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.

 

Orbits in our solar system proof of divine scientific interference?

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Pile proof on top of proof, and the deniers will still say, "No."

Post irrefutable proof, and the deniers will still say, "No."

Deniers gonna deny.

OP, have you read A Little Book of Coincidence in the Solar System by John Martineau?




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I'll leave it to a mathematician to calculate the odds in favor of intelligent design...

He could be faithless...
but he would be unable to deny the odds...

I think people's beliefs or lack thereof leave them predisposed to conclusions without rationalization...

How is it evidence against intelligent design?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

I'll leave it to a mathematician to calculate the odds in favor of intelligent design...

He could be faithless...
but he would be unable to deny the odds...

I think people's beliefs or lack thereof leave them predisposed to conclusions without rationalization...

How is it evidence against intelligent design?
How are a series of balls going around a bigger ball evidence of intelligence?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
Pile proof on top of proof, and the deniers will still say, "No."

Post irrefutable proof, and the deniers will still say, "No."


I don't know who you're referring to in this response, but if you're backing the OP, feel free to elaborate where he proved anything.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
How is it evidence against intelligent design?


No one said it's evidence against intelligent design. All that is being argued is that the logic used in the OP is inherently flawed, nor does it or can it even suggest intelligent design is even a remote probability.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

I'm wondering if you have read the OP?

And left to wonder how this question shows you have any intelligence...

The geometry and the mathematical sequence of prime numbers which are displayed through the path of the balls around the bigger ball are a calculated complex system beautifully orchestrated as they pass thru space and time...
edit on 25-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: word



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
Pile proof on top of proof, and the deniers will still say, "No."

Post irrefutable proof, and the deniers will still say, "No."


I don't know who you're referring to in this response, but if you're backing the OP, feel free to elaborate where he proved anything.


I have noticed over a long time that no one here is ever convinced by a posting. Therefore, my answer is "No."



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lazarus Short

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
Pile proof on top of proof, and the deniers will still say, "No."

Post irrefutable proof, and the deniers will still say, "No."


I don't know who you're referring to in this response, but if you're backing the OP, feel free to elaborate where he proved anything.


I have noticed over a long time that no one here is ever convinced by a posting. Therefore, my answer is "No."


Thank you for contributing to the conversation



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lazarus Short

OP, have you read A Little Book of Coincidence in the Solar System by John Martineau?


This one here?

www.amazon.com...

Looks promising, I'll check it out. Thanks, and yes, haters gonna hate



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Heh
Is that a fact?
where did these complex systems gain the intelligence or abitty to self organize? It matters not the process...
it is the fact that what is rendered through the process...
Which is a clear pattern and order...



Why does pattern and order require intelligence?


There was a notion in Prometheus the movie: «Nature doesn't build in straight lines.» This is sort of the same thing. Give me examples of similar primes series as how the planets produce the four first primes listed in sequence, 3, 5, 7, 11, following the exact same pattern. When does nature place primes in order elsewhere in nature? I'd say this is evidence of intelligence. Not proof, but evidence.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

Heh
Is that a fact?
where did these complex systems gain the intelligence or abitty to self organize? It matters not the process...
it is the fact that what is rendered through the process...
Which is a clear pattern and order...



Why does pattern and order require intelligence?


The way your eyes look, it rather looks like you could need some collourion, then maybe you will see the obvious easier. Alternately rub a fish on your eyes, works sometimes.
edit on 26-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

I still fain to see the relevancy. Inner or outer planets, it doesn't matter. We are on Earth now. The inner planets relative to us are Mercury and Venus. Mars and the others are orbiting further out. It doesn't affect any of the numbers at all.


So show us your numbers that show all of the planets using both of your equations and the %. No using any other equation. Just the 2 you've already used. And use both on each planet so we can all see the discrepancies.


Arbitrary BS. Are you saying Pi and Phi are found using the same equation? Is it normal in mathematics to use the same equation for defining different constants? That said, not long after I came to these boards I actually found a way to express Phi using Pi (which is actually relevant for the orbit of Venus), maybe I'll use that equation when I'm gonna build me own solar system, and maybe I'll make the world flat so people like you can argue that worlds can't be globes since your own isn't:
==> 2 sin(π/10) = φ = 1.618033989...
edit on 26-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Lazarus Short

OP, have you read A Little Book of Coincidence in the Solar System by John Martineau?


This one here?

www.amazon.com...

Looks promising, I'll check it out. Thanks, and yes, haters gonna hate


Yup, that's the one.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Orbits in our solar system proof of divine scientific interference?


Orbits, no. But a universe so consistent in its physical laws that they can be predicted makes one wonder...



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I know what you mean. I like the puddle fallacy better though. Pondering the amazingly complex geology, chemistry and physics involved in such a thing, not to mention the extraordinary interplay of forces resulting in the weather patterns necessary for such a creation simply isn't satisfying. It is over ridingly obvious that it cannot be a fluke, therefore someone made both the highly complex irregularity, the intricately complex water and combined all of the forces necessary specifically for the purpose of creating such a wonder. When you look at such a thing, it makes you wonder if a race of magical Leprechauns are not doing it.

Or not.

The Ray Comfort banana fallacy used to be a good'n as well, until someone mentioned something about selective breeding.

Your title contains quite an oxymoron.



edit on 26-2-2016 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Haha, magic banana bending leprechauns. Sounds legit. The oxymoron? As in «divine scientific»? If the people the ancients called God or gods or anunaki or flying serpents and what not, if the stories have a shred of truth in them, I guess these divine beings are scientists and they seem to have occupied som quite advanced and amazing technology making virtually anything possible, and it seems the weirder the more likely.

ETA:
edit on 26-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: eta



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapishtim

Great stuff Utnapishtim.

I don't really believe it, but you seem to have put some thought into it and either way, I appreciate your good natured response. I guess none of us really understand why this universe exists at all, but in the meantime a sense humour can be a great thing.



edit on 26-2-2016 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

I'm wondering if you have read the OP?

And left to wonder how this question shows you have any intelligence...

The geometry and the mathematical sequence of prime numbers which are displayed through the path of the balls around the bigger ball are a calculated complex system beautifully orchestrated as they pass thru space and time...


I did read the OP, however, my mind completely shut down on me when I re-read the thread title where the word "Divine" was there, then I stopped all critical and logical thinking parts of my brain.

Science do not deal with mysticism, divinity, God, religion, and any of your I.D. (Creationist) believes.

So while you try to argue science, OP's thread title has a word called "Divine" in there. So all science is out the window before this thread even started.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
There was a notion in Prometheus the movie: «Nature doesn't build in straight lines.»


They obviously didn't know about pyrite




As much as I enjoyed Prometheus (and know the line you've quoted), as well as the rest of the Alien franchise, Ridley Scott is in no way an accurate source of information when referencing science


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Give me examples of similar primes series as how the planets produce the four first primes listed in sequence, 3, 5, 7, 11, following the exact same pattern.


Your argument is that those numbers aren't natural, so it's actually up to you to prove that they aren't natural, random or anything else.

Right now you're just assuming that because they because they relate to a system devised by man (although arguable math is a universal language), that it must have been done intelligently and purposefully.

Where your assumptions fail, however, is that they only match up in 4 planets.

Just 4.

4 is hardly enough to declare this is evidence of an intelligent designer because it shows no pattern at all. If you want to really show that it might be evidence, why not apply the same concept to all the other planets, or their respective satellites, or any other planets in any other solar system?

Then you might -and only might- have something that could be reasonably stated to be evidence for something.

However, it is only evidence until it is actually shown to relate to another phenomenon of no relation. AshOnMyTomatoes seems very knowledgeable about these concepts, perhaps he can explain why it has nothing to do with anything other than nature.


originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
When does nature place primes in order elsewhere in nature? I'd say this is evidence of intelligence. Not proof, but evidence.


No. it's not.

It's evidence that you've found a very, very small set of numbers which appear to match a concept withing math. It is up to you to explain why it ISN'T simply coincidental.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: truthseeker84

Ah I see so you are not against it being intelligently designed...
you are against the designer being divine...
If God is the creator of the Universe then science is merely the study of his laws used in doing so...



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: truthseeker84

Ah I see so you are not against it being intelligently designed...
you are against the designer being divine...
If God is the creator of the Universe then science is merely the study of his laws used in doing so...


I think what they were getting at is that the term "divine science" is paradoxical and in it's self based on an unprovable premise.




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join