It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
I suppose you meant scientifically backed...
I don't care for the supposition opposed to that which is greater than all...
what it really eludes to is code for reality and the confines of all creation...
Evolutionists that can't relate to relation are rather absurd and show hypocrisy anytime a creator is mentioned...
Creation allows for evolution this is factual...
Evolution is not atheism nor could anything evolve without creation for even evolution is in and of itself a form of creation...
the greatest form of flattery is copying...
It's not difficult to find examples of most any pattern or mathematical relation you want. Then some people make the mistake of supposing this reveals some mystical governing principle in nature. This is reinforced by ignoring equally important cases that don't fit the pattern. If the fit isn't very good, approximate or fudge the numbers. If some things remain that ought to fit but don't, just rationalize a reason why they are "special cases".
The areas of mathematically similar objects are proportional to the square of their linear dimensions, their volumes are proportional to the cube of their linear dimensions. Gravitational and electric field strengths obey an inverse square relation to distance. Radiation intensity obeys an inverse square relation to distance from a point source. All of these have an underlying reason: the geometry of the universe is very nearly Euclidean, and therefore these results are dictated by that geometric fact. It doesn't suggest there's anything mystical about the powers "2" and "3".
The ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle, π, pops up in formulas for many geometric relations about round objects. A favorite obsession of numerologically-inclined folk is to look for π in man-made structures such as the Pyramids of Egypt. Look and ye shall find—if you are willing to select data and fudge a bit.
The five regular Pythagorean solids have faces of similar shape, either triangles, squares or pentagons. These are also known as the "Platonic solids". The tetrahedron, octahedron, cube, icosahedron and dodecahedron have 4, 8, 6, 12 and 20 faces respectively. There are no other such solids. Only one of these, 8, is a Fibonacci number. Johannes Kepler, when still in the mystical mode of thought, tried to fit these numbers to regular polyhedra to "explain" the orbital sizes of the planets. He had to fudge things too much to fit his model to reality so he wisely abandoned the project. Only when he rid himself of mystical correspondences was he able to formulate a mathematically correct set of three laws of planetary motion. These laws implicitly embodied what we now know as the conservation of angular momentum.
The reason φ shows up in nature has to do with constraints of geometry upon the way organisms grow in size. Irrational numbers (those that cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers) are often revealed in this process. The well-known irrationals are √2, φ, e, π and any multiples or products of them. To make matters more interesting, these are related. For example, phi is φ = (√5 - 1)/2. And the Euler relation, eiπ = -1 relates e, i and π where i ≡ √(-1). The natural processes that display irrationals are not governed or caused by φ in order to achieve some desired purpose or result, but rather they are constrained by the geometry of the universe and the limitations imposed by that geometry on growth processes.
Folks addicted to mystical mathematics are really motivated by a belief that there's something "magical" about certain combinations of numbers. They are obsessive pattern seekers. Pattern recognition can be a useful trait, if not carried to the point of believing that every perceived pattern represents something profound or mystical. Some patterns in nature are significant, but many are purely accidental (patterns in tea-leaves, for example) and have no deeper meaning or significance.
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
those who lack the ability to mimic said results,but can observe them, are left to wonder the how and why...
This to them is therefore miraculous...
To the able one,there is no mystery at all...
I would argue that being made in the image of God refers to mankind being self-aware beings with a moral compass
(qualities that neither the chimps nor the deep-sea creatures you mentioned have).
originally posted by: Raggedyman
Maybe to you refuting creationism is science but it is just a yelp of a dog trying to sound tough
For me, it is never going to get close to anything of real value using this method.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs
You know the vitriolic nature of your posts make me hope you live a good long life, long enough to see and experience the fulfillment of the reality of this scripture coming in the future.
Ezekiel 38:23
‘I’ll show you how great I am, how holy I am. I’ll make myself known all over the world. Then you’ll realize that I am God.’”
originally posted by: ParasuvO
Evolution claims a process started somehow, and that the SOMEHOW is irrelevant and likely has no effect on things after the process began.
It wants nothing to do with the harder questions, and so it never gets solid answers to the other questions it asks.
Because of the limited view it uses, it advances EXTREMELY slowly, so slowly I grew bored of it by age 7.
For me, it is never going to get close to anything of real value using this method.
And somehow the scientists are unable to see that they are wasting a lot of time considering and proposing things that will NOT lead to any satisfactory answers.
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
those who lack the ability to mimic said results,but can observe them, are left to wonder the how and why...
This to them is therefore miraculous...
To the able one,there is no mystery at all...
Funny how you can find the Fibonacci sequence in most everything in the universe, that includes man made things...
Like computer code...
originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Titen-Sxull
Every time this argument comes up it seems as though someone wants to convince others that it has to be one way or the other.
We are created, we evolve and we most likely have genetics in common with many species, including those that we consider to be alien, the building blocks of life are scattered throughout the entire Universe and the creation is the same for all, while evolution is determined by many factors.
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs
I never said ever that evolution does not take place...
I have said creation allows for evolution...
But there you go making things up again claiming what I believe for me falsely, that's quite delusional of you...
Guess you have no miracles or truth...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
You can't just make things up and put your own spin on it unless you can prove to me something can evolve from nothing...
Therefore Creation predates any and all evolution...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: [post=19739227]mOjOm[/post
You can't just make things up and put your own spin on it unless you can prove to me something can evolve from nothing...
Therefore Creation predates any and all evolution...
originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TzarChasm
that's like saying nothing has been or is ever created...
More fallacy...
evolution chooses to ignore creation like it has no place in the grand scheme of things...
evolution will never disprove creation they are intertwined...
creation was needed for evolution to begin yet evolution never creates instead it only alters creation...