Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

reply to post by Barcs

It's not all purely subjective and I'm not alone in concluding some form of creative ID must be at cause.

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.

For more, including how a colleague of his derived F=M/A (Newton's Law of Motion) from equations dealing with the ZPF (Zero Point Field) check out Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field

Originally posted by squiz

Decades of confounding experiments have physicists considering a startling possibility: The universe might not make sense.
...
However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.
...
With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.
...
The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers. But in papers, talks and interviews, Arkani-Hamed and many other top physicists are already confronting the possibility that the universe might be unnatural.
...
Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.
...
The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it’s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.
...
Now, physicists say, the unnaturalness of the Higgs makes the unnaturalness of the cosmological constant more significant.

www.simonsfoundation.org...

Notice the escape clause to extend the probabilty argument?

"then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky?"

Why else indeed, never mind that big fat elephant in the room.

So the latest objective, verifyable, scientific evidence has forced the scientists to adopt the Anthropic principal if they are to avoid ID and it's possible implications.

Question for Anthropic Prinicipal: How can this life and cosmos be framed and supported by an infinite ocean of absurdities and impossibilities (laws of physics all over the map)? Why is that a better hypothesis than intelligent design by the UCA (unknown creative agency) who measured twice and cut once beginning with the end in mind?

“There are frustrating theoretical problems in quantum field theory that demand solutions, but the string theory ‘landscape’ of 10/500 solutions does not make sense to me. Neither does the multiverse concept or the anthropic principle,”

“New discoveries tend to be intuitive, just on the borderline of believability. Later, they become obvious.”

~ David J. Gross, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Question for Anthropic Prinicipal: How can this life and cosmos be framed and supported by an infinite ocean of absurdities and impossibilities (laws of physics all over the map)? Why is that a better hypothesis than intelligent design by the UCA (unknown creative agency) who measured twice and cut once beginning with the end in mind?

I don't think Anthropic Prinicipal is going to reply.

It seems that your sole arguement is that you can't come to terms with this life and cosmos being framed and supported by an infinite ocean of absurdities and impossibilities.

The thing is that this infinite ocean of absurdities and impossibilities may seem that way to you for the same reasons that others see UCA as absurd and impossible.

They are both just opinions based on incomplete information. The difference is that true scientists don't have any problem with tossing out the baby, the bath water, the tub and even the mother, if need be.

You, on the other hand, seem to be bending over backwards and taking huge leaps of faith to hold on to your POV.

reply to post by daskakik


I'm just looking at final causes from initial effects, looking at the result (life), and gathering in data while trying to think logically and rationally. It appears to bear the fingerprint both at the micro and macro level of intelligent design or a biased selection in favor of life, as if in anticipation of life as the realization of a cosmic goal or purpose. However, such a process would need to contain embedded within the originating first cause, the present configuration as the necessary prerequisite for life on earth as we find it.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

I do like to know where people stand . Creation of what ? The universe ? The planet? Life ? All 3 ?

Because it includes the geometrical size/dimension, mass (and resulting planetary orbits) and rate of rotation (to be explored) of the sun, it would have to logically be all 3, all of the above.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
And there are whole round number integers (forthcoming as objective evidence) and ratios which apply only to the earth moon and sun, in other words a type of relationship which is not seen in any of the other lunar-planet configurations, so it (design element) is unique to the earth-moon-sun system within our own solar system, as if some fine-tuning went on in the final selection, yes as if the whole damn thing was made FOR life on earth since life on earth is definitely included and even including we ourselves in the whole ball of wax in this eternally unfolding present moment. It's true, the only fact we really know with any certainty, that I am, this is, you are.

The problem is, we don't have a big enough sample size yet to compare the earth with other m-class planets, yet. Just because something appears to be unique, does not mean it counts as objective evidence of design or anything else. That is your personal interpretation of what that means. It could very easily just be the way it is. Whatever object that crashed into the earth to form the moon, was big enough to break off that amount of material to make it the size it was. Objective evidence needs to be based on tangible physical evidence or repeated observations of a phenomina. None of that applies to ID. It is circumstantial evidence at best.

But I think when we look at the byproduct, LIFE, that it's rather hard not to think that Life was it's purpose and intent, not the byproduct of a random chance, fluke occurrence by some astronomical coincidence of the farthest reaching proportions in which case the expectation of other earth-like worlds in our galaxy diminishes by many orders of magnitude, whereas if ID is to be accepted as at cause with Life itself intended by anticipation, then the expectation that God has more tricks up his sleeve where that one (Earth) came from, goes up by many MANY orders of magnitude, even though it still resides in the domain of an unknown even an unknown unknown.

That's your opinion, and that's fine, but I see the universe as ridiculously HUGE, so life is inevitable given the amount of times you roll the cosmic dice.

I have a hard time fathoming the notion that this life (held in the arms of the earth-moon-sun configuration) was an "accident", a fluke, a one time only or very very very rare occurrence, for no reason whatsoever. How can we say when we look at the entire cosmological evolutionary frame of reference that life was not intended or meant to occur as it has? That just doesn't make any sense to me when I look at the data-set, and there's a little bit more evidence of the objective variety that I still need to put forward and yes it shows a unique "coincidence" factor or whole series of them as it relates exclusively to the earth-moon and sun.

Again, I appreciate your opinion on the matter, but it's not objective and I don't see it like that. It might turn out that once we explore more of the galaxy we may indeed learn that having a moon that's near the same size as the sun appears could be a big factor as to whether life can emerge and thrive on the planet. Maybe it's not as rare as you think. Rareness or uniqueness doesn't suggest ID because the universe is so vast.

The evidence is not objective because it is based completely on coincidence. That is circumstantial or subjective. No way to get around that.

Originally posted by Barcs
Whatever object that crashed into the earth to form the moon, was big enough to break off that amount of material to make it the size it was.

Just the perfect size too, and at just the right location and proximity for the process of evolution to occur with the moon in ancient earth history being 12 times it's present visible diameter (being closer to the earth) but only now when there are earth-based observers to see it, matching the visible diameter of the sun. It (moon) also perfectly regulates and maintains dynamic equilibrium balancing for the tilt and wobble of the earth (responsible for the cycle of life) during the earth's annual orbit around the sun, but there's more in the sense that the round number integers and ratios apply to all three objects (earth, moon, sun) relative one to the other (more data to follow). This stretches the boundaries of what might be considered "coincidence" based on the standard explanation of moon-formation by a random early-Earth impact with a Mars-sized rogue planetoid.

What you're saying is that this


like the phenomenon of eclipse MUST be nothing more than a coincidence.. (and there are more where that came from) but coincidence isn't the only "explanation", if it can be called that.

"The most unlikely coincidence imaginable."

~ Isaac Asimov, respected scientist and science-fiction guru, describing this perfect visual alignment of total solar eclipse.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
like the phenomenon of eclipse MUST be nothing more than a coincidence.. (and there are more where that came from) but coincidence isn't the only "explanation", if it can be called that.

28 pages and you still have not gotten past "maybe it isn't a coincidence". with the nothing to back it up other than "I don't think it would have happened by chance" and the promise that there is more.

reply to post by daskakik

It cannot be a random "coincidence" and I'm not the one solely responsible for making the thread however many pages it is. Also, in regards to further data, I have to pour through a whole book to pull out the info and I've also got a regular day job.

Furthermore I'm just asking people to take an open minded look at the data and consider the two hypothesis and form their own viewpoint, each which carries with it it's own implications. And because the data-set is available, in front of us, it's not entirely an unknown and may be subject to evaluation, consideration and logical and rational inference, whether in favor of chance coincidence, or ID.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Interesting theory, but I always have to ask when someone says that Creation or Evolution is the only way it could have happened, can't it be both? Also, glad you didn't refer to the banana idea. Most things people use to describe evolution can be applied to creation, and vice versa. Also, could be both theories are wrong and the real truth is something we haven't thought of or can't conceive of at this point in our existence.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


We have not got enough data about planetary systems to confirm it is or isn't coincidental, you can not claim this is scientific when we do not the data to prove either way.
Plus your data isn't perfect.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

It cannot be a coincidence

Yes it can, and until you come up with a better "data set" you are not ruling that out.

You have been going on about this topic for almost a year without getting past the same point.

Originally posted by Jekka
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Interesting theory, but I always have to ask when someone says that Creation or Evolution is the only way it could have happened, can't it be both?

That's the conclusion that I've been forced to conclude and accept, that it's both.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

It cannot be a coincidence

Yes it can

No, it can't - see the second article in the top post this page re: Higgs Boson.

Unless you are prepared to adopt the anthropic principal that is.. which renders the data and the whole inquiry meaningless and absurd, while positing the whole of existence within the context of an ocean of absurdity, and I'm not sure that's very scientific.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

That article doesn't say that and it doesn't even come to any conclusions.

I think you are just seeing what you want.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

I think you are just seeing what you want.

Must be just Pareidolia on my part, nothing to see here please move along..

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I understand where you are coming from, but you're just preaching to the choir so to speak. I'm well aware of all of those measurements, but they are still not objective evidence of intelligent design, and your opinion on its probability is just an opinion. Again, we have a very small sample size of life bearing planets (only 1 thus far), so it seems more like jumping to conclusions rather than examining the full evidence. The problem is we do not have the full evidence, and lack of evidence doesn't prove the other side. The other side must prove itself with objective evidence rather than subjective. If we find one single planet out there with life that doesn't have a moon with those measurements it will immediately debunk your hypothesis, and since we haven't found one yet, the data is incomplete to make such a conclusion that it was intentionally and intelligently designed. To me, that makes little sense because you do not see the same pattern everywhere.. or even anywhere else. The data is incomplete and unfortunately that's the path that most ID advocates follow. It's always about appeals to what we don't know, rather than what we DO know.

reply to post by Barcs

We can only work with what we DO know, that's right, and if ID were proven to have taken place here that does not exclude the possibility of other manifestations of similar or even nearly identical life-blooming earth-like worlds (with giant, single moons..?), to the contrary proof of ID here increases by many orders of magnitude that very possibility because if it's been done once it can be done again with other candidate planets, whereas, if it's just a chance fluke coincidence of astronomical proportions then the expectation for discovering other earth-like worlds in our galaxy diminishes greatly, but it's ultimately irrelevant (uniqueness) to evaluating evidence for ID here, you've missed the point. That's a false assumption.

Edit to add: After all, how intelligent would it be if this can be realized once in a cosmos whose sun-like stars number like grains of sand, not to realize the same thing wherever possible or according to the divine will perhaps I should say. In either case Earth is still a model of perfection as to what a life-blooming planet looks like.

Also, a giant, single moon system might offer an improvement over a two moon system in regards to the even distribution of the four seasons as well as seasonable weather temperature and climate, including the presence of liquid water, spread out over the vast majority of the planet's surface, as it is here on Earth due in no small part to the influence of our single, giant moon, and the particular relationship between earth moon and sun that exists here.

As for planet-hunting, I myself can't wait for the SKA to come on-line because that's when the galactic survey really kicks off in earnest.

And, that there is at least one such planet in this galaxy bodes very well for an earth-twin somewhere in the universe, simply given how many galaxies there are total (about a trillion). But it's besides the point.

So the truth is that if you are a coincidence chance theorist on this issue, then you'll be rooting that Earth is found to be quite unique in our galaxy and you will not expect other earth-like worlds to be found as the planet-hunting survey continues, and starts looking at 100's of 1000's and even many millions of target planets, right down to the spectroscopic analysis of their atmospheric and extra-terrestrial composition (water, rock), even as the target planet rotates (which might be skewed relative to our POV).

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Barcs

 

So the truth is that if you are a coincidence chance theorist on this issue, then you'll be rooting that Earth is found to be quite unique in our galaxy and you will not expect other earth-like worlds to be found as the planet-hunting survey continues

You're not making sense. Since when has "ancient alien theory" been incompatible with atheism? Why would a chance theorist not expect other earth-like worlds to be found?

reply to post by daskakik

Because arguing that the configuration that's given rise to life on earth is an unintended, fluke-chance coincidence of the farthest reaching, astronomical odds, doesn't bode well for the notion that earth-like worlds are prevalent, not just in the universe, but within our own galaxy, and the more unique the earth-moon-sun system turns out to be, the more the chance theorist can say, you see, because it occurred by chance alone, it's an exceedingly rare and unique event, not expected to be replicated over and over again.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Your the one arguing that the configuration is a requirement for life, not the chance theorists.

You should stop putting words in the chance theorist's mouths.