Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

I just read all 5 pages.

Did I miss the "proof"?

Because I'm not seeing anything other than pseudo science and opinion.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Hey NAM! ;-) Hope all is well buddy! I wanted to take a few minutes and tell you whats on my mind after scanning the OP and thread. It doesn't really matter at all what I think but I do feel compelled to write my thoughts, plus I have a few minutes to spare... so here goes.

The Op was too long and it didn't hold me and frankly it began with the title of "proof".... I then began scanning the thread. It may be my mind is already made up or the video nor your thoughts on intelligent design struck me as proof.

The relationship between the planets and the moon and the sun and so on... doesn't really strike me as proof. It may be coincidence. There is more than likely soooooo many lifeforms with life giving properties in space (all space that is... even the "invisible" space) that it's hard to say that alone is proof a designer designed it all that way.

There is no "proof", not for the masses anyway.

Your "Mind of God" post is more up MY every day kind of thinking. This is so obvious to me, I have a hard time understanding how anyone doesn't see it, yet I have to remember we all have a mind of our own. Ha!

At the end of the day, dissect all our thoughts on different subjects and we all "believe" something different.

Proof is in the eye (or mind) of the beholder.

Nice thread NewAge. I like the squaring of the circle with the earth and the moon. Divine Geometry.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Your info is gibberish. There isn't a single scholarly article linked. You're using fantasy painting as a depiction of how the earth was billions of years ago, then making the claim that the moon was closer. You're making baseless claims on the back of big buzzwords.

Real facts. The moon orbits the earth in an ellipse, not a circle. The earth orbits the sun in an ellipse, not a circle. There's more REAL FACTS out there about the solar system, then the fantasy land stuff you posted, but hey - if you really want to "debate" (It's hard to have a debate when one person is pulling whatever outta the air to try and prove their point though...) then go talk with nasa on the orbits of the sun/moon, and when you've succeeded in proving their data wrong, you'll have changed my mind and I will entertain your other ideas about intelligent design.

co-ops.nos.noaa.gov... - How the orbits work on a 2 dimensional plane.

Um. No this is not proof of intelligent design.

Its all a numbers game. The sheer amount of stars, planets and such in the universe only heightens the possibility of the correct configuration to bring about life. Our planet is nothing special and with the launch of the JW space telescope we will soon see that there are many other planets and systems out there just like our own.

To quote Jeff Goldblum "Life, uh, uh, finds a way" No designer needed. Only the elements in the universe, time and a little luck is all. No God required.

The Golden Ratio & Squaring the Circle in the Great Pyramid.

A straight line is said to have been cut in extreme and mean ratio when, as the whole line is to the greater segment, so is the greater to the less. [Euclid]

The extreme and mean ratio is also known as the golden ratio.


If the smaller part = 1, and larger part = G, the golden ratio requires that
G is equal approximately 1.6180

Does the Great Pyramid contain the Golden Ratio?

Assuming that the height of the GP = 146.515 m, and base = 230.363 m, and using simple math we find that half of the base is 115.182 m and the "slant height" is 186.369 m

Dividing the "slant height" (186.369m) by "half base" (115.182m) gives = 1.6180, which is practically equal to the golden ration!

The earth/moon relationship is the only one in our solar system that contains this unique golden section ratio that "squares the circle". Along with this is the phenomenon that the moon and the sun appear to be the same size, most clearly noticed during an eclipse. This too is true only from earth's vantage point…No other planet/moon relationship in our solar system can make this claim.

Although the problem of squaring the circle was proven mathematically impossible in the 19th century (as pi, being irrational, cannot be exactly measured), the Earth, the moon, and the Great Pyramid, are all coming about as close as you can get to the solution!

If the base of the Great Pyramid is equated with the diameter of the earth, then the radius of the moon can be generated by subtracting the radius of the earth from the height of the pyramid (see the picture below).


Also the square (in orange), with the side equal to the radius of the Earth, and the circle (in blue), with radius equal to the radius of the Earth plus the radius of the moon, are very nearly equal in perimeters:

Orange Square Perimeter = 2+2+2+2=8
Blue Circle Circumference = 2*pi*1.273=8

Note:
Earth, Radius, Mean = 6,370,973.27862 m *
Moon, Radius, Mean = 1,738,000 m.*
Moon Radius divided by Earth Radius = 0.2728 *

Source: Astronomic and Cosmographic Data

Let's re-phrase the above arguments


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 (which doesn’t seem to mean much.)

Ref: nexusilluminati.blogspot.ca...

reply to post by AGWskeptic


I just showed up and read 3 pages in. It is hard to judge the significance of these ratios because we have not done any direct study of other planetary systems... so whether or not we have a super-unique planetary set up is still up for debate.

It is more than likely we would not find this type of ratio for quite some time of direct study of other planetary systems.

Even if it is "intelligent design", that doesn't mean it was done by "God",... John Lear was told the moon was towed here by a spaceship 10,000 years ago that is now dry docked on the far side of the moon...

Who knows? Sounds more plausible than it being done by some ultimate-super-mega-wizard....

Re: Squaring of the circle with the moon and earth. Phage did a quick rough calc from the above and came up short by 17 kilometers for the diameter of the moon, so it could be off a tad when it's reduced to the most common demoninator phi ratio proportion, but even then it's damn close.

Originally posted by coastlinekid
Even if it is "intelligent design", that doesn't mean it was done by "God",... John Lear was told the moon was towed here by a spaceship 10,000 years ago that is now dry docked on the far side of the moon...

Who knows? Sounds more plausible than it being done by some ultimate-super-mega-wizard....

10,000 years ago? Yeah, so much more plausible than a super-intelligent Creative Agency with immaculate fine point control over space, time and matter from initial conditions ie: from a blueprint or design from conception to completion.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Nice thread NewAge. I like the squaring of the circle with the earth and the moon. Divine Geometry.

And absolutely incorrect!


Second.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by coastlinekid
Even if it is "intelligent design", that doesn't mean it was done by "God",... John Lear was told the moon was towed here by a spaceship 10,000 years ago that is now dry docked on the far side of the moon...

Who knows? Sounds more plausible than it being done by some ultimate-super-mega-wizard....

10,000 years ago? Yeah, so much more plausible than a super-intelligent Creative Agency with immaculate fine point control over space, time and matter from initial conditions ie: from a blueprint or design from conception to completion.

Creative sure is right, the amount of creativity required to come up with that wall of fiction that you keep posting as science, is pretty impressive.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by coastlinekid
Even if it is "intelligent design", that doesn't mean it was done by "God",... John Lear was told the moon was towed here by a spaceship 10,000 years ago that is now dry docked on the far side of the moon...

Who knows? Sounds more plausible than it being done by some ultimate-super-mega-wizard....

10,000 years ago? Yeah, so much more plausible than a super-intelligent Creative Agency with immaculate fine point control over space, time and matter from initial conditions ie: from a blueprint or design from conception to completion.

Wow, that's quite a mouthful, I almost agree with that except for that intellectually dangerous word "immaculate"...

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Your info is gibberish. There isn't a single scholarly article linked. You're using fantasy painting as a depiction of how the earth was billions of years ago, then making the claim that the moon was closer.

Um, the moon WAS closer.

The ancient distance was about 10,000 miles or about 16,000km. Then, the Moon was large enough to cover over a dozen present Moons.

The moon is now 384,400 km from the earth and is continuing to recede at a rate of about 3cm/yr, a process which has been slowing down from the beginning at which point it's rate of recession away from the earth was much faster.

This is easily researched and can be verified I'm not just making this stuff up off the top of my head it's not "gibberish" unless you've got a strong bias then it might appear that way I guess..

Edit: What is this, the final showdown in the war of competing Santas, and you were never this "harsh" in the past, more playful if I recall, is everything ok with you these days?

Best regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan


You may be right on the aspect of the moon moving away, and i'll give you that, but you keep basing your premise on the idea that the earth/moon orbits are circular, when they're not, and they wobble on a Z axis too. This throws out your entire "it's so perfect, it had to have been designed" argument. You gracefully ignored that point though.

And yes, i'm fine, but tired of reading about wild claims based on ridiculous information.

You have failed to convince me. Your evidence is poor at the best and incoherent I have heard better arguments for the existence of the Easter bunny.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

One other thing re: Moon formation, worthy of consideration I think, when we consider these two aspects

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

and

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Because the standard explanation for moon's formation is that the earth formed first and was then impacted by an unknown Mars-sized, rogue planetoid, which formed the moon.

The Moon's current orbital distance, about thirty times the diameter of the Earth, causes it to appear almost the same size in the sky as the Sun, allowing it to cover the Sun nearly precisely in total solar eclipses. This matching of apparent visual size is a coincidence. The Moon's linear distance from the Earth is currently increasing at a rate of 3.82±0.07cm per year, but this rate is not constant.[8]

The Moon is thought to have formed nearly 4.5 billion years ago, not long after the Earth. Although there have been several hypotheses for its origin in the past, the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body.

en.wikipedia.org...

And yet, since here we are now with this living planet, who's wobble and tilt, responsible for the cycle of life,


is perfectly dynamically balanced by the gravitational effects of the moon's orbit around the earth, not to mention these strange, geometrical "coincidences" - are we to accept that such an eventual outcome is an absolute "fluke"?

Furthermore, the models used for this hypothesis fall apart when the present rotation of the earth is factored in, so now the leading theory is a "double whack" of not just once hit by this rogue Mars-sized planet, but two of them, and even then the theorists admit that it's a bit of a stretch - I'll say!

However, we still have the moon comprised of predominantly earth mantle material, formed (confirmed by chemical analysis) at approximately the same distance from the sun.

Thus, something more along the lines of this type of process must be considered


However, no matter how fast an early earth might be rotating, even to the degree of throwing off mantle material (before the crust was formed..?), another, local body cannot form without some sort of gravitational "fulcrum" of some kind, and that would certainly be the case if the "moon-seed" was pulling the mantle material from the early earth - unto just the right size and distance to facilitate the evolutionary process of life on earth, to eventually be perched at just the right location such that it now shows, to an earth-based observer, a visible diameter equal to that of the sun

reply to post by Evil_Santa

Never once said the orbits are circular, you might have got the wrong impression from the pic of the geometrical relationship between the circumference and diameter of the moon and earth, and assumed..

Note to OP:

Don't get defensive.

If your data doesn't hold up to scrutiny, add more data to prove your point.
Prove your point.

Don't get butt-hurt because implausible faith based argument doesn't hold against the onslaught of fact and argument.

As I said, Phage isn't where I stake anything usually (his skepticism can be quite annoying when you've stuck your flag into something...That said, he really doesn't shoot from the hip!), but he's kind of got you.

Just sayin'.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


The earth isn't a circle. Your math is incorrect. Someone said this on the first page. You ignored them and pressed on.

en.wikipedia.org...

Many astronomical and navigational computations use it as a surface representing the Earth. While the sphere is a close approximation of the true figure of the Earth and satisfactory for many purposes, to the geodesists interested in the measurement of long distances on the scale of continents and oceans, a more exact figure is necessary. Closer approximations range from modelling the shape of the entire Earth as an oblate spheroid or an oblate ellipsoid, to the use of spherical harmonics or local approximations in terms of local reference ellipsoids.

If there was an intelligent designer who made all of this perfect, and that is your argument, why are you using imperfect images to present your case?

reply to post by Badgered1

I have a feeling that Phage himself (the great Phage ) might have learned something new about the dimensions and angle of the Great Pyramid of Cheops, and may be, even as we speak, engaged in some serious trigonometry in regards to the geometrical relationship between the earth and the moon. I think or suspect when he first ran the calc from the phi ratio reduced triangle presented in the OP and came up with a figure for the diameter of the moon that was off by only 17km, that it probably gave him reason to pause, so instead of just calling me "wrong" or the data wrong, I'll bet he's investigating it to the nth degree.