Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design in Creation

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Wait a mo I just had a very very close look at a molecule that just landed on my desk and it looks like it is a monkey swinging a load of bananas around so it must be so.
I want those bananas.

a reply to: TheLamb

I'll tell you now, I'm not a scientist.

That's blatantly obvious.

God's existence needs to be proven by those that claim god exists. How that escapes you is mind-numbing.

It's on no one else.

Guess what? Science can't prove it. You know why? Because this idea falls outside the realm of the natural universe, and that's what science addresses. You can't prove using science that your god exists. You have no evidence for this because you can't have evidence for this. No more than I have evidence that when I die I transcend to a place where I live eternally with 72 virgins.

Metaphysical concepts are just that. Beyond the physical universe by definition. So stop invoking science pretending it somehow supports your bull#%$&.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Never understood why that could be considered paradise...

I work with mostly women... and when a few of them get together... Geez

I'd jump off the nearest cloud if I had to deal with 72 for eternity

a reply to: TheLamb

The bible, the Koran and many other religious scriptures all share one thing in common - they are all texts based on beings not from earth interacting with humans.

When the scientific community can come to a consensus and explain how we went from an explosion creating everything to opposable thumbed self-aware humans that can split an atom, I will sit up and take notice, until then, the scientific community is the same as religious institutions - full of argumentative deluded fools full of their own self importance that are most certainly not interested in truth because they are only interested in money.

Tesla died a poor man and was labeled a fool by his associates and the global elite bloodlines that rule over men to this day. He also had lots of patents.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

While you're waiting for science to grab your attention please do continue to express your anti-scientific sentiments on a device that encapsulates the pinnacle of scientific achievement. Please do. It's not ironic at all...

If I am to understand your post in a nutshell it's this:

There are unanswered questions, therefore I don't like or trust science or the scientific community, and also the best explanation is 'goddidit'.

Wonderful.

Also, if all religious scriptures have divine origin as you just suggested, then that god is very unsure of himself! Various creation stories is quite the thing to reconcile!

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Also, if all religious scriptures have divine origin as you just suggested

WTF??? No - you suggest that beings interacting with humans is divine - not me, I merely stated the FACT that existing religious texts mention non-earth beings interacting with humans. I kicked religion to the kerb long ago so that's 2 wrongs to put into your presumptuous pipe to smoke.

If I am to understand your post in a nutshell it's this:

So no, you did not understand my post in a nutshell - at all, in fact, you could not be further from the reality of my thinking, but go ahead, continue on your argumentative institutionalized tirade whilst I take notes on my wrongness according to you.

Wonderful

"Amazing" would be a better term to use given the pretext of your lateral thinking process.

a reply to: TheLamb

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.

"Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear war."

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.

Then show your math, if you're so convinced the R^2 value is so close to 1. You're the one making the claim, therefore the burden is on you to show your work.

I'm just glad to see that "thelamb" learn his lesson last time, and didn't use the word PROOF in this thread. But seriously, how can you be in possession of a higher education and still think what your doing is relevant science? So you've got a pictures, both of which contain round objects, so you draw lines from one to the other, some line up great, some not so well, and most not at all, and your argument is- "well close enough."

Well good sir, not close enough, if I gather billiard balls into a tight group on a table I could make the same correlations with ANY solar system diagram, because all I'd have to do is spin and resize the billiard pic until the lines produced the effect I want. This is exactly what you've done here, we could replace your molecule pic with literally any other picture of round things in a group and you would over lay them, or draw lines from one to the other and naïvely shout "derrr it must be god"

"The lord is not my Shepard, for I am not a sheep"

originally posted by: MrsNonSpecific
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.

Lets not confuse it with something from nothing and boom either.

Here's evidence of intelligent design embodied in the Tantric Sri Yantra, representing Divine Creation:

smphillips.8m.com...
1. Constructed from Pythagorean tetractyses, each a triangular array of 10 points (yods), the sectors of the 42 triangles of the Sri Yantra have 672 yods. Compare this with the 6720 edges of the so-called "421 polytope," a semiregular, 8-dimensional polytope whose 240 vertices represent the 240 root vectors of the exceptional Lie group E8 appearing in E8xE8 heterotic superstring theory;
2. the Sri Yantra is composed of 240 points, lines & triangles surrounding its centre. Compare this with the 240 roots of E8 represented by the 240 vertices of the 421 polytope;
3. The 3-dimensional version of the Sri Yantra consists of 43 triangles containing 687 yods that surround its axis. Compare this with the 687 yods making up what has been identified as the "inner form" of the Tree of Life (Otz Chiim), the geometrical representation at the heart of Kabbalah of Adam Kadmon (Heavenly Man).

To understand this, you will need to study the background research at the website linked to above. It will take time but will prove rewarding eventually.

Here is evidence linking the famous, mathematical object known as the Gosset polytope, which represents the Lie group E8 at the heart of one of the five types of superstrings, with the sacred geometries of two different religions - Tantric Hinduism and Jewish Kabbalah. Coincidence? No. Too many correlations to be remotely plausible. Therefore, they (and others discussed in detail at the website) constitute rigorous, mathematical evidence of design of the basic physical forces of nature by the transcendental Intelligence religions call "God", as expressed in superficially different but actually isomorphic ways by the sacred geometries of the mystical traditions of two world religions.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Well pardon me if I took you saying it was about interacting with otherworldly beings to mean divine beings. Considering the context of this thread that's an expected interpretation. Perhaps you should have specified you meant aliens.

So no, you did not understand my post in a nutshell - at all, in fact, you could not be further from the reality of my thinking

Then paraphrase and elaborate because I don't see your point...

other than a ridiculous tirade against the scientific community.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Agree. I think the topic is huge. I don't know enough of the physics behind it.

But I do appreciate the 'wow' factor of the universe.

It does blag my mind.

originally posted by: TheLamb
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

That isn't even close to science. Why do you argue so adamantly that your faith is fact? You don't even know what science is.

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.

Your hypothesis is untestable. We have never found any signature. You have no idea that there would be a pattern. This is pure guesswork, completely void of science. Patterns don't prove god. You guess that they do.

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.

Very close to 1? You obviously have never worked with science in your life. Correlation does not imply causation, and why wouldn't it be EXACTLY 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.

Epic fail. So because something has a similar appearance or structure to something else it automatically means god did it? Sorry bud. Science deals with direct evidence, not guess work. You need a tangible physical piece of evidence that shows god directly if you wish to claim this, not a few things that kind of resemble something if you look at em right. Please explain why we wouldn't expect to find patterns in a natural universe. Your argument doesn't hold weight.

It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is already closed to exciting new opportunities. Explain why the outer atoms align with the inner and outer planets rather than just come up with negatives.

Explain how the similarity proves god. The answer is simple. Coincidence. You really have to do better than, "this kinda looks like that, therefor god!!"

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.

LMAO! You clearly said in the title "scientific evidence", and now you refuse to use the tools of science to back up your claims. Too funny. People really think they've figured it out and discovered "the big one" that's going to prove god. What a huge ego....

originally posted by: StallionDuck
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.

You can't blame us because the guy doesn't have a clue about science. The thread title clearly says "scientific evidence of intelligent design", yet he has presented no science at all. I love when religious folk play the victim card. Religion controlled and dominated the majority of the world for the past 4000 years executing anybody who didn't believe in it, and you call people that debunk claims on the internet, bullies??? That's rich.

They can't stand anyone who has any belief what so ever.

This isn't true. Nobody is going against faith. They are doubting that there is scientific evidence of it. The OP isn't just saying, "My belief is XYZ". He's saying, "Here is scientific proof of XYZ," while providing none. That's why folks jumped on it.

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.

This is just sad. People love debating these things, but if you don't bring knowledge and understanding of the topic to a debate, it will not go anywhere. A lot of people posting here understand the science and most are actually open minded to the idea of a creator, they just won't blindly believe without the evidence. It's funny how you are so quick to accuse people of being closed minded, yet you both probably deny evolution and geology. If you think what the OP posted was science, you really didn't read the thread.

a reply to: StallionDuck

No offense meant, SD, but if you spend any reasonable amount of time in the O&C forums here at ATS, you'll see quite clearly that anyone trying to present something as fact with no evidence supporting it -- be it theists, AA theorists, Frank the Giant Purple Unicornists (trust me...) -- are going to get questioned hard here. Harder than other parts of the ATS forums, in my opinion. If you, as someone claiming to be a "BS Detector", wants to call asking hard questions of someone else's claims "bullying", then I respectfully request you re-evaluate your claim to be one.

Lengthy video, but best explaination that there is nothing scientific, never will be in ID.



Scientifically speaking, we actually have evidence for SD - stupid design. (look @ my signature )

a reply to: StallionDuck

This is completely untrue. There are plenty of skeptics who go into threads on aliens or ghosts and debunk that stuff. As for this thread, nothing scientific was presented in it and the OP is claiming that there was. It's just a lie. This thread is just a product of the OP's pareidolia and apophenia working in overtime.

originally posted by: TheLamb
The molecule image is dated 18 Sept 2012. That's when the microscope imaged it.

Actually, probably not.

The image info (of the side-by-side images) indicates it was created by an Adobe product, with the timestamp: 2012/02/06-14:56:27 - Or 2:56PM on February 6th, 2012.

Sublimecraft, I do hope for reply.

a paraphrasing, or elaboration...