Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

reply to post by daskakik

Requirement for an earth-like world with a temperate climate and liquid water spread across the entire planet or most of it yes, it would need to be very very similar if not nearly identical, to be thought of as an earth-like world, with animals running and flying and walking around, etc.

It's when we really consider the nature of the system and it's configuration and the relationships involved, including the moon's stabilizing hand in maintaining the earth's tilt and wobble as the prerequisite for the cycle of life, like some sort of fertility program it's been running since the earliest days of earth's evolutionary history as part of a sustained, long-term evolutionary process - that the old assumption we've all made about the only requirement being a suitable rocky world in the habitable or "Goldilocks" zone of a sun-like star, must be re-evaluated.

It's just rational deductive reasoning, it's elementary dear Watson.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Again, according to you.

I don't recall chance theorists saying that a planet needs to be earth-like to host life.

You have no idea what configurations may exist that might allow everything you described.

Deductive reasoning based on incomplete information isn't going to give valid answers.

reply to post by daskakik

My view involves learning about and knowing what we can know, and then making well reasoned evaluations and assessments based on that information and knowledge. Where you're going, to avoid one possible explanation (ID) is into the forever unknown and unknowable since we cannot say precisely what's going on in every part of every galaxy even if we are able to completely survey our own.

The argument isn't one for or against uniqueness anyway, but evidence of intelligent design in what's to be found, here.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

Where you're going, to avoid one possible explanation (ID) is into the forever unknown and unknowable since we cannot say precisely what's going on in every part of every galaxy even if we are able to completely survey our own.

I'm not going anywhere and I'm not avoiding ID as a possible explanation. I'm saying that the data you provide isn't convincing.

The argument isn't one for or against uniqueness anyway, but evidence of intelligent design in what's to be found, here.

Again, chance theorists are not talking about uniqueness, that is something you keep wanting to pair up with their theory. You keep bringing it up so if the argument isn't about it then stop mentioning it.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
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.

Seasons are not caused by the earth's wobble, and they have virtually nothing to do with the moon. It takes 25,000 years for one full 'wobble' of the earth on its axis. Seasons exist because the earth rotates on an axis that faces the same way. Which means for half the year, the northern hemisphere is aimed at the sun and gets more energy, while for the other half, the southern hemisphere is facing toward the sun. If the earth's axis were more vertical, there would be very little difference in seasons all year long, moon or no moon.

Who's to even say that seasons are necessary for life? All life that has evolved on earth has adapted to earth's environment, which consists of 4 seasons, so it is only logical to think it could evolve in a less changing climate. Perhaps you get a greater variety of life with 4 seasons, but there's no reason to believe that life couldn't evolve on a planet with less yearly change. Hell, it might even be more conducive to long term species survivability. Obviously I'm speculating here, but you can clearly see that the problem is our lack of information. We simply don't know exactly what is required for life, as of yet. The moon might mean absolutely nothing... or it could be integral.

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).

Coincidence chance theorist? I'm not the one making theories. You said earlier in your post that rareness or uniqueness does not prove anything in regards to ID, which was agreeing with my main point. I'll be rooting for us to find life on another planet, first and foremost. Then we need to determine how many of these planets are in the galaxy. Then we can more accurately determine how rare this occurrence is and what it means. I'm not rooting for earth to be unique, because that is near impossible considering the vastness of the universe or even just the galaxy. 200 billion stars in the milky way alone, means 200 billion rolls of the dice. Even if the chance of that setup is one in a billion, it still would indicate a high likelihood that 200 other planets exist with our situation. Of course we don't know those odds, so there's no way to determine one way or another at this point, which is why I mentioned appealing to the unknown. You are guessing about what these things mean and what the probability is before we even have the means to determine such information.

I don't discount ID, it might be true, and it would be really cool if so... but I just understand the difference between fact and opinion, and when you look at objective verifiable facts, there are not any that support ID. I have to call it like I see it. I'm not against it in the least, I just prefer to let science do its thing, and we may know the answer one day. For now I'm perfectly happy admitting that I do not know.

reply to post by Barcs

About Earth

Earth is an ocean planet. Our home world's abundance of water - and life - makes it unique in our solar system. Other planets, plus a few moons, have ice, atmospheres, seasons and even weather, but only on Earth does the whole complicated mix come together in a way that encourages life - and lots of it.

A Steady Hand

The Moon is more than a pretty accessory in our night sky. It stabilizes Earth's wobble, which led to a more stable climate and probably helped life evolve. The Moon also guides the ebb and flow of Earth's oceans.

solarsystem.nasa.gov...

The Earth spins around once every 24 hours on its axis, creating the continuous cycle of day and night. But this rotation isn't as straightforward as it sounds: Forces large and small cause the Earth to wobble as it spins. This wobbling can pose a problem for navigationsystems like GPS.

Scientists working with lasers and mirrors are refining a new system to track the Earth's rotation and its kinks.

The pull of gravity from the sun and the moon contribute to the planet's wobble. So do variations in atmospheric pressure, ocean loading and the wind, which change the position of the Earth's axis relative to the surface. Together their effect is called the Chandler wobble, and it has a period of 435 days.

Another force causes the rotational axis to move over a period of a year. This "annual wobble" is due to the Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun.

www.livescience.com...

Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five

There's one other possibility for lunar formation and that is that just the right amount of earth mantle material was drawn out of the proto earth, but by what force..?


From what I've come to understand the double-whack theory cannot account for our present rate of rotation, and in light of the information that's been presented here including present day lunar distance from earth, it makes for the greatest coincidence imaginable, but there's no doubt that life on earth as we find it would not exist without our moon. "Life" of the animals running and flying around variety that is. I don't think you've got the right picture, which is based on the old paradigm of mere planets in the Goldilocks zone of sun-like stars being about the only prerequisite for life on other worlds. We forget that we live in the earth-moon system.

I just hope it's by design so that there can be a real expectation of finding other such worlds in our own galaxy, now that we better understand the unique and high precision fine-tuned (whether by ID or by chance) earth-moon-sun system which has given rise to a sustained, long-term evolutionary process by which the life we know is made manifest in eternity. Kind of hard to believe though in light of the effects from initial causes that the whole thing didn't have life in mind, from the very get go..

Heck of a thing in either case. What a marvel and a wonder..


For the kind of life we see and experience on earth, any old moon won't do, unfortunately, or fortunately for us I guess I should say.

This does not imply however that something very similar cannot have taken place somewhere else that's not the argument, only that here at this end what we have appears to be PERFECT for a planet in full bloom with life in absolute abundance along with a system configured perfectly for a long-term sustained evolutionary process, the only question remaining - was it by chance alone, or by intent and anticipation or by design..

So the next thing to do would be to look at the geometry of the relationships, to see if it's just a fortuitous happenstance in favor of life by coincidence, or if there appears to be any sort of design elements, beyond the eclipse phenomenon (when at one time in the ancient past the moon was as much as fifteen times it's present visible size being that much closer to the earth, with accompanying gravitational effects (4000 times stronger), and this

In the diagram above, the big triangle is the same proportion and angle of the Great Pyramid, with its base angles at 51 degrees 51 minutes. If you bisect this triangle and assign a value of 1 to each base, then the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) equals phi (1.618..) and the perpendicular side equals the square root of phi. And that’s not all. A circle is drawn with it’s centre and diameter the same as the base of the large triangle. This represents the circumference of the earth. A square is then drawn to touch the outside of the earth circle. A second circle is then drawn around the first one, with its circumference equal to the perimeter of the square. (The squaring of the circle.)

This new circle will actually pass exactly through the apex of the pyramid. And now the “wow”: A circle drawn with its centre at the apex of the pyramid and its radius just long enough to touch the earth circle, will have the circumference of the moon! Neat, huh! And the small triangle formed by the moon and the earth square will be a perfect 345 triangle

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

Requirement for an earth-like world with a temperate climate and liquid water spread across the entire planet or most of it yes, it would need to be very very similar if not nearly identical, to be thought of as an earth-like world, with animals running and flying and walking around, etc.

It's when we really consider the nature of the system and it's configuration and the relationships involved, including the moon's stabilizing hand in maintaining the earth's tilt and wobble as the prerequisite for the cycle of life, like some sort of fertility program it's been running since the earliest days of earth's evolutionary history as part of a sustained, long-term evolutionary process - that the old assumption we've all made about the only requirement being a suitable rocky world in the habitable or "Goldilocks" zone of a sun-like star, must be re-evaluated.

It's just rational deductive reasoning, it's elementary dear Watson.

Don't get me wrong as I'm an avid Star Trek fan (watch it almost every day, I'm running through the whole Next Gen series on Netflix right now) and as you can tell from my SKA thread I'm pro ET Life in any and all forms, but, upon close examination of the earth-moon-sun system and it's unique configuration in favor of life on earth as we find it I'm given some pause concluding only that at least one such planet exists in the galaxy. Included in this analysis is the knowledge that we've (earth has) been bombarded over the eons with highly energetic comic rays of all kinds, including strange particles the scientists are still working to get a handle on, directed specifically along the axis or from a "jet" fired directly at earth from what are called blazers, from 36000 light years away by Cygnus X3, which is one of the top two or three most intrinsically luminous objects in our galaxy and the only one that emits such blazers, the impact of which has most certainly effected evolution over the course of earth history by creating the opportunity for randomized genetic mutations, which dramatically accelerates the effects of natural selection.

I had to re-evaluate in the light of new information and new knowledge based on what does work perfectly. I used to run calculations all the time trying to guess at the number of earth-like worlds in the universe and I would go around suggesting various ranges, going all the way up to a trillion trillion such worlds or something like that .Now I'm beginning to think that it's only one or two per galaxy, if that, which could still produce a number in the billions since there's about 500 billion to a trillion galaxies in the universe.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

You posted 2 contradictary opinions and one contained an uncertainty, "probably helped life evolve".

upon close examination of the earth-moon-sun system and it's unique configuration in favor of life on earth as we find it I'm given some pause concluding only that at least one such planet exists in the galaxy.

Here you are bringing uniqueness up again.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
I had to re-evaluate in the light of new information and new knowledge based on what does work perfectly. I used to run calculations all the time trying to guess at the number of earth-like worlds in the universe and I would go around suggesting various ranges, going all the way up to a trillion trillion such worlds or something like that .Now I'm beginning to think that it's only one or two per galaxy, if that, which could still produce a number in the billions since there's about 500 billion to a trillion galaxies in the universe.

I'm curious as to what numbers you are actually crunching to determine that there are only one or two per galaxy? That means the chance of an earth like system is 1 in 100 billion,(something like .0000000001%) which is ridiculously low. How could you possibly have enough information to determine (or educated guess) this? I remember the old drake equation which has been shown to be faulty, but what numbers are you comparing? I'm just interested in the calculations. Calling the earth system unique, is just a guess because we do not know what other life planets configurations may be or the likelyhood of planetary collisions resulting in large moons. 2 small moons could possibly produce similar effects on the planet depending on their orbit and all that. Other effects could also produce similar life cycles. Until we actually find another planet with life, we have no clue and there's no way to even compare. Even with Mars, we simply do not know what destroyed that planet or how recently. It might not just be the lack of a large moon. Perhaps an impact similar to what created our moon happened much more recently and created one or both of those moons. Mar is technically in the Goldilocks zone, it just has a very thin atmosphere. Maybe it needs a comet collision to get things rolling again. I believe there is one scheduled to hit next year or sometime relatively soon. I can't wait to see what that does with the atmosphere and if the comet is a sea water bearing one.

reply to post by Barcs


A a comet collision would definitely get some chemistry going on Mars, but it would have to be catastrophic to generate the energy needed to get it's weak magnetic field up to a level that's capable of protecting the planet from cosmic subatomic particles.
Who knows, a chain of events could unlock the estimated 70 and 300 parts per million (ppm) of water locked frozen in the Martian mantle and poles. It has been estimated that the primordial oceans on Mars would have covered between 36% and 75% of the planet.
Also new research suggest Mars had an oxygen-rich atmosphere 4,000 million years ago.
Mars Had Oxygen-Rich Atmosphere
It is not beyond the possibility that in hundreds of millions of years from now an advanced Martian civilization could send it's probes to a red earth to discover an ancient history of life and advanced lost cultures.

reply to post by Barcs

I'll have to look it up again, but I read recently that Mars' lunar situation results in swings of the planet's axis that does not favor life, so yes there's the moon factor again.

Point is, our world and it's life in abundance is intrinsically tied to the moon-earth-sun system by which long-term sustained evolution has been made possible, right down to the fertility and gestation cycle probably even DNA evolutionary development.

Next we have the blazers of cosmic rays from Cygnus X3 (one of the top two or three most intrinsically luminous objects in the galaxy and the only such object to produce said blazers) beamed straight at the earth (right down the barrel), as another factor (quite literally an "X" factor) also dramatically impacting the process of evolution of life on Earth, and it's well known that DNA has evolved due to cosmic rays by resulting in random mutation (among other unknown effects by exotic particles), which gives rise to favorable traits in the context of natural selection and thus accelerates dramatically the whole process of evolution. So that's the other major factor I'm using.

And regarding life on earth It's just too perfect, the whole set up, if a mere "fortunate" "coincidence", think about that all the way through... including the leading theory of lunar formation.

However we KNOW with absolute certainty that this Earth-like planet does occur in this galaxy, thus my transparent prognostication as to the uniqueness of earth because that question is implied in this analysis and cannot be avoided, even though evidence for ID in the earth-moon-sun configuration is not dependent upon that evidence, as pointed out already.

NAM

P.S. And as to technologically advanced ET's visiting earth, as mentioned already they would not be traveling through the intervening space-time at sub-slight speeds to begin with, employing instead some sort of space warping or folding technology and so therefore they could just as easily be arriving here from another galaxy as they could be from another earth-like world within the Milky Way.

In fact, I think that's the case when I consider this UFO account



So by my analysis, if there are, conservatively, 500 billion galaxies, then the likelihood is very high that the number of such worlds numbers in the billions within the known universe, and yes, design elements according to sacred geometry, would likely if not certainly be found at each each and every one of them.

"No eye has seen nor ear heard nor the mind of man conceived, what God holds in store for the faithful (those who love him)."

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Not only did you mention uniqueness again but you took the time to mention god. I thought this thread was not supposed to be about that.

From your link:

When one of these beams is pointed toward Earth, it looks especially bright and astronomers call it a blazar.

Where is it pointing when it isn't pointiong at earth? With a distance of 37,000 light-years it no doubt sheds its special sauce all over the galaxy. So what makes this pale blue dot so special?

reply to post by daskakik


I don't think it's beaming all over the place like a lighthouse, but has periodic emissions and flareups along one axis as it rotates around it's companion.

Cygnus X-3 is one of the stronger binary X-ray sources in the sky. Classified as a microquasar, it is believed to be a compact object in a binary system which is pulling in a stream of gas from an ordinary star companion. It is observed in X rays, gamma rays,[2] infrared, and radio,[3] with an orbital periodicity of approximately 4.8 h, among the shortest known at the time of its discovery.

Although it is only the third brightest X-ray source in the constellation Cygnus, after the more famous Cygnus X-1, it is located about 37,000 light-years away. It is heavily obscured by intervening interstellar gas and dust near the galactic plane, and fainter than 23rd magnitude in the optical, but is easily observable in the J, H, & K near-infrared bands.[4]

Taking its distance and extinction into account, it appears to be one of the two or three most intrinsically luminous objects in the Galaxy.

It has also received attention because it is one of the few sources of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, with energies in the 100 - 1000 TeV range. Its most unusual aspect is the production of anomalous cosmic ray events in a proton decay detector deep in Minnesota's Soudan iron mine. These events have defied analysis and have led to questions about whether Cygnus X-3 is a standard neutron star or perhaps something more exotic, like a star made of quarks.[5]

Cygnus X-3 has distinguished itself by its intense X-ray emissions and by ultra-high energy cosmic rays. It also made astronomical headlines by a radio frequency outburst in September 1972 which increased its radio frequency emissions a thousandfold. Since then it has had periodic radio outbursts with a regular period of 367 days. These flares are of unknown origin, but they are exceedingly violent events. Naval Research Laboratory observations in October 1982 using the Very Large Array detected the shock wave from a flare; it was expanding at roughly one-third the speed of light.

Cygnus X-3 has an orbital period about its companion of only 4.79 hours. Intriguing underground events in the SOUDAN experiment in October 1985 included 60 anomalous muon events in a 3° cone around Cygnus X-3 with a precise period of 4.79 hours. If the association with Cygnus X-3 is confirmed, these events must either be due to neutrinos or some other very low-rest-mass, high-energy neutral particle of unknown nature, yet capable of producing muons via secondary interactions.

Infrequent gamma ray flares from Cygnus X-3 with energies around 100 MeV were detected in 2009 by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope and by the AGILE satellite. The intensity of these gamma ray outbursts varies at the same 4.8-hour orbital rate as the X-ray emissions, and they occur a few days before the onset of extremely energetic radio jets.

Constellation Cygnus
Right ascension 20h 32m 25.78s[1]
Declination +40° 57′ 27.9″[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Cygnus X-3 and the Cosmic Ray Question.

What's so special about earth is the way that life has evolved here (including our own evolution) and the perfect set of conditions and circumstances by which that's been made possible, as if the effect was anticipated from initial causes i.e.: life isn't just a "fluke".

Sorry for mentioning God and not the UCA, it's more a hope and a prayer on my part to get so much as a peek at what's out there in the domain of the unknown unknown, between lives, before being reborn here again to try to enlighten my fellow man about the glory of God's creation, ourselves included.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Cygnus, considered since ancient times as the source of a death and resurrection principal (random DNA mutation?) and often associated with a bird of life and a swan (symbol of grace), in the constellation known now, and in ancient times, as "The Northern Cross".

Perhaps another "sign" or allegory once recognized by an old friend of mine.. ? Hey you never know because as it appears, anything is possible.

The reversal of Cygnus makes the asterism of the Northern Cross, with Deneb now at the top, the cross seen rising on its side in early northern summer evenings, standing upright in the west in early northern winter after sunset.

stars.astro.illinois.edu...

Of course it's not a perfect cross, but even it if was and the intervening dust was shaped in the form of a man hanging on it, you would surely accuse me of suffering from pareidolia.

Then Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”

“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” He spoke these words while teaching in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come (he was running a tight schedule - to a lunar eclipse on Preparation Day, mentioned earlier).

“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true.

Gospel of John NIV

reply to post by NewAgeMan

I meant that earth isn't the only thing being hit with the emissions, even if it isn't a continous stream.

Life doesn't have to be a fluke to be undesigned.

I wonder if you do get your peek, if your tune won't change.

As for Cygnus being a cross, so what?

ETA: It actually includes more stars than those in the image. Talk about forcing things to fit.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Life doesn't have to be a fluke to be undesigned.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that? Thanks.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

I get the feeling that by fluke you mean a single occurance due to chance. That isn't the case. If we accept that the universe runs a certain way, adhering to the laws of physics, even those we have not figured out yet, then life is going to happen every time that the "ingredients" for it are present. This isn't chance, it's a formula.

We can argue about the source of these laws and whether they are by design or not but that would not change the autonomy with which life could emerge within this framework.

Of course, this would also give agents working within this framework the chance to bring these "ingredients" together to create life but, like I said earlier, does this earn them the rank of god?

reply to post by daskakik

Are you suggesting that ancient aliens helped build-design the moon-earth-sun configuration/relationship 4.6 billion years ago and if so, how did they evolve in the first place? Also, the sun's origin, dimension, and mass, is tied to the galactic formation and accretion, so that would rule out ancient alien involvement would it not?

Also, the ingredients need to come together in just the right way, obviously, for a sustained evolutionary process to occur. The mere presence of those ingredients being present doesn't of themselves assure that life will happen every time, don't be absurd and look again at the set-up/configuration that's given rise to life on earth. And you accuse me of making assumptions,