Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Phage

 

And all I'm saying is that it's not luck at all but was clearly made by design with the intent of producing the life on Earth that we see and experience.

I absolutely LOVE that fundamental mistake you religious people always and always make.

The funny thing is, the above statement about the "impossible luck" which leads to a certain outcome can be applied all the time.

We could now sit in the "Hubba Bubba" galaxy, on a reddish planet called "Buritho" with 3 moons, ourselves having 4 legs and gigantic feet breathing methane gas instead of oxygene - and you could STILL argue that this would be the result of an "mathematically impossible likelihood" so there must be "divine intervention" behind it because there cannot be another explanation.

Originally posted by DB340
I am reminded of the following:

There was a puddle in a road. It pondered, "This crevice in which I am located is perfectly suited to my size".

Think about it.

OMG BRILLIANT!!!

"Coincidence" is a false assumption, or certainly a rather far reaching one. Deny ignorance! Catch ya'll later for the debate, of coincidence vs. intelligent design.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Haha! That's richer than Rothschild

reply to post by flexy123


The Intelligent Design theory doesn't stop at the earth. So your hypothetical world could have the same "design" principles as our actual world.

I think people, seemingly including yourself, seem to make the mistake that all "religious" people are, for want of a better word, stupid. Stupid for believing in something that potentially could exist. You "science" folk ask all the time for EVIDENCE. All believers have to do, and i've said this before, is look out their window for evidence. Now, from your, and surely many people's standpoint, that answer is completely... moronic? But that's because a lot of people struggle to see passed what their senses can provide for them. They believe that all there is to know, can be known or indeed learnt by humans.

Humans are limited..... and those who are limited are in NO place to tell others that they are wrong with out some cold hard proof that this life was indeed all a lucky accident. This requires two way traffic, it always has and always will. You ask for proof FOR intelligent design and believers ask for proof AGAINST. Neither which can truly be given. You can spout your science, and others can spout their religion. But the simple fact is, nobody KNOWS. It's faith. And if someone doesn't have it, that person will neither accept or understand it. And unfortunately, that's where this argument starts and ends. Faith.

Originally posted by MrConspiracy
reply to post by Kody27

 

"is a huge coincidence that we happen to be the perfect distance away from the sun and the moon so that their diameters seem the same from our point of view." I'm sorry but if you can't prove WHY this is the case why on earth would your only explanation be a "coincidence"?

I don't believe everything we see is just "luck" or "coincidence" .... it comes to a point where you have to put aside egos and realize that there may be something more to this planet than the "know it all" human race can comprehend.

How is it not maniacal to observe astute, educated, obviously intelligent minds. Make claims of absurdity
towards the very idea of an intelligence far greater than our own, who is responsible for our very existence.
Almost like a cult of academia they keep that word on their tongue at all times as an old stand-bye.
Coincidence ! upon coincidence, they will pile until which one becomes more absurd to you ?

Not one human being on the planet is going to decide the truth of our Father in Heaven. And no one can even decide or claim that it is absurd. Coincidence ? Now that's a whole different story.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Surely, the inescapable flaw in this "proof" is the fact that more "total" solar eclipses are not "perfect" at all, but annular, meaning that the moon is too far from earth at the moment of totality to cover the face of the sun, leaving a ring. There are actually more annular eclipses than perfect total eclipses. (See space.com on this.)
So what does an occasional total eclipse prove? The moon's orbit is elliptical, meaning that many eclipses are "messed up," which is not consistent with the theory that an intelligent creator has left his fingerprints on our solar system.
I am not disdaining the notion of intelligent creation, only what is a flawed "proof" of same.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


We would be more willing to listen if you weren't so darned careless with your research. You postulate a theory, we debunk it, you get upset because we actually used science as it was meant to be used and refused to let you just spout ignorance unabated. You wouldn't have that problem if you knew what you were talking about.

Phage schooled you. Check out all his posts in this thread. Clearly, he's torn your theory to pieces. You're just mad because he didn't let you slip one by. End of story.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Phage schooled you. Check out all his posts in this thread. Clearly, he's torn your theory to pieces. You're just mad because he didn't let you slip one by. End of story.

Get off the leg AI.
No big deal to be schooled by someone like Phage.

reply to post by randyvs


All Phage pointed to was the apparent slight deviation from absolute perfection in the orbit of the earth and moon, as illustrated by the phenomenon of partial eclipse or annular eclipse while saying that such a coincidence (of the visible diameter of the moon perfectly matching that of the sun at this epoch in earth evolution) isn't unusual at all, because it happened, and is happening everywhere in some form or another (although certainly not always as a perfect eclipse) and that I am beginning with a presupposition about mankind being the "crown of creation" and setting out to prove that based on the so-called "specialness" of the earth-moon-sun configuration, as if to say look here, because I'm here, I'm special and this was all made just for me.

But that's not the case. And I intend to address these issues and show clearly, that another viewpoint is possible, without at the same time offending in any way anyone's anti-religious sensibilities, and then maybe you'll laugh right along with me at the utter absurdity of the coincidence/fluke hypothesis and come to realize something you've never considered before for the life of you.

There is nowhere in the universe to find three celestial bodies with this kind of precise coincidence.

We've only recently started to discover planets in orbit of other stars. To actually see moons orbit these newfound planets, is yet even harder to discover, if we have actually make this discovery at all yet.

Please... Believe what you want, coincidence or not, we are only set our first baby steps in our discoveries of exo planets let alone any moons that orbit them.
We simply do not know if our moon is one of a kind. Hell we have only learned a decade ago, that there are planets orbiting other stars.

Moon Formation
.
Bump post (sometimes things can get overlooked or glossed over..

Thanks everyone, even the "detractors" for the coincidence/fluke hypothesis largely for reasons of anti-religious sentiment (to be explored more fully), all of you, to a one, for your contribution to this intriguing thread, including all the responses and reactions. It's been a slice.

But wait there's more... (and there IS more..).

Later,

NAM

The 70's-80's band Styx wrote a song about this

"Too Much Time On My Hands"

Originally posted by AkhenatenII
The 70's-80's band Styx wrote a song about this

"Too Much Time On My Hands"

You've been saying that now for ages AkhenatenII. Get a life.

To sum up this entire thread...

... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

-- Douglas Adams

reply to post by iterationzero


A wonderfully succinct summary! You can have a star for that one!

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Thanks everyone, even the "detractors" for the coincidence/fluke hypothesis largely for reasons of anti-religious sentiment (to be explored more fully),

Nice try, but no dice. You can't detract something that isn't there. Anti-religious sentiment has nothing to do with the fact that your math is poor, your geometry is poor, your explanation is poor, and your theory is poor.

Iteration's quote regarding the puddle is an excellent analogy for what you're doing here. We're not being anti-religious, we're denying ignorance - and you, sir, have spouted quite a lot of it in this thread. If anyone doesn't believe me, look through all of Phage's posts. As usual, he was quick to get to the bottom of the mess and correct all of the misrepresentations and inaccurate data NAM extrapolated into this madness.

Don't even try your libeling games, NAM. Out of everyone here, you are the one who has failed to prove your assertions. Don't blame us for your lack of accuracy.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

without at the same time offending in any way anyone's anti-religious sensibilities,

To your advantage that is a big difference between you and I and I know I use a hammer often.
But it's not like I never turn the other cheek ?

Originally posted by iterationzero
To sum up this entire thread...

... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

-- Douglas Adams

I will be addressing this idea which everyone keeps repeating aka the strong anthropic principal, by looking at the idea of a cosmological evolutionary framework to explain the data and the phenomenon under examination.

What the strong anthropic principal does is it attempts in this case largely by ad hominem, to negate the data and render it meaningless, as if to say that it can't be any other way than the way it is or we wouldn't be here to observe it so now that we're here, what could possibly be so special about it? This is a logical falacy in the face of the data itself because it's meaningful, representative and even symbolic or allegorical. But it's not a confirmation bias, to consider the Earth-Moon-Sun system as the perfect functioning model of life in the cosmos, and then to consider precisely how such a circumstance, the one that we see all around us, came to be.

The fluke / coincidence hypothesis is a very interesting one in light of the data itself, and one that I'd like to explore, but I think there's a sort of logical and rational "double bind" of sorts that a lot of people in this thread are getting caught up in, and if you're tangled up in it, in some sort of willfully blind ignorance, then I owe it to you to get you untangled.

Best regards,

NAM

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I'm not sure a popular appeal to authority cuts the mustard as they say. People are SMART and inquisitive and open minded and they are quite capable of evaluating the data and information for themselves without someone else having to do their thinking for them.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

In the Square-Circle-Earth "theory", do we count the diameter of earth as an "average"? Or is it "fudged" somewhere between the height of Mt. Everest and the depth of the Marinas Trench? How does the constant rain of meteoric dust onto the planet change this "average"?

Being that the earth, the moon and their orbits are neither perfectly round nor concentric, I'd say the only actual constant in this "averaged, fudg-ed, square/circle theory" is life itself.

And life is not a theory. Its as old age as the Universe.