Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

reply to post by Phage

It doesn't matter any more Phage. While I don't concede, I do give up.

Best regards,

NAM

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

His was an unbelievably poor response without any appeal to reason and logic based on what's been presented, which reveals things that, even if one cannot accept the idea of ID are nevertheless utterly astonishing to see and recognize, and to realize and be made aware of. How sad and pathetic to be so biased as to turn a blind eye from new and extraordinary information so as to hold to one's own preconceived bias. Isn't that the very nature of ignorance? And he wins two stars for it noless from the sycophantic naysayers in the stands!

Deny ignorance!


Enough's enough!

These people don't deserve to have such info shared with them.

Pearls before swine indeed.

Bu bye.

NAM

In parting I'll leave this behind for future "grokking" by those who are able to digest the information, and then in considering the outcome (LIFE) play the tape back in terms of effects from initial causes.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

From the "bottom-up" in eternity, even a "multiverse" of an infinite number of failed attempts at Life..

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:

[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from "Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything"

Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

Laszlo's view of the history of the universe is of a series of universes that rise and fall, but are each "in-formed" by the existence of the previous one. In Laszlo's mind, the universe is becoming more and more in-formed, and within the physical universe, matter (which is the crystallization of intersecting pressure waves or an interference pattern moving through the zero-point field) is becoming increasing in-formed and evolving toward ever higher forms of consciousness and impressioned experience.

That was "bottom up" causation, but let's also consider top-down or a downward causation from what's called a tangled hierarchy.

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!)

And then finally, to see and appreciate the law of motion or F=MA (see: Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field) applied within the framework and context of our motion through the vacuum of space as the cosmological recording medium of everything that happens and has ever happened..I offer these two videos.


Never do we occupy the same space..

Look at this LIFE and then play the tape back, all the way back, and then some... is it blind chance, a fluke, or, is life intended by design?

There, I posed it as a question, and a very important one at that.

Deny ignorance!

All the best,

NAM

P.S. Yes, I'm a little peeved off at the degree of willful ignorance displayed in this thread, because there was so much more to it than people were even willing to consider, for even a moment. The damn title prejudiced them I guess, but then again the last poster made it clear that it wouldn't have mattered, either way, their mind is made up and firmly shut.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


I have read the entire thread and everything posed in the OP has been countered thus far with facts. Perhaps you are the type who needs things to be repeated in which case I can always go back copy and paste from posters in this thread recapping what has already been said after all that is what the OP basically did. Hopefully you are intelligent enough to realize everything has already been addressed.

As for my previous post it was addressing the OPs misconception that if he had named his title with yet another ridiculously false title it would make things better well I don’t believe that would have helped in the slightest maybe you disagree on that topic. FYI willful ignorance would be buying into the premise of the OP after so many have shown the folly in doing so. If it makes you sleep better at night you can file that away as well.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

No so, it's the very same idea

Really?
Your source:

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.

Please tell me which circle has the same area as the square.

so close that for the reduced phi triangle

What is a "reduced phi triangle"?
But did you miss this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That non-squaring of a circle is nothing but silly number diddling.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


While the geometry is interesting it isn't proof of a Christian God or any god for that matter.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

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.

So you have no reason for claiming that cosmologist say any of the physical laws which govern this Universe exist outside of it. You just made it up based on your interpretation of a single out of context quote.

Add to that, it is a well documented fact that what is called the "angular diameter" of the sun is identical to the moon.

Really? Then why do annular eclipses happen more often than total eclipses?

eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov...
It should also be noted that during most total eclipses the Moon's apparent diameter is greater than that of the Sun.

reply to post by Phage

Is that earth, or a dead planet behind your head in your avatar, and which books are you hugging there? Just curious.

All the best,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Change the conversation to a discussion of avatars.
Good idea.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I suppose we're at a disagreement as to what constitutes "countered with facts." I think you'd be hard pressed to go back and find arguments contrary to the crux of the OP that haven't been addressed and shown to be weak or misleading. Although, you're welcome to try.

reply to post by Phage

Read the thread, look at the "tude" and how rude it is if you can see it reading between the lines (as the reader can). Strange as it may sound to you, Mr. Phage, I cannot tolerate ignorance either, especially willful ignorance.

I've had enough, and yeah often you can tell a thing or two about people by their avatar.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Lol just because he backs up his stuff with fact does not mean he is ignorant.
Now ignoring those facts and not learning from those facts is ignorant.

reply to post by Phage

So you have no reason for claiming that cosmologist say any of the physical laws which govern this Universe exist outside of it. You just made it up based on your interpretation of a single out of context quote.

No, you are being misleading. I gave you multiple sources that attest to this fact...remember, you chose not to acknowledge or read the article I provided. I'll offer it once more here.

I have yet to hear your explanation of how you feel the Hawking's quote was taken out of context.

Really? Then why do annular eclipses happen more often than total eclipses?

Again, obfuscating the point. Clever, editing out my link showing the sun/moon angular diameter spectrum. Are you purposefully misrepresenting what is being proposed here? NO, the angular diameter of both the sun and the moon fluctuates slightly depending on either entity's location in space, so obviously at any given moment there might be very minute differences in diameter. The idea is that when taken on an average...the diameters are the same. Furthermore, the picture you provide just goes to support the idea that the earth-bound perspective of the size of the sun and the moon are remarkably similar. Too remarkable for coincidence. That is my point on this subject. Nothing more.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

I gave you multiple sources that attest to this fact.

Can you show me where in that article it is demonstrated that cosmologists say that any of the physical laws which govern this Universe exist outside of it?

I have yet to hear your explanation of how you feel the Hawking's quote was taken out of context.

It is out of context because it is a single quote from an entire book. It is by definition out of context because the full context of the quote is that book. If you read the book (and others) you may find that your interpretation about what Hawking (and others) say about the matter is incorrect.

The idea is that when taken on an average...the diameters are the same.

You said:

Add to that, it is a well documented fact that what is called the "angular diameter" of the sun is identical to the moon.

Taken on the average, they are not the same and your link demonstrates that. Also, a reminder...from my first post in this thread:

So the ratio of the two orbits varies from 417 to 361, with an average of 388. The ratio of the sizes of the Sun and the Moon is about 400 so yes, sometimes the ratio is the same as the ratio in sizes but most of the time it is not.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Your wikipedia link indicates the same thing...on average the angular diameter of the Moon is not the same as the angular diameter of the Sun.

Furthermore, the picture you provide just goes to support the idea that the earth-bound perspective of the size of the sun and the moon are remarkably similar.

From "identical" to "on average the same" to "remarkably similar".
I'll grant you "similar".

Too remarkable for coincidence. That is my point on this subject. Nothing more.

That is your opinion. Nothing more.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


I guess we are at a disagreement about what constitutes fact. The OP claims such things as.

it's only now, when there are self-aware sentient observers that the apparent visible circumference of the moon is identical to that of the sun, where at full moon it is a perfect reflection, and also during total eclipse, both solar, with the circumference of the moon blotting out the sun and lunar, with the shadow of the earth circumference the moon.

It's not just the perfect eclipse

it's perfectly designed in favor of life as we know it.

This is my favorite quote from the OP because of the claim of so much more evidence however he has yet to provide any within the OP itself. Some cool geometry based on the false premise that the earth is a circle and not oval same goes for lunar orbit and the earth’s orbit.

There's a lot more data than this too some of which reveals that something very unusual took place during the formation of the earth

My point in that statement was about the lot more data part.

The entire OP was comically countered by

The Earth isn't a sphere, nor is it a perfect circle.

There are many other posters who dissected and countered the OP in depth but I really like this one because it is to the point and really destroys the OP but I do understand some people need to be spoon feed information. I know that comment went over the heads of many people judging by the rest of the thread.

I am not going to recap the entire thread for you because you really should read it for yourself and if you already have you need to do it again with your blinders off. That was a little taste of the folly’s the OP made from page 1 this entire thread is somewhat comical. Then again discrepancies in the details as well as the facts may not bother you when discussing this subject matter. For me though if you claim a perfect eclipse, sphere, circle, or orbit those things should at least be close to true.

Maybe expecting things to be what OPs claim them to be is expecting too much.

Remember the OP claims this is proof for intelligent design now if your standards are this low then by the same token (standards) flip the coin to the other side a much stronger case can be made that a truly intelligent designer could do a much better job. Human intelligence could do a much better job designing a more hospitable planet and superior beings if given omnipotent power. I know I could.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Lol just because he backs up his stuff with fact does not mean he is ignorant.
Now ignoring those facts and not learning from those facts is ignorant.

Relative to the info and data I've presented, which facts in particular are you referring to, because i've not discounted them, and am simply suggesting that in the face of the fact, of life itself, here on earth, founded rather squarely I might add on this rather intriguing if not cosmologically unique, earth-moon-sun configuration, that all things must be taken into consideration including the notion that this whole universe and the earth, moon, sun, planets and the starry skies has arisen, not by some sort of capricious or random addition, to and from nothing, but by an intelligent subtraction or limitation from (see Scientists referenced above), the absolute formless potential, in order so that experience might be possible, and therefore by anticipation, and by design, since you can't anticipate future causes without a causal design embedded straight into a first/last cause or to be precise at and from the very moment of creation itself.

But to be less than absolute, as a limitation of the infinite formless potential, and to give the whole process of evolution something to evolve towards as a hoped for and strived for future state of absolute perfection and integrity or wholeness via a continual process of differentation and reintegration - some sort of intelligent subtraction is involved, relative to Phi and the vesica pisces as the fundamental "design" or design carrier "frequency" in the form of (sacred geometry). However, to achieve the outcome in the form of life and the whole world around us, such a design must contain the present configuration and reality, by anticipation and therein resides the super-infinite-intelligence of the "Creative Agency" (which must remain undefined, by it's very nature as the Absolute Godhead). So at best all we can do is appreciate the view, and maybe laugh and giggle at the magnitude of an implication that we can only begin to imagine, and ultimately cannot imagine except to be a little awestruck from time to time even at a full moon (it doesn't have to be in eclipse to be awestruck by the fact that's it's the true "midnight sun", literally!). And then, in the realization and recognition of "where we're at" as the begotten ones, as yes sons of God, and daughters, laugh and play as children of the one who wanted to share experience, which is also our own experience, of being alive, right now.

It's the inverse of the strong anthropic principal, which makes no sense and is absurd in the light of the actual experience of being alive and getting to be the observer, while closing the circle with none other than God (first/last cause) as part of God or an integral part of the Godhead, included by intent, and with anticipation. God probably quickly got bored of being God once self aware and decided to blow up just right, for the sake of "we". lol!


Best regards,

NAM

P.S. Sorry for the outburst earlier but I was at my wits end. For the most part I've maintained my composure under the onslaught you've all born witness to.

reply to post by Phage

I apologize for that comment. It wasn't nice, it wasn't me, I just lost it, doesn't happen often.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

- some sort of intelligent subtraction is involved, relative to Phi and the vesica pisces as the fundamental "design" or design carrier "frequency" in the form of (sacred geometry).

Turns out there's more to this pyramid proportion than meets the eye or perhaps I should say IN that which meets the eye.

P.S. It's the combined area of the outer circle and the square (440,000 royal cubits) which is significant along with the fact that both perimeters are nearly equal. More in this to follow.. (i need to find a certain book for reference)

Originally posted by yampa

But data is data, and they do have some interesting observations. I like the fact you saw the speed of light thing must be important here. I am starting to agree with this. I did a search for "speed of light" and "great pyramid" and got this video. I think this is absolutely crazy:

This fact has been mentioned on ATS before, including the dude below:

Originally posted by TheLegend
Speed of Light: 299,792,458 m/s (meters per second)
Great Pyramid Grand Gallery: 29.9792458°N Latitude

That's all that has to be said.

More on great pyramid ratios and proportions (worth the read)

nexusilluminati.blogspot.ca...

And it would appear that the "x factor" at least in the design of the pyramid, added or subtracted from the Phi ratio proportion, was the Fibonacci sequence of numbers along with the use of Pi.

Do you think that the speed of light encoded into the degrees north latitude of the grand gallery of the great pyramid was a mere coincidence?

Were they using the present day meter as a unit of measurement or a perfect derivative thereof, and what does any of this have to do with the moon and it's relationship to the earth, and the sun?

Perhaps instead of gatekeeping and/or piling on me because of your anti-God bias, perhaps you might want to revisit this thread down the road and learn a few things that you've never before considered for the life of you..


Best regards,

NAM

P.S. I can almost hear the sound of ancient Egyptians laughing.. but if they are (i mean it allegorically not literally) they're not laughing at me for thinking along these lines, but with me at a great deal of human ignorance on the part of those folk in the far distant future that they were attempting to communicate with across the sands of time (literally).

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Do you think that the speed of light encoded into the degrees north latitude of the grand gallery of the great pyramid was a mere coincidence?

Pretty much so. Since the Egyptians didn't have a numbering system like ours. They didn't use zero, for example. And their fractional calculations were based on units (1/2, 1/8, etc.). Try converting that decimal fraction to a unitary fraction.

Did the Egyptians use the modern meter? No, they used the cubit (about half a meter). What's the speed of light in cubits per second?

Not sure you can really determine the location of the Grand Gallery to that precision with Google Earth though.

and what does any of this have to do with the moon and it's relationship to the earth, and the sun?

Good question.

edit