Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

If I were to point to proof of creation I would say, I can't do it. Because there isn't any. Neither is there any proof life is not a creation. Heres why...

Explain the origins of DNA, a seed, and egg, and the womb. I mean the smoking gun origin, not the electric mud puddle theory.

"The moon is the mother of the world."

~ Ancient Egyptian saying

Just had chicken chaat for dinner the chicken legs are a perfect size for holding and munching on....surely proof of intelligent design.

Now.......clearly.......cherry picked coincidence of size for one. If I was a 12 foot giant I would have Ostrich Chaat !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So God didn't favour 12 foot giants otherwise there would be more ostriches than chickens.

Am I taking the pee. Not quite. If we had no moon a 36 hour day. a much more elliptical orbit etc then "life as we know it" would not exist BUT SOMETHING ELSE WOULD........DUH !!!!!

There is no God, deal with it. You will die one day and there is no afterlife, deal with it. (IMHO) the universe is teeming with life, one day we might see it. Nice to dream.......oh and still no God.

There is no proof of intelligent design. No hard data that directly points to some all mighty creator in the sky. The truth is to attribute this existence to a sky-daddy just takes away from the true wonder that is our existence. Science has rightly identified many mechanisms by which we came to be. Many observed and reviewed theories which make the most logical sense. Yet with all that we have discovered there is still much more waiting to be unlocked. Instead of contributing existence to a god why not observe your surroundings and come to solid, logical conclusions? Instead of using a 2000 year old work of fiction to guide you why not use the evidence collected and presented, then reviewed by your peers? Plenty evidence exists for the scientific explanations of life. None exist for intelligent design. None. Zip, Zero, Zilch. Often faith blinds the sheep, as it was intended to do. Knowledge is not forbidden, it is our right as sentient beings.

That being said there is also no way to completely disprove creation either. Mainly due to the fact that as new scientific evidence arises it is simply assimilated and added to the list of "gods" mechanisms for creating us. Creationists and religious types just claim whatever we discover is gods will or whatever. Its really quite sad that humans still tend to think in stone age terms instead of throwing off the shackles of faith and seeing our universe for what it is. A chaotically beautiful mix of elements that occasionally combines to produce life.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by MmmPie
The Earth isn't a sphere

Fairly close I suppose, but seems to be a little chubby around the sides, which is well known. Not quite a geometric specimen, however.

reply to post by intrptr

In the Square-Circle-Earth "theory",

The "squaring of the circle" is really nothing but a bunch of noise anyway. Let's filter the noise and see what we get.

1) Start with phi (which does appear in the Great Pyramid, whether by accident or design is another topic). A fun number to play with. Like Pi, it is also an irrational number, not really a good example of perfection or design.

2) Take the square root of phi.

3) Take the fractional portion of that.

The ratio of that result to one is similar to the ratio of the radius of the Moon to the Earth.

It would have been a lot more interesting of a coincidence if the ratio between the Moon and Earth were equal to phi, or even an (approximate) multiple of phi. But it isn't. It's just a bunch of convoluted nonsense with a generous dose of fudge. There is no relationship to phi. There is only a bunch of noise about "squaring the circle" in order to make it appear there is something there. It's typical numerological babble.

Oh, that same fractional portion? That 0.272? That is also the size of the rim a .22 caliber shell. It is also the diameter of the chamber for a 6mm cartridge. Neat, huh?

reply to post by Phage

It would have been a lot more interesting of a coincidence if the ratio between the Moon and Earth were equal to phi, or even an (approximate) multiple of phi. But it isn't. It's just a bunch of convoluted nonsense with a generous dose of fudge. There is no relationship to phi. There is only a bunch of noise about "squaring the circle" in order to make it appear there is something there. It's typical numerological babble.

Agreed. Imagine using the same brand of fudge to determine orbital mechanics for say, sending a probe to the outer planets?

Golfing blindfolded.

reply to post by intrptr


The thing that I feel is being overlooked here, and as I see it NAM has made quite clear is that it's not about "perfect" mathematics or flawless geometry. Focusing on the decimals and meteoric dust is nothing more than a detraction from the original postulation of this thread. The fact remains that the system we have been granted the privilege to be a part of is vastly complex, wondrously anomalous, and for all intents and purposes too "perfect" to be merely coincidental. There was a post earlier in this thread that asserted that the idea of "perfection" in our base understanding of the word, is in many ways less ideal than slightly flawed. However, I wouldn't conceded that our system is flawed considering that our extremely fragile existence on earth somehow manages to persevere amidst the appearance of imperfection...asymmetry might be a more suitable term.

It is perturbing, nonetheless, that none of you can at the very least acknowledge how astonishing the OP's observations are (weather they be coincidence or not). Your speculations that these conditions might exist somewhere else in the undiscovered universe, making them less special, is much more dangerously unsubstantiated as entertaining the idea of intelligent design in that the former hypothesis not only lacks evidence but also intent. If our current condition were merely happenstance of incalculable odds, why should we even consider that they might be modeled elsewhere in the universe?

I urge you my fellow truth-seekers. Don't miss the forest for the trees...it's a beautiful view from here.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

However, I wouldn't conceded that our system is flawed considering that our extremely fragile existence on earth somehow manages to persevere amidst the appearance of imperfection...asymmetry might be a more suitable term.

Our existence is a matter of chance. We've been here a very short time. The dinosaurs were here for a lot longer and that long time span did not work out very well for them. Chances are we will meet the same fate, if we can still around for a hundred million years without doing ourselves in.

The Universe works pretty well. But it is by no stretch of the imagination "perfect". There is more chaos out there than perfection, and unlike the claims of the OP, there is nothing special about Earth if one takes a wider view.

Hardly 'Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design' imo, if we'd surveyed millions of world's and still not found a system similar then perhaps you could make a claim like that, but ultimately the circumstances that led to the positioning of Earth, the Moon and the Sun and the correlation highlighted by the OP are in my mind coincidental. The tidal lock and the presentation of ecplises would have to serve a purpose for them to be intelligent and I don't see evidence of that.

The height of the tides can vary during the course of a month, due to the fact that the Moon is not always the same distance from the Earth. As the Moon's orbit brings it in closer proximity to our planet (closest distance within a moon cycle is called perigee), its gravitational forces can increase by almost 50%, and this stronger force leads to high tides. Likewise, when the Moon is farther away from the Earth (furthest distance is called apogee), the tides are not as spectacular.

Source : www.moonconnection.com...

The Earth-Moon system moves in an ellipse around the Sun, so the orbits of both the Earth and the Moon are perturbations of this ellipse.

If you understand the physics and Newton's Law you'll see that the pattern of centripetal force, gravitational force and mass could easily be replicated elsewhere in the universe, in many different solar system's.

Just as you've posted what you call "undeniable proof" of intelligent design, just as much "undeniable proof can be posted for the other end of the spectrum. There's no such thing as Undeniable Proof when we're only just learning the intricacies of our universe.

Originally posted by digitalf

If you understand the physics and Newton's Law...

Careful. If you allow Newton's Laws to follow through to their natural and inevitable implications (most notably the second law of thermodynamics), they can present some very uncomfortable difficulties for someone with your world-view.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Precisely. Thank you for clarifying.

When we look at how perfectly workable it is, we also see in the balance, the razor's edge in favor of life and the evolution of life including the life we are experiencing and see all around us, at least in terms of how the earth-moon-sun model is configured.

Never once am I suggesting for a moment that life in various forms might exist elsewhere on either planets and/or moons, but I am drawing attention to that fine point balance upon which life and evolution on earth is founded, as a first/last cause.

The question that arises is - is it "intelligent" or is it designed with life in mind from it's very origin, or just chance, and a fluke, including the double-whack theory of lunar formation, and if so, why is it to be considered "the norm" and not the least bit extraordinary or special - look at it, look at the vibrancy of life on earth, all over the earth (for the most part), examine the qualities of the configuration and finely tuned balance, and then tell us how it is that on the one hand you say it's just a chance coincidence and fluke or throw of the dice, while on the other, nothing out of the ordinary and to be expected to happen again and again, not just on a few occasions in a galaxy here and there, but ubiquitously even within our own galaxy.. does that make sense?

I'm so glad I'm not the first and only person to see this clearly, and to identify the crux of the argument between chance coincidence, and intelligent design directed purposefully towards life as we find it.

This doesn't preclude the possibility for life in some form or another elsewhere, but when we consider it's degree of perfection and development on earth, what becomes apparent is that here it's done right, and that the goal of life has been perfectly realized, and therefore Earth is a perfect model and all I'm doing is holding out that model for examination and asking the question - is this an absolute chance coincidence and fluke, or is it by design.

If by design, then the possibility of it occurring time and again in the cosmos increases exponentially, but if only random chance fluke of flukes (see moon formation info), then what we might be looking at is either very unique and special indeed, or perhaps the highest creative expression of a cosmic evolutionary process simply because the apparent goal of cosmic evolution appears to be this life that we see here, where it's done so well, an idea I'd like to explore more fully as a possible explanation for the nature of the phenomenon and data in question, maybe according to cosmic evolutionary sacred geometry.. or something along those lines, but then the question that arises involves life as an anticipatory outcome arising from initial conditions or a first cause, as if embedded with intent (in favor of life) straight into the original blueprint or design, from concept to completion.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


I don't think "marginal success" is synonymous with "perfection". Just because it works for a relatively brief period of time, does not qualify it for such a title. It simply means that we're lucky.

Originally posted by Phage
The Universe works pretty well. But it is by no stretch of the imagination "perfect". There is more chaos out there than perfection, and unlike the claims of the OP, there is nothing special about Earth if one takes a wider view.

edit on 5/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I concur. The universe is full of chaos. In fact, within the same vein of my last post, I would argue that we are on a constant trajectory toward chaos.

Please humor me, as it is plainly evident that your knowledge of the intricacies of the universe far exceeds mine (no sarcasm intended). In this "wider view" where can you point to another example of anything comparable to this anomaly called earth? Don't get me wrong, speculation is great, but there are two sides to that token.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

If by design, then the possibility of it occurring time and again in the cosmos increases exponentially, but if only random chance fluke of flukes (see moon formation info), then what we might be looking at is either very unique and special indeed, or perhaps the highest creative expression of a cosmic evolutionary proces

Good job. You covered all the bases.
If it happens everywhere, it's by design.
If it's unique, it's by design.



Eclipses are not "perfect".

Tidal locking is a result gravity and is not a unique phenomenon.

There is no significance in the "squaring of the circle" (which is not what they are doing anyway) and the fractional portion of the square root of phi.

The Moon is not older than Earth.

And this all proves intelligent design. Why?

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

In this "wider view" where can you point to another example of anything comparable to this anomaly called earth?

I can't. I also cannot assume there is no other example. There is a problem with falsification of such a proposition, just as there is a problem with falsification of "intelligent design".

But the OP has offered no "undeniable proof" that it did. Except of course for this: If Earth is not unique it is proof. If it is unique it is also proof.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Please don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating the view that this universe is perfect as understood by our limited understanding of that term. I am saying, however, that if we were to entertain the idea of ID, we would be forced to acknowledge that our limited understanding of that word in a cosmological context would be embarrassingly shallow.

There is no proof of intelligent design. No hard data that directly points to some all mighty creator in the sky.

reply to post by OpenMinds83


That is only if you assign an anthropomorphic form and a time and a place to the Creator. I think of the Creator in the Hindu fashion of understanding God as a creative force. Everything comes from Brahman.

Brahman is the cosmic principle of existence,and personal, indeterminable and self-determining. Brahman, which is at
once indeterminable and self-determining, is thus the unity of freedom and
creativity, time and eternity, ineffable silence and perpetual self-expression.
Brahman, in its indeterminable aspect, is the great Silence2 in so far as it
outsoars all logical conception and verbal characterization. No words are
adequate to describe it; no human notion is able to penetrate its inmost
essence; no philosophical system can pronounce the last word about the
fathomless mystery of its being.

"Brahman is that from which our words, togethbr with the mind, turn back
frustrated." (Yata vaco nirvartante aprapya manasi saha.) a
But this is not to be construed as agnosticism. Even though Brahman is
inaccessible to the relational way of thinking, or to our conceptual understanding,
it is possible for man to attain a direct vision of Brahman by transcending
the trammels of the intellect. Brahman can be immediately apprehended
by what has been called knowledge-by-identity or knowledge-bybeing.
4 One can realize Brahman by being one with Brahman. The vision
of Brahman is in the nature of supersensuousa nd supra-rationali mmediate
experience born of the complete integration of personality.

The closest rational approach to the essential nature of Brahman is pro
provided,
perhaps, by such terms as pure being, pure consciousness, and pure
joy. So, it may be said that the primordial manifestation of Brahman in the
intelligible sphere is infinite being-consciousness-joy(s at-cit-ananda).5B rahman
is pure infinite being, not in the sense of an abstract concept common
to different forms of existence, but in the sense of the indeterminable creative

source of all existence. As pure being, it is, in essence, beyond the dualities
of life and death, or of existence and non-existence. Brahman is pure infinite
consciousness, not in the theological sense of an all-inclusive knower, but
in so far as it is that pure unobjective light of consciousness which lights
up all empirical and objective knowledge. As pure consciousness, Brahman
is beyond the polarity of subject and object, knower and knowable

www.oakton.edu...

Now, if we want to know how Brahma created the physical universe/universes that would be another story altogether. Scientists can explore the Big Bang as much as they like, and do all sorts of mathematical equations and quantum physics and so forth. I am afraid only so much will be revealed in science, but science is indeed a fascinating study of the Creation by our Creator.
We do the Creator a great injustice by assigning Creation as a big muddled mess with no order, random chaos, and complex organisms arising out of primordial soup (albeit with some kind of strange random purpose of evolving into better forms according to Darwin's theory, which still precludes that there was enough intelligence in the original design to need to evolve from one form to another in order to survive the random chaos of the physical environment the organism finds itself in).
But alas, the Creator is beyond all of that.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Conceivably, according to the quotes you have just given us concerning the nature of "Brahman", it could be argued that since Brahman escapes our every ability to define it, then its very existence could be questioned. If we are unable to define it, how do we know it exists at all?

And right back to faith we go. Oh, it has to exist because I believe it does. Can I point to it? As long as you're open to mysticism. Can I name it? I can try to. Can I describe it? Again, I can only try. Well then, what good does your opinion do me? I want answers, not possibilities. And your possibilities are just fanciful notions in pretty wrappings. There is no reason to give you any more credence than a number of bizarre and inane answers that I have already dismissed as being fallacious and invalid.

Reminds me quite a lot of this thread, actually.