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.

 

Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

page: 13
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

That's right. Mathematics is a creation of the human mind (as Einstein said).
Mathematics are not reality. The universe is not composed of mathematics. The universe does not "contain" mathematics.
edit on 5/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


ok thanks for explaining that to me.

I like the example below and maybe you can pick it apart and explain it differently.


The relationship between mathematics and music (vibrations / sound waves) is also well known, and in hindsight it is obvious that mathematics, maths physics, music (sound waves) and musical instruments exist because matter is a wave structure of Space. This is why all matter vibrates and has a resonant frequency.



"When we attribute this strange attractive property to massive particles, aren't we indulging in metaphysics? For we are saying, indeed, that matter has a inner, active principle: matter attracts matter. At the time, physicists (who called themselves "natural philosophers") accused Newton of doing exactly that, indulging in metaphysics, and the followers of Descartes (mostly in France) couldn't stomach the law of gravitation. What can we say in Newton's defense? Well, surely he was indulging in metaphysics, but with a difference: he wasn't just saying, like others had been doing for centuries, that things have an inner, active principle and leaving it at that; he gave a mathematical law for that inner, active principle. That made a lot of difference. He abstained from answering the metaphysical question, "What is this attractive force?" Rather, he just gave a mathematical formula for it. Still, the main reason for the acceptance of Newton's gravitation was its tremendous success. As the saying goes, nothing succeeds like success." (Prof. Ricardo Nirenberg, 1997)


www.spaceandmotion.com...

Did you say you subscribe more to the chaos theory rather than the universe being based on an order of structure(mathematics to some people)?
edit on 31-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Light or sound wave? In regard to matter.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I like the example below and maybe you can pick it apart and explain it differently.

I don't see anything there that says mathematics is reality. I see that the author agrees that mathematics can represent reality though.




Did you say you subscribe more to the chaos theory rather than the universe being based on an order of structure(mathematics to some people)?

Not that I recall. There is order as well as chaos in the universe. You know that chaos theory is a branch of math though, right?
edit on 5/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I apologize if this has been said already....but the video says that the size & distance ratios do not occur anywhere else in the universe. How did they reach this conclusion? I would love to see their research on the entire universe, as would the entire scientific community.

All sarcasm aside, I subscribe to the belief that life evolves to suit its environment. I also believe that there is other life in the universe, and if any of that life is intelligent, I bet that they have observed a lot of coincidences/anomalies. Perhaps this even proves the existence of a creator to some of them, or perhaps they realize that their existence was shaped by their environment.

If this is proof of a creator for you that is great. IMO it doesn't really prove anything. I'll admit I am agnostic, but every day I wish that there were a creator, or I could see REAL proof. I mean that sincerely. Heck, I even pray sometimes hoping that I will have some sort of epiphany. Here I am today at 30 years old, still not even close to beimg convinced in an omnipotent being. Perhaps there is a creator, but unfortunately I am just not capable of having that little thing called faith. I wish I could do it...honestly. I could try to have faith, but if it is not authentic then what is the point?



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Light or sound wave? In regard to matter.


Are you trying to tell me light and sound is not material?
I dunno, I'm not a physicist but this looked pretty interesting to me:


Einstein's theory was solidified in the 1920s by the experiments of American physicist Arthur H. Compton, who demonstrated that photons had momentum, a necessary requisite to support the theory that matter and energy are interchangeable. About the same time, French scientist Louis-Victor de Broglie proposed that all matter and radiation have properties that resemble both a particle and a wave. De Broglie, following Max Planck's lead, extrapolated Einstein's famous formula relating mass and energy to include Planck's constant


micro.magnet.fsu.edu...

Gotta run for now. See you later alligator.
edit on 31-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I don't see that this proves an 'itelligent designer' at all.

It only proves that early humans worked out the geometry of what they saw and experienced. And we are still doing it today with ever more accurate postulates and thereoms.

Sacred Geomentry, in itself, proves nothing. And certainly not that 'some god' sat down with a compass and straight edge and created the universe.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

um...incoherent new-age gibberish, what?! What are you talking about. Those references are from posts I've made here at ATS, and what's been presented is entirely coherent.

That said I'll be happy as this thread progresses to highlight and illustrate what's been presented for those who can't grasp it or who can't read..


Coherent: from: www.thefreedictionary.com...




co·her·ent (k-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.
1. Sticking together; cohering.
2. Marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts: a coherent essay.
3. Physics Of, relating to, or having waves with similar direction, amplitude, and phase that are capable of exhibiting interference.
4. Of or relating to a system of units of measurement in which a small number of basic units are defined from which all others in the system are derived by multiplication or division only.
5. Botany Sticking to but not fused with a part or an organ of the same kind.


"...those who can't grasp it or....."

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or illerate? Doesn't help discussion along now does it?



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by danneu89
 

"Coincidence" is a false assumption, or certainly a rather far reaching one.

Deny ignorance!

Catch ya'll later for the debate, of coincidence vs. intelligent design. Please review the info though very carefully.. thanks.

Best regards,

NAM


Deny ignorance but never correct it or admit to one's own.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan


"It was the stone that was rejected by the builders that became the cornerstone."

So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: “Behold, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.
~ Isaiah 28:16



Quoting the bible as fact will leave you only with readers that agree that the bible is a statement of fact and in that case 'proving' anything by geometry is irrelevant.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
As one familiar with Erwin Laszlo's work I believe you are seriously misinterpting what he is actually saying. He is speaking about spirituality and connection with a universal field of intelligence. He relates the 'experience' of this 'connection with this field' to what religion has been 'pointing' to. He doesn't say that it in anyway proves there is a 'being' out there directing the cosmos.

His use of the phrase "Mind of God" is descriptive not literal. It is this 'field of everything' that he speaks of not god or gods.

A few quote from a popular article he wrote on just this subject:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

His conclusion:




So the creationist/evolutionist controversy really is pointless. Design is a necessary assumption, because chance doesn't explain the facts. But evolution is likewise a necessary assumption, for given the way this universe works, the evolution of complexity is a logical and by now well-documented consequence. Therefore the rational conclusion is not design or evolution. It's design for evolution.



Another paragraph:




If a Designer is responsible for the way the living world works, He/She would have to be at best indifferent to what comes about in that world, or at worst a sadist who enjoys blood sports. It's more reasonable, according to Dawkins, to hold that the world just is, without reason and purpose. The way it is results from random processes played out within limits set by fundamental physical laws. The idea of design is superfluous. Classical Darwinists echo French mathematician Pierre Laplace, who is reputed to have said to Napoleon that God is a hypothesis for which there is no longer any need.




And one as a peace offering:




The wave of evolution could only have unfolded in a universe where the fundamental laws and constants are finely tuned to permit the emergence of complexity. Ours is such a universe. Physicists know that even a minute difference in these laws and constants would have foreclosed the possibility of life forever.


I think you are reading into things what you want them to say rather then what they actually say. You need to open your mind to new possiblities - the first, and most important, of which is that you could be wrong.

Considering the possiblity of being wrong is the beginning of real learning.
edit on 31-5-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by randyvs
 


All Phage pointed to was the apparent slight deviation from absolute perfection in the orbit of the earth and moon, as illustrated by the phenomenon of partial eclipse or annular eclipse while saying that such a coincidence (of the visible diameter of the moon perfectly matching that of the sun at this epoch in earth evolution) isn't unusual at all, because it happened, and is happening everywhere in some form or another (although certainly not always as a perfect eclipse) and that I am beginning with a presupposition about mankind being the "crown of creation" and setting out to prove that based on the so-called "specialness" of the earth-moon-sun configuration, as if to say look here, because I'm here, I'm special and this was all made just for me.

But that's not the case. And I intend to address these issues and show clearly, that another viewpoint is possible, without at the same time offending in any way anyone's anti-religious sensibilities, and then maybe you'll laugh right along with me at the utter absurdity of the coincidence/fluke hypothesis and come to realize something you've never considered before for the life of you.



by the above reasoning - God made a mistake!



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by NewAgeMan


"It was the stone that was rejected by the builders that became the cornerstone."

So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: “Behold, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.
~ Isaiah 28:16



Quoting the bible as fact will leave you only with readers that agree that the bible is a statement of fact and in that case 'proving' anything by geometry is irrelevant.


That was obviously just playful speculation, when trying to wrestle with the idea of moon formation, and how the moon came to be where it was in ancient earth history, and where it is now, and given it's behavior in relation to the earth and sun and what it's made possible.

That was an "aside" nothing more, and so here you clip it out and use it against me.. to try to reinforce a certain bias, but why, why can't we just look at and discuss these things and be open to considering all possibility.

Personally I've come to the conclusion that the moon is a strange object, what some scientists have called the strangest object in the known universe.

So I'm toying around with the idea that the mantle material which forms the moon and the earth's mantle, was literally sucked right out of the early earth to form the moon, and that would be unusual, to say the least, especially given the moon's current composition and tiny core. Neither the single whack (or double-whack) theory by an unknown Mars-sized, rogue planetoid (and by rogue I'm not referring to anything to do with Sarah Palin) really holds up as a proven theory for moon formation, and even those who've tried to model it admit that there's a serious problem when present earth rotation speed is taken factored into the equation, along with the earth's present tilt and and axis, so they introduced the "double-whack" theory to bang it this way then that, but the rotation speed is still a problem. Heck of a fluke too when we consider the nature of the moon within the context of the live giving "fertility program" it's been running ever since, along with the "coincidence" of perfect solar eclipse at this moment in earth evolution (when we're here to see it, although many are prepared to dismiss that also as a mere chance coincidence and nothing more).

So I've considered the possibility of a type of unusual astrological object, yes even an astroengineered object, as a "life-seed" which can be strategically introduced into the accretion disk during solar system formation and by extension, galactic formation - in order to assist and facilitate the "life program" for candidate host planets, but such a thing, as a type of "cornerstone" you see, during solar system formation would need to be a "tried and tested stone", so I was just playfully speculating that if the saying "It was the stone that was REJECTED by "the builders" that became the cornerstone" well then that would be pretty funny. This is pure psy-fi and speculation, for fun, but imagine "seed pods" of these "moon seeds" sent and fired at the precise locations necessary for the creation of life, life formation and DNA evolution (and more on that shortly).

It was just a consideration, and something that I thought might be worthy of sharing, as a consideration only, there was no preaching in my intentionality anyway none whatsoever.

Aside Cont'd: In which case it's origin arose from a leftover world rejected by "the builders" maybe used at some point for some other terraforming, life giving planetary "project-program", but in this case, although once rejected or left behind, picked up and made use of, as the very cornerstone of a new creation, and the perfect host world (which Earth is), as a model of creation, although I'm hoping something, because it's been done here CAN be replicated elsewhere, not by "fluke" or mere chance (with worlds colliding time and time again) but by the same design process I see and recognize as having occurred here where LIFE did not just happen by chance, but was the intended outcome, maybe even more than once (why waste a perfectly good moon-seed if it was rejected or left behind by astroengineers of the ancient ancient past). And if not them, God, either or, but an intelligence, what I call the Creative Agency (leaving it open as to what precisely that might be.

Best regards,

NAM


edit on 31-5-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd
by the above reasoning - God made a mistake!

Or, maybe a slight flaw properly placed IS true perfection (instead of a perfect circle).



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Mathematics is the language of relationships. That's the working definition that I use and it has served me very well for many years - made it easier to understand my maths too.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

So...to sum up.

Perfection is evidence of intelligent design.
Imperfection is evidence of intelligent design.
Uniqueness is evidence of intelligent design
Non-uniqueness is evidence of intelligent design.

Can't fight that kind of "reasoning".

edit on 5/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Considering that tornadoes have existed since the dawn of time? I doubt man has much to do with it. Nor does God. I'm not saying you're wrong about Intelligent Design, I'm just saying that you're probably not right.

Nobody knows for sure, not yet anyway. We're only just starting to understand how the universe works, and that's just the tiny portion of it that we can see.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Jim Mars Practically said the same thing !! Read Alien Agenda

Intelligent Design. could be when you think about calculations and the Eclipse & Solstice

let alone the moon keeps the nature balance of earth



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

No I'm saying that I see the effect from the cause, and that the framework, pointing and orienting itself to LIFE, demonstrates a proclivity towards life as it's final realization, and therefore by anticipation, so then you look at the framework and the model and what do we see but something quite extraordiny, with this sun-mimicking giant moon and a planet just TEEMING with life in abundance - is that a meaningless and purposeless "accident"? Did LIFE just happen by chance, by fluke and by serendipitous coincidence?

Why then are we at the same time expected to assume that it's ubiquitous not just in the universe but within our own galaxy, and I'm not talking about a bit of bacteria, but a planet TEEMING with life as on earth, something that is obviously significant in the sense and to the degree that the process of life and cosmic evolution has actually taken place. It's not to be dismissed on the basis of the strong anthropic principal (as an ad hominem no less) as being a meaningless and insignificant chance occurrence, while at the same time, presumably to remove any possibility of such a thing being anything of any significance or in any way "special" or extraordinary, expecting the very same thing to be taking place as it is here, in many many many many many many other places. That's an assumption and one that I used to make - just count up the number of stars or get an estimate I should say, look at the total number of planets, then the number in the goldilocks zone, take a small number of those divide by two a couple of times and there you go, and while life in some form probably teems in the universe in so many ways we cannot begin to fathom, whole worlds teeming with life to the degree that earth does, are not a dime a dozen and it certainly doesn't appear that way, especially if we are to accept the fluke/chance/coincidence theory for the emergence of life on earth. Neither can you have it both ways you see.

Best regards, (honest)

NAM


edit on 31-5-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
In addition to the "planet-fertility program" the moon has been running in relation to earth since it's earliest days, back then a moon appearing (if there was anyone to see it) over 12 times larger than it does now,

right up to the present day when it CAN be seen and observed only now having receded sufficiently to perfectly reflect and eclipse the sun (by "coincidence" nothing to see here move along..) - there is one other major factor in the evolutionary process of the emergence and rapid development and advancement of life on earth, including and especially DNA, and that is the effect of an intense beam of cosmic rays from Cygnus X3 which periodically intersect the earth, and in so doing have dramatically accelerated the whole process of earth-evolution.

What is Cygnus X3?



Cygnus X-3 is one of the stronger binary X-ray sources in the sky. Classified as a microquasar, it is believed to be a compact object in a binary system which is pulling in a stream of gas from an ordinary star companion. It is observed in X rays, gamma rays, infrared, and radio, with an orbital periodicity of approximately 4.8 h, among the shortest known at the time of its discovery.

Although it is only the third brightest X-ray source in the constellation Cygnus, after the more famous Cygnus X-1, it is located about 37,000 light-years away. It is heavily obscured by intervening interstellar gas and dust near the galactic plane, and fainter than 23rd magnitude in the optical, but is easily observable in the J, H, & K near-infrared bands.

Taking its distance and extinction into account, it appears to be one of the two or three most intrinsically luminous objects in the Galaxy.

It has also received attention because it is one of the few sources of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, with energies in the 100 - 1000 TeV range. Its most unusual aspect is the production of anomalous cosmic ray events in a proton decay detector deep in Minnesota's Soudan iron mine. These events have defied analysis and have led to questions about whether Cygnus X-3 is a standard neutron star or perhaps something more exotic, like a star made of quarks.

Cygnus X-3 has distinguished itself by its intense X-ray emissions and by ultra-high energy cosmic rays. It also made astronomical headlines by a radio frequency outburst in September 1972 which increased its radio frequency emissions a thousandfold. Since then it has had periodic radio outbursts with a regular period of 367 days. These flares are of unknown origin, but they are exceedingly violent events. Naval Research Laboratory observations in October 1982 using the Very Large Array detected the shock wave from a flare; it was expanding at roughly one-third the speed of light.

Cygnus X-3 has an orbital period about its companion of only 4.79 hours. Intriguing underground events in the SOUDAN experiment in October 1985 included 60 anomalous muon events in a 3° cone around Cygnus X-3 with a precise period of 4.79 hours. If the association with Cygnus X-3 is confirmed, these events must either be due to neutrinos or some other very low-rest-mass, high-energy neutral particle of unknown nature, yet capable of producing muons via secondary interactions.

Infrequent gamma ray flares from Cygnus X-3 with energies around 100 MeV were detected in 2009 by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope and by the AGILE satellite. The intensity of these gamma ray outbursts varies at the same 4.8-hour orbital rate as the X-ray emissions, and they occur a few days before the onset of extremely energetic radio jets.

en.wikipedia.org...


To really get a handle on this aspect of earth-life and DNA evolution, check out "The Cygnus Mystery" in the following two videos.


Science News - Solving the Mysteries of Enigmatic Binary Star System Cygnus X-3.

edit on 31-5-2013 by NewAgeMan because: had to add ancient moon pic.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


there is one other major factor in the evolutionary process of the emergence and rapid development and advancement of life on earth, including and especially DNA,
Billions of years is rapid?

What do you mean "especially DNA". You know that radiation causes random damage to DNA which can result in inheritable mutation if it affects reproductive cells, right? Is random mutation now part of your evidence of intelligent design? That designer is big on rolling the dice, huh?

Yup, we get cosmic rays from Cygnus X-3. As the article says, it's one of several sources for very high energy cosmic rays.

Do you think Earth is the only place that receives energetic cosmic rays? Is Earth special?


edit on 5/31/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join