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.

 

Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design in Creation

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 04:30 AM
link   
It was only in 2012 that scientists were first able to image a molecule so that atoms could be seen. It was quite remarkable.

Now I know that those who don't believe in Intelligent Design in Creation insist on relying on science for their understanding of the universe, so here is scientific evidence of just how remarkable the image is and how it confirms Intelligent Design in Creation.

Observation 1: The atoms of a pentacene molecule resemble planets on a solar system diagram
Observation 2: According to the Bible, God created all things on Earth and the stars, ie the planets
Physical law: The planets are too far away for their gravity to influence matter on Earth

Hypothesis: If God created matter on Earth and the planets there could be a discernible pattern, a signature, if you like, that cannot be explained by the laws of physics. Discovery of such a pattern would be evidence of Intelligent Design in Creation.

Test 1: Correlate the positions of the outer atoms of a molecule of pentacene on 18 September 2012 with the positions of the outer planets in the solar system on 18 September 2012.
Test 2: Correlate the positions of the outer atoms of a molecule of pentacene on 18 September 2012 with the positions of the inner planets in the solar system on 18 September 2012.

Expectation: According to the laws of physics there should be no correlation.

Results of Test 1: There is a correlation with an R-squared of very close to 1.
Results of Test 2: There is a correlation with an R-squared of very close to 1.

Conclusion: A coefficient of correlation close to 1 indicates a direct relationship between the positions of the atoms in a molecule of pentacene and the positions of the planets. This cannot be explained by the laws of physics. It must therefore be evidence of Intelligent Design in Creation.





posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Very interesting take. I've kind of wondered as everything "as above, so below"... It makes me wonder, though. Let's say atoms, molecules, planets and such act all the same and there is a correlation. Let's see if I can explain this the way I'm thinking it...


Molecule to solar system = solar system to star system? I mean in distance. Would this be the same from atom to molecule? If this is true, then the jump from molecule to solar system is pretty huge. What's the next jump? Obviously stars rotating around stars or even galaxies. Would the distance play a role between molecules and the solar system? Is it part of a smaller view like say the earth to mars and so forth? Though it doesn't account for moons, don't you think?

I know it's all confusing jabber but I don't really have a real way of explaining it in words.


+7 more 
posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb

No. Your molecule looks nothing like the Solar System and your conclusion is fallacious.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb



If you think that the image on the left is in any way similar to the one on the right you need glasses. Care to share what ways you find them similar?



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Why do you keep doing this lamb. Is it for our sake or are you just trying to justify your beliefs to yourself as you learn more and more, trying to find correlations with science that you are beginning to understand with previous indoctrinated teachings. Why? The conclusions you draw are objectively speaking laughable. I never understood you ability to link the unlink able. Divine gift I suppose.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I do like the idea of intelligent design as there is too much perfection and synchronicity in the world.

But why does it have to be God(s) Vs Science?

does it have to be a "god" at all?


I agree with the previous posters. The pictures look nothing alike, you want to see the similarities, but it is your choice.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Oh look another time the ID crowd attempt to lie and cheat people out of the truth.
Again.
Why does the ID crowd always lie?.




posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
If you read the tests you would see that I'm referring to the outer atoms. Here. I've marked them in red. You can see that they correlate to both the positions of the outer planets and the inner planets.

Why is that nobody ever reads what is presented before them and thinks about it? Why do they always jump to the picture first and then lambaste because it isn't immediately obvious? It's been the same with my other posts. There is a path to finding God, not a motorway. All I am doing is showing the way. You still have to make some kind of effort to complete the journey and you still have to use your eyes.




posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb

Can you provide a source for the image of pentacene you're presenting here?



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: TheLamb

Can you provide a source for the image of pentacene you're presenting here?


Google pentacene molecule image. It was in a scientific journal and on the BBC.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb

Why is that nobody ever reads what is presented before them and thinks about it? Why do they always jump to the picture first and then lambaste because it isn't immediately obvious? It's been the same with my other posts.

Some people around here see anything that smacks of religion and start frothing at the mouth in hatred and contempt.

It's an automatic reaction. They have to mark their territory on your thread like the trained monkeys that they are.



Anyway, I saw the outer planet thing right away. I've always felt that the parallels between the micro and the macro suggested an artistic element of our reality.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther




I've always felt that the parallels between the micro and the macro suggested an artistic element of our reality.


Don't disagree with you. Nature likes symmetry. The more symmetrical you are the more beautiful and genetically viable you are as a mate.

Fibonacci spiral anyone? Its repeated in loads of places. Nature loves it. But let's not confuse Nature with a christian/ other religious god(s) design.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb

First thing. Those are drawings, not pictures. Are you pointing out that the outer atoms look like the solar system? And what about the inner atoms? Why are you cherry picking the outer atoms? The pictures have dates on them. Why are they the same date? Where did you get this pic? Please link us to the source article. Your claim of correlations is vague. Please explain how they correlate. You do know that on a dif date, those planets are in dif places?

Which laws of physics are you using to describe how atoms behave?

You get lambasted because you posted a minimalist thread with a vague pic, and no explanation, and you are surprised when nobody understands what you are getting at? Vague pics do not make scientific evidence.
edit on 3-10-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: TheLamb

First thing. Those are drawings, not pictures. Are you pointing out that the outer atoms look like the solar system? And what about the inner atoms? Why are you cherry picking the outer atoms? The pictures have dates on them. Why are they the same date? Where did you get this pic? Please link us to the source article. Your claim of correlations is vague. Please explain how they correlate.

Which laws of physics are you using to describe how atoms behave?

You get lambasted because you posted a minimalist thread with a vague pic, and no explanation, and you are surprised when nobody understands what you are getting at? Vague pics do not make scientific evidence.


Seconded. And even thirded.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: TheLamb

Can you provide a source for the image of pentacene you're presenting here?


Google pentacene molecule image. It was in a scientific journal and on the BBC.
No, could you please provide your own sources? This is already a wild goose chase. If you are trying to convince everyone, then you need to start explaining and showing us your "scientific proof" not correlations from a drawn google image. I don't see the correlation at all. The images are not similar except that you chose aspects of a still hand drawn image that resemble another still hand drawn image. Why did you not include the inner atoms?

Finding a correlation would be something, but this is not a correlation. Even if it was, (it is not) it would only lead you to the next question. "Why is this similarity appearing, or how are these connected or caused by one another?

Many people have pointed to the similarities and patterns that appear in living structures. How about your veins and capillaries compared to the branches of trees.




edit on 3-10-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2015 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: TheLamb

First thing. Those are drawings, not pictures. Are you pointing out that the outer atoms look like the solar system? And what about the inner atoms? Why are you cherry picking the outer atoms? The pictures have dates on them. Why are they the same date? Where did you get this pic? Please link us to the source article. Your claim of correlations is vague. Please explain how they correlate.

Which laws of physics are you using to describe how atoms behave?

You get lambasted because you posted a minimalist thread with a vague pic, and no explanation, and you are surprised when nobody understands what you are getting at? Vague pics do not make scientific evidence.


The image of the molecule is real. Pentacene molecule atomic bonds The solar system images are calculated : Solar system. The molecule image is dated 18 Sept 2012. That's when the microscope imaged it. The solar system configurations are the same date. Why use different dates?

Think of the inner atoms as the sun.

I would go into more detail but it's obvious people have a limited attention span in this day and age. If you can't see the correlation that's not my issue.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb

According to the Bible, God created all things on Earth and the stars, ie the planets

Genesis doesn't at all reflect what we now know to be true about cosmology. You're right that the Bible says god made all the stars, problem is it says they were all made after Earth was made. That's completely wrong. So if there is an intelligent designer behind creation it's certainly not the one represented by that silly old book.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Just watched the entire documentary (yep, not much happening today). Good documentary. What I found scary was that 30-50% of the American population believe in Intelligent Design. And there was a push for it to be taught formally- stick it in RE, not in the science class.

In another documentary from the guy (Dr of Science, that declassified Pluto as a planet) that the belief in a religious higher power, percentage wise, decreases the with the increase of IQ points and professionals.

Speaks volumes for the American education system.

And I am not saying it's much different in the UK, I think it's because the population is so much higher, which gives the figure a greater impact.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Op, have you ever heard of John Locke's, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" ? It's a series of 4 books and is very controversial but I think you may get a little something out of it.

My mind takes me to a more empiricist type of view, simply because I find experience and sensory input have a lot to do with how we view life and the after life.

Most people when trying to prove a God or theory to others are also trying to prove it to them self. I've been there. You want the world to see what you see.... but it just doesnt work that way.

Beliefs are personal.

"God of the Bible" proof is even more irrational in thought in my opinion because it puts a creator or creators in a box, if there are any. "God of the Bible" is no more THE God than Allah, in my opinion.

Proving there is an intelligent design is common sense from my pov but from others pov who are wired different in their brain there is no God or Intelligent Design. Why? Because this world is made of originality. What makes each of us so different is essentially where hate and love for said difference plays out. The difference either gives off love to them or hate. A difference may eventually lead to death out of fear or it may lead to the highest elevation of love.

In a world of different we either accept or judge.

I challenge you to seek more knowledge before you close the book.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: TheLamb

First thing. Those are drawings, not pictures. Are you pointing out that the outer atoms look like the solar system? And what about the inner atoms? Why are you cherry picking the outer atoms? The pictures have dates on them. Why are they the same date? Where did you get this pic? Please link us to the source article. Your claim of correlations is vague. Please explain how they correlate.

Which laws of physics are you using to describe how atoms behave?

You get lambasted because you posted a minimalist thread with a vague pic, and no explanation, and you are surprised when nobody understands what you are getting at? Vague pics do not make scientific evidence.


The image of the molecule is real. Pentacene molecule atomic bonds The solar system images are calculated : Solar system. The molecule image is dated 18 Sept 2012. That's when the microscope imaged it. The solar system configurations are the same date. Why use different dates?

Think of the inner atoms as the sun.

I would go into more detail but it's obvious people have a limited attention span in this day and age. If you can't see the correlation that's not my issue.


If you have to 'think of the inner atoms as the sun' then the entire analogy falls apart. You're taking a vague resemblance to an image of the Solar System as providing proof for a philosophical viewpoint that has no evidence for it. So no, it still fails to take off.




top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join