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: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Is this thread a joke???

Is the author of this thread actually serious???

How old is TheLamb? 12? most likely 13?

Everything is a joke. From the hypothesis to the conclusion.

The "expectation" was laughable.

Cognitive Biases were through the roof in here. All I've learned in here is that TheLamb will see patterns in EVERYTHING.
Post a picture of a wall and it will be traced back to his god.

Sigh....




posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb

It doesn't matter.



Who cares which came first?

So let me get this straight. You invoke science in your OP but when I point how how completely incompatible Genesis is with science it now just doesn't matter, and cosmology isn't important??


Are we automatons or free spirits? Science and non-believerism would say the former. Is that comfortable for you?

I'll tell you what I'm not comfortable with. Believing in the truthfulness of things that have zero evidence backing them.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb
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.



What a load of nonsense.

The structure of pentacene looks nothing like a solar system either in your picture or in any other visual representation of pentacene structure (just google images for pentacene).

You claim a correlation of close to 1 for R squared which is a measure for linear regression fit. You just pulled that out of thin air I suspect. If you want to be scientific, then tell us what the correlation data are, why you are doing an R squared (what is the model you are trying to fit) and most importantly what the data are measuring. You say position, but you have given us no idea of what measurements you are using to quantify position.

The is no statistical correlation here because there is nothing statistical or numerical here.

Your conclusion is also a total laugh logically. Even assuming your premise that a correlation existed, any scientist knows that falsifying one premise does not automatically make another true. To use your argument "My two premises are that your posts are due either to you being a moron or you being a tree. The fact that you are not a tree is undeniable evidence then that you are a moron."

My pet peeve ny the way is people claiming to "do science" when they have no idea what that mean.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: HammyCat

Actually, hexagons are the most stable shape in biochemistry, hence the simularity between graphene and the honeycomb. Not intelligent design, but rather proven sound mathmatical reasoning behind it.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
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.


It doesn't matter. There is a direct link between matter on Earth and the positions of the planets that isn't explained by gravity. Who cares which came first? You should be more concerned by the implication that everything from the macro of the solar system to the micro of the atomic is fixed. That includes us. Are we automatons or free spirits? Science and non-believerism would say the former. Is that comfortable for you?


No there isn't a direct link. The only way you could say there is a direct link would be if the positions of the planets AND the sun lined up perfectly. In your example you have to bunch the inner planets together within the molecule and think of them as the sun. I'm not going to go as far as to say there is no such thing as intellegent design, but while what you have here is certainly interesting, (invokes my inner Obi-Wan) this isn't the evidence you're looking for.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Citation. Proof. Ah yes, the tools of the skeptic and the academic. Heavens forbid creativity and innovation outside the field which filters out dogmatically any threat. You're no different than the Inquisition and Galileo who eventually was proven correct.

The irony here is that without citations to your sources, you're literally asking us to take this on faith.
edit on 3-10-2015 by SigrunZirud because: for some reason the quote didn't post as a quote.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
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.


Don't speak for me, you pompous twit. As a person who was brainwashed...sorry, raised christian from a toddlers age, there are many reasons for why I don't believe in a god and "because the world is made of originality" isn't one of them.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: 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?


That's easy. When it comes to religion, they just don't care. The only reason they come into the thread is to debase and smear people every chance they get. You don't see those same people doing that to the ones that believe in aliens or UFOs. It's just religion. They HATE religion. They're bullies.

They can't stand anyone who has any belief what so ever. They will do their best to try to flame you within the rules and make you look like an ignorant hillbilly bible thumper so they can laugh and feel good about themselves around other people.

It's funny and ironic though. They're the same ones who are all "Don't push your beliefs on me", but at the same time, they're doing just that and being dicks about it in the process. They say religious people are vile and heartless when they are the ones that just come in to degrade you on another "idiotic post".

Don't even respond, bro. Take joy in the fact that you at least are open to possibilities, where they are not. Ironic once again. They use "Deny Ignorance" when the whole point of the phrase is to stop believing what people want you to believe and look into it yourself... Just as you have done here.

I appreciate your post. Whether I take it fully as true in belief or not, I enjoy the read. I don't limit myself by saying anything is not possible like these people do. I enjoy thinking outside the box, the box that people like this want you and I to stay in.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
This is the best existence a super-powerful intelligence can come up with? I'm sadly disappointed.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: 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?


That's easy. When it comes to religion, they just don't care. The only reason they come into the thread is to debase and smear people every chance they get. You don't see those same people doing that to the ones that believe in aliens or UFOs. It's just religion. They HATE religion. They're bullies.

They can't stand anyone who has any belief what so ever. They will do their best to try to flame you within the rules and make you look like an ignorant hillbilly bible thumper so they can laugh and feel good about themselves around other people.

It's funny and ironic though. They're the same ones who are all "Don't push your beliefs on me", but at the same time, they're doing just that and being dicks about it in the process. They say religious people are vile and heartless when they are the ones that just come in to degrade you on another "idiotic post".

Don't even respond, bro. Take joy in the fact that you at least are open to possibilities, where they are not. Ironic once again. They use "Deny Ignorance" when the whole point of the phrase is to stop believing what people want you to believe and look into it yourself... Just as you have done here.

I appreciate your post. Whether I take it fully as true in belief or not, I enjoy the read. I don't limit myself by saying anything is not possible like these people do. I enjoy thinking outside the box, the box that people like this want you and I to stay in.


Haha. You think Lamb's posts are about religion.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb

Electrons do not orbit in neat little elliptical the way planets do and scientists have long struggled with what is the best way to depict what an atom actually looks like.

Generally it is true that atoms appear circular. Here's an article about the first image of an atom's orbital structure.

From the article:


Trying to catch a glimpse of an atom’s exact position or the momentum of its lone electron has been like trying to catch a swarm of flies with one hand; direct observations have this nasty way of disrupting quantum coherence


So no, the atom is nothing like the neat and easy to predict gravitational interactions of planets.



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.


Okay let's say for a moment you're absolutely correct, there is a correlation between planetary orbits and the orbits of electrons in an atom. Let's even say that we establish that this is not due to coincidence. So what? In what way does this indicate an intelligent designer? All you will have established is that something unexplained is going on, making any argument for God based on this a fallacious argument from ignorance.

This is a very creative argument from ignorance but is one nonetheless.

What kind of a hopelessly cryptic God would it be that would bury the secret to its existence this deep? If God wants human beings to know it exists this is a very poor way of doing it. Of course you don't necessarily have to believe in a God that wants to be found... but you do seem to because you say:



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


In the Bible God creates a firmament to separate the "waters above from the waters below". The authors of the Bible believed that rain came from Heaven, they believed that God dwelt above the dome, the firmament. That's why in Genesis 7 it says God opened the windows of Heaven during the flood, the people of that time believed that's where rain came from. They did not understand what planets were at all and there are verses of scripture about the stars falling from the sky. What I am saying is that these ancient attempts to understand the natural world do not describe planets, atoms or any celestial or atomic phenomenon accurately.

Also, the Biblical God is typically not the sort of deity who wishes to remain hidden from his creation. I could see such a "signature" being left as a bit of a hint by a cryptic God or in a simulated Universe where the creators wish to hide themselves but not at all in a Universe made by the God of the Bible.
edit on 3-10-2015 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLambScientific Evidence of Intelligent Design in Creation

Who are you really trying to convince?
This sort of nonsense is what the Faithless need to feed their belief infection.
Scientific evidence of ID or 'creation'??
Meadow muffins!
There is none!
There is not one credible scientist who would support such poorly thought out nonsense, nor and philosopher!
'Faith' needs no such desperate attempts to validate one's 'beliefs'.
And science has nothing to prove!
Faith is unconditional, an unconditional Virtue of unconditional Love!
'Beliefs' are an infection of the imagination, constantly needing to be 'defended' and 'validated/fed' (what you are doing) and 'spread', among other symptoms!
That you 'need' to do this, the 'tenderizing' of logic that they are easily digestible for the infection, shouts of Faithlessness.
Your 'science' is garbled nonsense, belief ready!
You cannot fake Faith, or the unconditional Love of which Faith is an unconditional Virtue!

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS recognized by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

'Intelligent Design', 'creation', fairy dust, Jesus... all exist in the imagination/ego, vanity!
Otherwise, impossible!
At worst, a lie, at best, ignorance!
Despite the 'jargon'...

As a scientist/philosopher, I must say something when what little science really is, and can do, is twisted and tortured, pulled inside out, and touted as the 'answer' (nyaah, nyaah) for your Faithless beliefs!

You can fool some people in your attempt to spread your particular strain of 'beliefs'.
I guess, all things considered, any way that you can spread that belief infection is acceptable to the infected!
Religion used to be allowed to persecute and torture people into accepting the beliefs, but the law seems to be starting to crack down of that!
Pseudo-science is a reasonable alternative tactic for a particularly ignorant and arrogant targeted demographic!

Ultimately, the question is who are you really trying to convince?

Believe as you must, but the mind of our youth is already next to useless, and feeding them false 'science' is adding insult to ignorance!



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
OK. So I used an April date as suggested, and guess what? It still works. Actually it works better. Anyone care to explain? (BTW I'm not convinced the molecule is graphene. The report is ambiguous. But, as I said, it doesn't matter.)





I have to say I am quite unimpressed with the so-called "counter-arguments". All I've had is "you're ignorant", "you're a 12 year old", "It's in your imagination" and the like. Most constructive. Only one person has gone away and looked up what I've done.

I'll tell you now, I'm not a scientist. The only reason I adopted this approach is because so many insist that God's existence has to be proven by science. I'm quite happy with my faith, but felt that, as I can, I'd step up and make the effort to appease the screaming and bullying atheists by fighting fire with fire. Peace and love obviously don't work. My approach was textbook and how we were taught science at school. I took great efforts to lay it out so that the lazy ones could be spoon-fed and still they complained.

Stephen Hawking said that the laws of physics are sufficient and that we don't need God. Well, my test results on different molecules on different dates aren't satisfied by any law of physics that I know of so therefore either the laws of physics are insufficient or we do need God to explain certain things. Either way it is a blow for science which has failed to step up to the mark and explain what I've found.

Now, any constructive comments or do we continue with baseless, personal negativity?


edit on 4-10-2015 by TheLamb because: Added picture 2

edit on 4-10-2015 by TheLamb because: Extra paras added



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb

No, it does not work. You're seeing correlations where none exist. You want there to be a pattern, so you are imposing one on it.


edit on 4-10-2015 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: TheLamb

No, it does not work. You're seeing correlations where none exist. You want there to be a pattern, so you are imposing one on it.



OK. So I removed the background from the inner planets graphic and overlaid the planets onto the molecule. What a surprise: a pretty good match. If that's not a correlation I don't know what is. I studied econometrics at university and that's all regression analysis etc so I think I know what a correlation is. Now, why don't you go away and calculate the coefficient of correlation for us? Do something constructive with your Sunday afternoon.




posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLamb




Hit it harder with your intellectual hammer mind and it may one day fit.
Because no one else but you is seeing it.
Sad really your mind has been warped by religion to come up with all this.
We could use this thread as a warning what it does it folk and when religion attempts to force it's way into science.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: TheLamb

No, it does not work. You're seeing correlations where none exist. You want there to be a pattern, so you are imposing one on it.



OK. So I removed the background from the inner planets graphic and overlaid the planets onto the molecule. What a surprise: a pretty good match. If that's not a correlation I don't know what is. I studied econometrics at university and that's all regression analysis etc so I think I know what a correlation is. Now, why don't you go away and calculate the coefficient of correlation for us? Do something constructive with your Sunday afternoon.



And that's the point where you lose us all. "A pretty good match"? No, it's not. You are seeing things that just aren't there and doing so by bending reality. You are forcing your interpretation onto the image and even when you overlay it, it looks wrong and forced. You are, in other words, being driven by your inherent bias.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: TheLamb

No, it does not work. You're seeing correlations where none exist. You want there to be a pattern, so you are imposing one on it.



OK. So I removed the background from the inner planets graphic and overlaid the planets onto the molecule. What a surprise: a pretty good match. If that's not a correlation I don't know what is. I studied econometrics at university and that's all regression analysis etc so I think I know what a correlation is. Now, why don't you go away and calculate the coefficient of correlation for us? Do something constructive with your Sunday afternoon.



And that's the point where you lose us all. "A pretty good match"? No, it's not. You are seeing things that just aren't there and doing so by bending reality. You are forcing your interpretation onto the image and even when you overlay it, it looks wrong and forced. You are, in other words, being driven by your inherent bias.


MY inherent bias? So you credit me with bending reality? I didn't think that was humanly possible. Thanks for the endorsement. No R-squared to offer as proof of your subjective statements? Come on. It should be easy to get it to zero. Anything above zero supports my conclusions.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Read this OP.

www.uwgb.edu...

Nothing like a solar system.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TheLamb

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: TheLamb

No, it does not work. You're seeing correlations where none exist. You want there to be a pattern, so you are imposing one on it.



OK. So I removed the background from the inner planets graphic and overlaid the planets onto the molecule. What a surprise: a pretty good match. If that's not a correlation I don't know what is. I studied econometrics at university and that's all regression analysis etc so I think I know what a correlation is. Now, why don't you go away and calculate the coefficient of correlation for us? Do something constructive with your Sunday afternoon.



And that's the point where you lose us all. "A pretty good match"? No, it's not. You are seeing things that just aren't there and doing so by bending reality. You are forcing your interpretation onto the image and even when you overlay it, it looks wrong and forced. You are, in other words, being driven by your inherent bias.


MY inherent bias? So you credit me with bending reality? I didn't think that was humanly possible. Thanks for the endorsement. No R-squared to offer as proof of your subjective statements? Come on. It should be easy to get it to zero. Anything above zero supports my conclusions.


You are seeing things that no-one else can see. So yes, you are bring driven by your inherent bias. You want to see something there that actually doesn't exist.







 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join