosmology. You're right that the Bible says god made all the stars, problem is it says they were all made after Earth was made. That's completely wrong. So if there is an intelligent designer behind creation it's certainly not the one represented by that silly old book.

It doesn't matter. There is a direct link between matter on Earth and the positions of the planets that isn't explained by gravity. Who cares which came first? You should be more concerned by the implication that everything from the macro of the solar system to the micro of the atomic is fixed. That includes us. Are we automatons or free spirits? Science and non-believerism would say the former. Is that comfortable for you?

Please provide a cite for the above, because as far as I am aware there is 0% proof of any of it. All you have is speculation.

Citation. Proof. Ah yes, the tools of the skeptic and the academic. Heavens forbid creativity and innovation outside the field which filters out dogmatically any threat. You're no different than the Inquisition and Galileo who eventually was proven correct.

Galileo was a brilliant man who had proof. You have an image that - as I said before - kind of looks like the other image if you squint. You yourself said that it only works if you imagine that some of the atoms in the middle are like the sun. In other words the only way to make your image work is to manipulate it. Now, the words 'citation' and 'evidence' are actually quite important here, because they tend to include testable, verifiable, facts. The next thing that you'll be telling us is that you've found the face of Jesus on a piece of toast.

originally posted by: Agartha

I used your picture



points to the honey comb
wow, the creator was a BEE! they look a like!

no wonder there are bees on the pope's jacket and hat and all different places...

---

"Buzz buzz, world here ...Buzz Buzz world there."

---

Ah no, things just sometimes look a like no proof of Intelligent Design in creation

Think of how many patterns there are and which are the easiest for nature to replicate.

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: TheLamb

The first image of a Pentacene molecule was done in May 2009!
www.sciencemag.org... 5514438855699&cm_mc_sid_50200000=1443885569

And it looked like this:

news.bbc.co.uk...


The image you posted is actually graphene, done in early 2012 and as you can see yours is upside down.

Here are the two original images and article (both the same graphene molecule):

www.sciencemag.org...


Can you match the planetary positions in early 2012 with the original picture of a graphene?
Can you match the planetary positions with the real Pentacene molecule image?

If there was evidence of intelligent design as you stated then I'm sure you won't have a problem doing both.

The SciTechDaily article mentioned pentacene primarily with the image so I concluded that it was pentacene. If it was graphene, fine. It doesn't really matter what the name is.

If the two images of "graphene" are the same molecule, how come? They don't look anything alike. Can you demonstrate how they are the same molecule? While that's being debated I'll hold off correlating the planets.

"Upside-down": really? There is no up and down in space. Further, when we look at star charts they are in reverse because we are on the ground and have to invert everything so that the stars on the charts are positioned relative to each other on a left-right east-west basis.

The 2009 pentacene image is viewed from the side. The planets align:

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: TheLamb

According to the Bible, God created all things on Earth and the stars, ie the planets

Genesis doesn't at all reflect what we now know to be true about cosmology. You're right that the Bible says god made all the stars, problem is it says they were all made after Earth was made. That's completely wrong. So if there is an intelligent designer behind creation it's certainly not the one represented by that silly old book.

It doesn't matter. There is a direct link between matter on Earth and the positions of the planets that isn't explained by gravity. Who cares which came first? You should be more concerned by the implication that everything from the macro of the solar system to the micro of the atomic is fixed. That includes us. Are we automatons or free spirits? Science and non-believerism would say the former. Is that comfortable for you?

Please provide a cite for the above, because as far as I am aware there is 0% proof of any of it. All you have is speculation.

Citation. Proof. Ah yes, the tools of the skeptic and the academic. Heavens forbid creativity and innovation outside the field which filters out dogmatically any threat. You're no different than the Inquisition and Galileo who eventually was proven correct.

Galileo was a brilliant man who had proof. You have an image that - as I said before - kind of looks like the other image if you squint. You yourself said that it only works if you imagine that some of the atoms in the middle are like the sun. In other words the only way to make your image work is to manipulate it. Now, the words 'citation' and 'evidence' are actually quite important here, because they tend to include testable, verifiable, facts. The next thing that you'll be telling us is that you've found the face of Jesus on a piece of toast.

You are putting words into my mouth. I didn't say that it only works if you imagine the atoms in the middle are like the sun. If you recall, the image of the outer planets had no sun. All I asked you to do was concentrate on the outer atoms. That is where the pattern lies. The sun, incidentally, is an unknown quantity. Who knows what is inside it?

Jesus on a piece of toast? I can do better than that. A few years back I was walking home and had a dreadful pain in my lower legs. It was really hard to walk. When I got home I took off my socks and my feet were really swollen. My veins were raised and the characters Alpha and Omega in Greek were prominent. I took a photo. On the left is Christ on the Turin shroud. On the right is my foot. You can make out the face of Jesus in the same proportions, all formed from my veins.

a reply to: HammyCat

Exactly! There are patterns everywhere, no evidence whatsoever of intelligent design, just nature finding the best way to maximize its capacity to feed and grow.

originally posted by: TheLamb

If the two images of "graphene" are the same molecule, how come? They don't look anything alike. Can you demonstrate how they are the same molecule? While that's being debated I'll hold off correlating the planets.

Read the article, it's all in there.

And nope, the planets don't align, you got one planet and one electron that don't 'align'.

a reply to: TheLamb
Why do this to your self lamb, everytime? Please look at your thread "Objectively". Imagine you did not write the thread. If someone else wrote it, would you agree that this is scientific proof, groundbreaking or in any way shape or form valid. You are trying to link the micro and macro, something Steven hawking has dedicated his life to and been unable to achieve, because you saw an image of an atom and genuinely felt it paralleled the solar system?

If you feel you are the first to notice this then fair enough. Thousands of other in the past would have thought this, as a passing thought, soon overridden by logic and eye sight. It's always worrying when something christian in their bedroom feels they have revolutionised science, all because of a misinterpretation of what correlations represent. It's a shame.

a reply to: TheLamb
OK you are a troller. I knew it. Posting veins on your leg as proof of a god. Why are you allowed to do this on ATS and get away with it. All your threads get closed for staff review because it turns personal everytime. Just plain wrong, I don't even know why me and other members try to reason with you. We have felt sorry for you for the wrong reasons this whole time.

a reply to: TheLamb

Stared and flagged! You got any better diagrams?

Here's mine..

a reply to: TheLamb

I see. Yes, you see patterns in everything. I think that means that you have a certain incipient bias therefore - to see patterns. And nothing more.

a reply to: TheLamb

Lol



W eare all saved can't you see people!! Jesus has appeared again on Lambs leg Hooray for vein Jesus!!!.

a reply to: TheLamb

Yes, they align, ignoring the fact that the planetary schema you're showing there isn't from the date the picture was taken and that there's no planet that corresponds to the second benzene ring and two that correspond to the fifth. I also like how in some cases, you have the planets aligning with the center of the benzene rings, and others are completely off the center of the benzene ring. In other words, you're forcing them to "align". This is like numerology for the mathematically incompetent.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: TheLamb

Yes, they align, ignoring the fact that the planetary schema you're showing there isn't from the date the picture was taken and that there's no planet that corresponds to the second benzene ring and two that correspond to the fifth. I also like how in some cases, you have the planets aligning with the center of the benzene rings, and others are completely off the center of the benzene ring. In other words, you're forcing them to "align". This is like numerology for the mathematically incompetent.

I thought those things are bonded with something else. To get those pictures required a special laboratory shielded from the outside. That carbon associated with PAH's. are already thought to be possible starting materials for the formation of life.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: TheLamb

As a computer programmer, I believe what makes me particularly adept at this career I've landed in is the fact that I see patterns in most everything.

I see patterns in numbers, all the time. I see patterns in faces (ie, I do not believe anyone truly looks unique...I believe there is a set number of "archetypes" to facial structures, with only small deviances from the norm, hence, "dopplegangers"). I can easily memorize things with patterns. Things without patterns? Difficult as all hell for me to memorize. I'd say even more-so than for most people as I seem to have such an affinity for being able to sense and acknowledge patterns.

This being said....

So, God created the Fibonacci sequence? Geometry? Cyclical wars? Stock market trends?

Sorry....I just find a three letter word answer to be a bit too neat and tidy of a way to sum it all up.