Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Well according to numbers crunched by others:

Therefore, the last total solar eclipse on Earth will occur in slightly less than 1.4 billion years.

Final totality

"Potentially meaningful" is nothing more than your opinion based on the subjective importance you have placed on inconclusive evidence.

Originally posted by daskakik

Also, where did the 2x2 come from?

Everything comes 2X2 (two by two). It's the Generative Principal of male/female, two arms two legs, in the animal kingdom, four legs (except for the simians); in sacred geometry, it's the compass and the square which also symbolizes the male/female generative principal.



2X2X10X10 = 400.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Meh, its a rounded value of a variable.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Meh, its a rounded value of a variable.

edit on 2-7-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

You ain't seen nuthin yet.

Stay tuned..

reply to post by NewAgeMan

You keep saying that but I have been following the development of your moon theory for over a year and you still have not offered anything convincing.

reply to post by daskakik


In your opinion.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Of course and probably in the opinion of anybody looking at the information in an objective and unbiased manner.

reply to post by daskakik

I think a lot of people find it rather compelling, but we'll see.. (no need to reply).

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by pavil

 

I know it hasn't been constant but my point is that rough numbers show that the claim that the changes in distance was precisely timed for when humans were around to notice, and therefore perfect, is untrue.

Don't know if you have read the entire thread but NAM has a way of claiming that even the imperfections are perfect.

edit on 28-6-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Haven't read the whole thread......I see now that we are talking the same talk. It's like some other threads I've been on here, you won't change the conclusions of some people if even if it's presented to them on a silver platter. Good luck with this one.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

The information itself is quite compelling but it falls short when used to support the conclusions in your theory.

reply to post by daskakik

You're an atheist, even if not one of the more "staunch" variety, for you nothing I would or could offer would ever stack up to the point that it would be sufficiently compelling to persuade you to accept the UCA (unknown creative agency) hypothesis and Intelligent Design, but the truth of the matter could very well be that I've already laid down a "monster" here on the ATS community with which you haven't even begun to effectively grapple let alone dismiss out of hand as "falling short" (in your opinion).

It (our debate) reminds me of this scene from the movie "Rounders".

[warning: bad language]



And speaking of bias, and objectivity and open-mindedness - never assume.

Best regards, (no ill will, just playful banter),

NAM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

You're an atheist, even if not one of the more "staunch" variety, for you nothing I would or could offer would ever stack up to the point that it would be sufficiently compelling to persuade you to accept the UCA (unknown creative agency) hypothesis and Intelligent Design,

Not true, I can easily accept a UCA and ID without changing my stance on the existance of "god".

Unless you seperate the two you will always be taking a leap of faith in regards to the identity of the UCA.

but the truth of the matter could very well be that I've already laid down a "monster" here on the ATS community with which you haven't even begun to effectively grapple let alone dismiss out of hand as "falling short" (in your opinion).

Could very well be but you have not given proof other than your opinion, which has been pointed out more than once in the thread.

I don't need to grapple or dismiss, the flaw in the logic is obvious.

Originally posted by daskakik

Not true, I can easily accept a UCA and ID without changing my stance on the existance of "god".

Unless you seperate the two you will always be taking a leap of faith in regards to the identity of the UCA.

I can and have separated the two, where the evidence is to show/prove intelligent design by the UCA (God cannot be adequately defined anyway). What I think of God personally is irrelevant to the evidence at hand, which bears the fingerprint or the hallmark of ID by the UCA (unknown creative agency) leaving "God" undefined.

At best, as a deductively reasoned, logical inference it could maybe described as the Absolute, limiting itself by an intelligent subtraction or limitation (slight flaw?) from everything rather than a capricious random addition from nothing, with the Creation occurring in the form of a type of downward causation within a tangled hierarchy of conscious intentionality (by design). Intriguingly, our own observation, seemingly as intended by the UCA (to share?), closes the circle and collapses the probability wave thus making our inclusion yes, meaningful and significant, but these are just the logical implications as attempts to grapple and reconcile our position with the significance of the discovery by proof of evidence, of ID by the UCA.

Don't assume my own bias for me and then project that on me as if you know in advance precisely how I'm using my own faculty of logic and deductive reasoning, thanks.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

I'm not assuming anything.

How did he know?

reply to post by daskakik

I clarified that post with this a couple of posts later.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by aorAki

 

That was a "musing" on my part from what I've evaluated are some of the implications. As to the megalithic yard, stay tuned..

You're ok with ID by the UCA only if the UCA is an ancient alien. That's hardly being more logical/rational when considering effects from initial causes.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Label it what you want it still shows where you are trying to get to.

I'm not OK with saying UCA is this or that without knowing.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

I'm not OK with saying UCA is this or that without knowing.

Once it's established that ID is a fact, and therefore the existence of an UCA (Unknown Creative Agency), certain things, like intention, anticipation, infinite intelligence, and the outward causal effects and manifestations of an original intent, can be deduced. They may be of infinite or unfathomable proportions, but their presence can be seen and "felt", and thus known with absolute certainly, even in the domain of absolute uncertainty. It's a known unknown let us say, within which it's possible to gain the knowledge of certain things.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

No, it remains an uncertainty and it would seem that you taking leaps in your deductive reasoning to have it fit a preconceived idea. That is bias.

Honestly, at this point, any idea, as long as it sounds minimally possible, is just as valid as yours bacause they are all just "what ifs".

This is really awesome.
In Hinduism, Lord Shivji has been shown as Moon on his head. Planet x could be Intergalactic spaceship of our Creators Aliens.
UFO

Originally posted by Vishal1Sharma
Planet x could be Intergalactic spaceship of our Creators Aliens.
UFO

It could also be a physical manifestation of all the rage I feel for drivers on the phone, if we're just going to throw things out there we can't prove. Likewise, it could also be that mythical ball of cheese some folks used to suspect our Luna of being.