Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


It was a poor choice of words, it should have said something like "Evidence of Intelligent Design".

reply to post by NewAgeMan

It was a poor choice of words, it should have said something like "Evidence of Intelligent Design".

I have evidence that my dog defecates pumpkin pie. And yet, if I examine it more closely, I discover that it merely exhibits the characteristics of pumpkin pie. Sometimes, it's best not to jump to conclusions. I'm sure glad I didn't.

I just cannot see god, no matter how powerful he is, being able to make every atom in the universe, every galaxy, every sun, every planet, moon, asteroid, every grain of sand, every leaf, blade of grass, molecule of gas, every strip of dna, no way.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

nexusilluminati.blogspot.ca...

Best regards,

NAM

When both relationships are considered together, how can this possibly be dismissed as being of no significance and without purpose, and if by absolute chance/fluke (producing life), in what way does that serve to suggest that earth-like worlds are ubiquitous not only in the universe, but within our own galaxy?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Random chance / fluke coincidence is also a conclusion and one that you've jumped to, a priori as a presupposition, even in the face of evidence showing a purposeful design (in favor of life as we know it).

We were MEANT to see it, that's the real kicker, that it was intended for our own recognition (as an inheritance prepared for us from the time before time) and yet here we are, or many of us, still blind even though we can see and see again, and that's rather sad and unfortunate, that we lack the open mindedness and the willingness and the imagination to be awestruck by that which is in our face.

If the northern cross containing Cygnus X3 was a perfect cross (another astrological symbol available to human perception 2000 years ago) with the intervening dust and gas forming the perfect shape of a man on it, and I pointed it out, you'd accuse me of suffering from Pareidolia!

In fact, with this configuration I'm pointing to in regards to the earth-moon-sun system, that is what you're saying, that I'm assigning a meaningful significance where there is none, yet our own observation of it is what makes it significant, and our joining of the circle in observation, an absolute marvel.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Those are simulated images made to approximate the celestial relations in optimal conditions. For all we know, those images are representative of about 0.02% of any given cycle between the earth and the moon. Based on the verifiable data given by Phage, that possibility is far more likely.

Look for intent, and you will miss coincidence. Look for coincidence, and you will miss intent. The trick is not to miss the forest for the trees - which is exactly what you're doing.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

You missed it, not me, because I've open-mindedly considered both possibilities and have been forced to deduce ID intended for our existence, even one containing a marker and an allegory made for our own recognition in the fullness of time and history. In terms of effects from initial causes, there's something here that you've missed. Can't say it wasn't presented to you though for your consideration, but you approached it with an extreme bias against the very possibility of intelligent design, and you need to see that.

Undeniable was a very poor choice of words, because even the self-evident can be denied.

P.S. Do you have any idea what level of precision is required in both relative distance and sizes to create the phenomenon of a total eclipse as seen from earth, have you even considered it without an appeal to authority..? As a coincidence it's one heck of a coincidence especially considering that it's one that could only be meaningful or significance to an earth-based observer.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Very nearly equal

Love it.
Works with horseshoes. Works with nukes.
Close enough for government work.
Good enough for God too, I guess.

And I do wish they would stop using the term squaring the circle incorrectly. When someone decides to redefine accepted terminology it's a pretty good indication that they are full of crap.

No so, it's the very same idea, and it's damn close, so close that for the reduced phi triangle in the OP, you yourself came up with a rough calc for the radius of the moon that was only off by 17km @ 1720 instead of it's actual radius of 1737.4.

Squaring the circle is a problem proposed by ancient geometers. It is the challenge of constructing a square with the same area as a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge. More abstractly and more precisely, it may be taken to ask whether specified axioms of Euclidean geometry concerning the existence of lines and circles entail the existence of such a square.

In 1882, the task was proven to be impossible, as a consequence of the Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem which proves that pi (π) is a transcendental, rather than an algebraic irrational number; that is, it is not the root of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It had been known for some decades before then that the construction would be impossible if pi were transcendental, but pi was not proven transcendental until 1882. Approximate squaring to any given non-perfect accuracy, in contrast, is possible in a finite number of steps, since there are rational numbers arbitrarily close to π.

The expression "squaring the circle" is sometimes used as a metaphor for trying to do the impossible.

en.wikipedia.org...

Squaring the circle: the areas of this square and this circle are equal. In 1882, it was proven that this figure cannot be constructed in a finite number of steps with an idealized compass and straightedge.

Originally posted by pikestaff
I just cannot see god, no matter how powerful he is, being able to make every atom in the universe, every galaxy, every sun, every planet, moon, asteroid, every grain of sand, every leaf, blade of grass, molecule of gas, every strip of dna, no way.

In examining the effect from an initial cause, if you can see design, then you can see intelligent design, forget about having to define "God". It's just observation and deductive reasoning and logic, which does not begin with a certain bias or presumption for or against.

from the OP

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

You can argue coincidence or random happenstance if you like, but it's a rather poor argument in the face of all the evidence and data to the contrary which points to a comic evolutionary process intentionally directed towards life, including life as we know it, and even human life. And if by design then it was by anticipation from the very beginning of time and space with the present outcome and effect enfolded in the originating cause, and that's not only intelligent, but what I call super-intelligent or infinitely intelligent.

Re: slight flaw or apparent imperfection (yet very nearly "perfect")

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

The God Theory

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt

If you think of white light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...

If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will identify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...

Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

More @ Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field.(MUST READ!)

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

Do you have any idea how big of an idiot that made you sound? It just unraveled the depths of your logic and rationality when problem solving to nil, making all previous logic and deduction extremely questionable, with such a very simple logic problem.

Excuse me? Please qualify that seemingly brash/unfounded statement. I suspect there must be some sort of misunderstanding. I am pointing out that to the naked eye from an earth-bound perspective, the diameter of the moon is equal to that of the sun. I don't understand how your question of the earth's shadow is relevant to this point. I understand how it might be difficult to follow a cut up conversation, but maybe you should refrain from commenting until you have a comprehensible understanding of the points being made.

I also suppose you're one of these the earth is 6,000 years old types? Since you say nothing else is out there; hell even the Vatican recently stated there's a possibility of life elsewhere in the universe... and they used to kill people for suggesting the Earth revolved around Sun. You would think they'd drag their feet the longest; on the issue of life elsewhere in the cosmos. Of course it's going to have the man with the grey beard spin on it... too much money left to be made on willful ignorance to throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.

I never stated that it wasn't possible that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Again, please don't misquote or misinterpret my stance. Funny, your attempts to disparage my view with talk of "the man with the grey beard." This is an obvious straw-man, and akin to me describing the naturist view with phrases such as "goo to you" and so on...

I do have a confession to make; I never expected to come here and read actual undeniable proof of intelligent design. You might judge me as not having an open mind on the subject and you'd be right; but the same could be said about your self if you're going to create a topic at least comprehend what those saying your proof is no proof at all... if you wanted nothing but like minded praise; and to completely ignore contrary evidence... organizing a campfire kumbaya may have been a better choice?

You are obviously confused. I am not responsible for the OP. I am but a mere observer who felt compelled to step in and point out some of the double-speak going on. If you're looking for like minded praise you certainly are in the right place. Unfortunately, it is primarily happening in the camp of you and others of your ilk.

Deny ignorance doesn't mean; deny your own ignorance and argue your position, until you are blue in the face. But hey you have every right to believe whatever you want... and in a forum meant as a debate of the facts and logical rational theorem that rises off of those facts. But the op only stacks a belief on top of a belief... and two wrong will never equal a right.

You, sir, have implicated yourself with these unfounded, and apparently misinformed comments. This debate, as I have pointed out ad nauseam ..is not one of facts or proof. On either side.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

This debate, as I have pointed out ad nauseam ..is not one of facts or proof. On either side.

Unless of course LIFE was not an accidental occurrence by mere chance or fluke, but was an intended outcome "by design". Surely once must consider the data in light of either these two hypothesis. Theories must be tested against facts, and there are facts that have been placed in evidence, facts which I contend support the intelligent design hypothesis and render absurd the fluke/coincidence theory.

reply to post by Phage

Then maybe you shouldn't make assumptions about what science says about the origins of the Universe. I make no claims about what that article says, unlike you making claims about what science says.

I know quite well that science tries its best to avoid commenting on the origins of the universe, for reasons you have aptly pointed out. However, as inconvenient as it might be for science, the question must surface every once and a while. Especially when dealing with the forces of nature and their apparent constant and transcendent character. I would be interested in hearing your synopsis of Hawking's true view concerning these laws, as I don't have time to read his book, and you seem to have a clear understanding of his apparently "esoteric" views.

No. It doesn't. The naked eye can easily discern the difference during an annular eclipse (the predominant eclipse type). The major point of this thread is the erroneous claim that during a solar eclipse the Sun is perfectly covered by the Moon.

Jump a few post back, and you'll notice that picture provided by the OP does a pretty good job of, for all intents and purposes, illustrating that the diameters match. Add to that, it is a well documented fact that what is called the "angular diameter" of the sun is identical to the moon. As seen here.

Why belabor the point? It is clearly an extraordinary phenomenon worth taking into consideration, whether or not the math is works out to the exact decimal. Evidence of ID? I suppose that would depend on one's consideration of the questions of "why" which you admittedly don't want to touch.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Absolutely. Unfortunately, the moment a scientific fact (such as the sun-moon-earth relationship) can be used as evidence of an alternative view, it becomes non-relevant to the naturalist. This is the double-think taking place here that I am doing my best to bring to light.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Since the byproduct of the configuration is LIFE, then there are two possibilities, either life is an accidental byproduct as a random, chance occurrence (and thus very VERY rarely, if ever, to be expected elsewhere and by that I mean another earth-like world), or, the reason why, which denotes a purpose, and thus an intent by anticipation from an originating first cause with LIFE as it's aim.

Where the detractors have fallen flat in this thread, unbeknownst to them it would seem, is in the area of the effect (LIFE) from the cause (earth-moon-sun relationship).

However, when we look around and then play the tape back and then take a good look at the nature of these astronomical "coincidences", what we see is an arrow and a purpose or intent directed towards life, which is not without significance, because we are here observing it, and neither can the anthropic principal (if it was any other way we wouldn't be here to observe it) dismiss the data as meaningless and irrelevant, which isn't the least bit "scientific" or to put it bluntly, a very lame excuse for an "explanation".

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

As far as I can tell, in terms of reasoning and logic, when looking at effects (LIFE) from causes, their "argument" spins off into utter absurdity at the invocation of the strong anthropic principal, which they then try to make use of in the form of an ad hominem attack to try to win an argument like it's some sort of popularity contest, when in truth what we're dealing with and looking at here and pondering over, is the greatest question ever posed in the history of sentient life on earth. It's insane!

I'll accept some responsibility for a poorly conceived thread title, which should have read "Evidence for Intelligent Design" instead of "Undeniable Proof of" but would the discussion really have been all that different if that were the case..?

If you were being honest the thread title should have been “Poorly contrived evidence for intelligent design” IMHO nothing you have submitted has even remotely held up to scrutiny.

Of course I know your opinion differs from mine your title was more than misleading and the one you offer as a replacement is just as misleading.

There should be another forum made for threads like these called " grasping at straws ".

grasping at straws also clutching at straws
1. trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work Jerry, grasping at straws, searched the backup tapes from last week, looking for the missing files.
2. trying to find reasons to feel hopeful about a bad situation She thinks he might still be interested because he calls her now and then but I think she's clutching at straws.

The premise and so called evidence presented in this thread certainly brings that phrase to mind. It may be my own fault for having standards when dealing with such topics.

reply to post by Grimpachi


If it helps you sleep better at night to blindly dismiss what in your mind has not "even remotely held up to scrutiny," so be it. I can understand that. However, I have yet to see your scrutiny of the OPs postulations. Would you be so kind as to enlighten us?

Or perhaps, does it have more to do with your lack of patience/capacity to begin to understand what is being presented in this thread?

Until you can share some of your own ideas on how the OP has gone amiss, I will carefully file your comments away in the "willful ignorance" drawer.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Could you please elaborate and be a little more specific in regards to your statements, thanks.

edit

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Lunar eclipses always occur during a full moon.

We weren't talking about lunar eclipses though, were we?