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: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
We've obviously proven that matter behaves in certain ways but still nobody that believes in conscious, "intelligent design," can present the creator itself. Until that happens, I will continue to only sell ideas that I can prove.




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by centhwevir1979
We've obviously proven that matter behaves in certain ways but still nobody that believes in conscious, "intelligent design," can present the creator itself. Until that happens, I will continue to only sell ideas that I can prove.


Such as?



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Using numerolgical logic, its still astounding. 3 + 9 = 12 + 5 = 17. 1 + 7 = 8.

8 is a very strong number in numerology. Its ruler is the Sun.


Resolves dualities, expansion, dissolution, dimension of the timeless, good and bad, right and wrong, day and night, ability to see and relate to eternal dimensions, balance between forces, connects spirit and matter, developing confidence to follow a vision, breaks down barriers to transformation, reality, courage.


Yeah, its questionable, but what isnt? Alternatively, 8 turned sideways is infinity which is the apparent size of the universe.

But sound can do all sorts of things. It creates light in a water bubble by sonoilluminescence, or planets and mountains on a plane.

Sacred knowledge of vibration and the power of human emotions.
youtube
edit on 31-5-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


Well, for starters I just proved that I am capable of registering an account on an internet forum and making posts thereon. I could prove that I am a human and that I require air. I certainly can't prove anything about the origin of the universe, and I don't think I've met anyone old enough to be considered an expert on the topic. I don't even think we have a clear picture of what went on a couple of thousand years ago. And yet people are so damned certain.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by centhwevir1979
 



Im not certain youre human.

I dont know the origins of the universe, but are you going to deduce that out the following?

I could assume a movie length of different things you could be, but it all comes down to you are human on the computer due to inferring and crossing out the irrational and improbable explanations for what you could be. Maybe you posted earlier, im not sure, but I do infer you took no time to make an assumption at what he meant since your post was saying people can be certain of something they have seen, and arent certain of something they havent seen. I mean, there is an apparent ratio he pointed out, can you not accept that?

Or is it the fact that, thats all he said and didnt give a "grand unified theory of everything" because he sees a ratio? You double standardized your post by implying two contradicting statements that are real, so either way, you seem to know what you are talking about. George Orwells 1984 reference, anyone? Basicly, man, that was irrelevant, and this guy figured this out with his head, not having someone lay it out for him. Infer in a debate, dont deduce.


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





Oh Im sorry, you plan on keeping those as "sellable" ideas because you cant explain something that is hard to explain in language, but is easy to understand in mathematical terms. Im sorry. You aggravated me with that apparent non-sensible, incorrigible, and irrational post. Unless youre goal is to say nothing while saying something.
edit on 31-5-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave_welch
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.


Dave, thanks. Actually my post on tornadoes was quite cynical as I do not agree with the AGW theory of global warmng...errrr climate change.
And i'm not saying that man cannot impact his environment, I just don't think he impacts it in the way outlined by the AGW environmentalists.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





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?


Yes, I'm aware of the chaos theory, though I haven't studied it, but that is why I framed my question the way I did. I thought perhaps you subscribed to that. Order is mathematics right? From a casual glance, one can detect that even the chaos theory is a mathematical formulation.
edit on 1-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Ok, Took me awhile to read through many pages... collab my thoughts;

Theres so much in detail i wish i could provide where the OP is getting at.. but i guess i help and lead off-

Sacred Geometry is everywhere ; yes.

Lets say the OP is right; with a metaphysical and spiritual alignment; with history and geometry..
Mix all that- without the modern proof on paper, without the "full" Science but a mixture of belief and known attributes and elements.. well - Heres where the bias is.. These "lucky" events for man then recorded in history; but i see a lot of others pointing out the hard facts and possibly not seeing the connections that we always tend to forget about- and that history provides the lessons.

As an example (of something mythology, "out there": I was told as a child, that the sun bares all "new" souls -that reincarnates to a physical body; that each solstice is a level (4 levels) like the season(s) that its vibration is the force resonating life in sync.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by kauskau
"lunatics"..

oh god..synchronicity..is such an awesome idea..

one day it will be clear that the moon was placed by intellligent beings..


No, you misunderstand. You are again ascribing an anthropomorphic form to the Creator, and I already said this many posts ago.


as bashar said.. the moon was not placed there by god... it was placed there by other beings



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by kauskau
 





as bashar said.. the moon was not placed there by god... it was placed there by other beings


mmmm I don't subscribe to the alien moon theory, but thanks for pointing it out.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Y3K89
Theres always a plan B and i think we are all awaking too it....

Let's hope so. And when we awaken to plan B perhaps we might discover that plan B was plan A all along, that's what I find, that there's yet another astonishing and paradigm-shifting joke to be had around every corner, and it's always at the expense of all our prior ignorance, but it's ok in the light of the new paradigm or worldview where one has that luxury of not taking themselves or their preconceived ideas all that seriously any longer relative to a domain of ever deeper mystery, and new discovery. It's what the human experience is all about, and no one can use scientific "knowledge" as a defense against having an epiphany or an authentic spiritual experience based on newfound understanding and awareness.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

You'd need to listen to the Coast to Coast interview to appreciate the significance and galactic uniqueness of Cygnus X3, and why it might have (must have) significantly impacted human evolution, not over a billion years, but even more recently like within the last 100,000 years right up to the present day, and yes I'm well aware that cosmic rays and other exotic particles impact DNA mutuation, I think that's the idea as to why such a process could be considered "evolutionary" under the right conditions and things do seem to have worked out well so far... As to God rolling the dice, I can't really comment on that, but "his" motto, aside from "go big or go home" was probably "nothing ventured nothing gained"..?

Dear Reader, in case you missed it, please see Cygnus X3 Mystery post, last page, thank you, for your time and open minded consideration.

Regards,

NAM


edit on 1-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Question of Moon Formation. (in case you missed it).



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You'd need to listen to the Coast to Coast interview

No. No I don't.
I can read about Andrew Collins has to say and I don't have to listen to that fool George Noory while I'm doing so. Collins guesses that there were enormous bursts of cosmic rays from Cygnus. But he seems to be a bit confused.


This includes Cygnus X-3's unique cygnet particles which, being neutrally charged, reach the Earth directly from source, and are able to penetrate deep underground, which is something that cosmic rays are usually unable to do, since they are positively charged and break up before they reach the surface of the planet (neutrinos, which are negatively charged cosmic particles with almost no mass, pass through the earth all the time without affecting anything).

www.andrewcollins.com...

1) Neutrinos are not negatively charged. They are neutral. That's why they are called neutrinos.

2) Cosmic rays are not necessarily positively charged. Most are but some are negatively charged (electrons). None of which has anything to do with whether they "break up" before they reach Earth's surface.

3) The authoritative claim that there are some sort of "special" particles originating from Cygnus is based on speculation backed by scant evidence. At best it can be said the evidence is inconclusive.

4) Particles from Cygnus do not reach the Earth's surface (even if they are "special"). No primary cosmic ray particles reach the Earth's surface.

Four inaccuracies in a single sentence. I suppose that proves he's right.

But what about Earth being so special? Do the cosmic rays from Cygnus only affect Earth?


edit on 6/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You claim that full moons always occur on solstices? I don't believe that is the case; full moons in a month vary from year to year, and they very much more than the slight variation in the solstices. And the full moon does not rise at night, it rises at sunset, and is a function of the geometry of the sun's and moon's positions.

The video gives some statements/claims by Asimov and a scientist, but there is no information to back up their assertions. So what?

The video also points out some physical facts that happen to be true, and try to make a big deal out of them, but doesn't say what they mean. It also makes the laughable assertion that such circumstance occur nowhere else in the universe. Given the number of solar systems in this galaxy -- never mind the number of galaxies -- and the fact that we have no way to known the orbit and size relationships of all the stars and their planets and their respective moons, it is a complete fabrication to claim that such instances don't happen anywhere else in the universe.

As for the specious claims in the video, the moon's diameter is actually 3474 km, and the earth-moon and earth-sun distances are 384,400 km and 149,600,000 km respectively, which leads to ratios of 389.18 for the sun-moon relative distance to the earth, and 397.24 for the ratio of their diameters. Sure, if you round numbers, they might both approach 395. So what?

Besides that, I hate tedious videos used for explanation, when a series of bulleted talking points is more effective and takes less of the viewer's time.
Mercifully, the music is better than in a lot of such videos.

As to the fact that the same face of the moon is always facing earth and that it revolves once per lunar month orbit, and that the apparent diameter of the sun and moon are the same, view here on earth, are evidently flukes/coincidences -- until someone comes up with a better explanation. To claim that this is undeniable proof of intelligent design, is the height of arrogance and mendacity. It's not undeniable proof of anything other than the observations as they stand.

Frankly, anyone who wants to talk about intelligent design intelligently ought to be talking about the basic laws of physics and the basic building blocks of matter, but even then there is no evidence for an intelligence behind it, even though things are very systematic.

I get very tired of these threads with titles claiming "absolute proof" of god, ET aliens, etc., when they have nothing new to say on the subject, and certainly no proof of their claims.




posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kauskau
 





as bashar said.. the moon was not placed there by god... it was placed there by other beings


mmmm I don't subscribe to the alien moon theory, but thanks for pointing it out.



I understand...a few years back i would not have guys talking like me taken seriously..



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
The word "undeniable" is one of the most hated words here on ATS; it has this effect of diminishing the perceived credibility of any thread to near-zero. Try avoid using it at all cost.

As for the theory, I find it quite interesting and have always thought that the relationship between the earth sun and moon is likely more than a cosmic coincidence, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was "designed". It could be that it's just the way it is and we just happened to be here to make the observation and raise a fuss about it.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by Barcs
I guess coincidence is now good enough to be considered proof? I guess I have proof of the 11-11 theory. Everytime I look at the clock there's a 1. And you know what else? I randomly look at the clock during basketball games and notice when it's 11:11. It can't be coincidence.
edit on 31-5-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


In case you missed it, the OP is arguing that our conditions on earth cannot conceivably be coincidence. An infinitesimally more complex matter than your 11:11 coincidence. Silly rabbit.


My method is just as scientific as his. Numerology isn't science, it doesn't undeniably prove anything outside of the math functions itself. That's the bottom line. It's the same as arguing that cell complexity proves everything was created and runs off software. It's an appeal to ignorance and the unknown.

Numerology and mathematics are human creations that attempt to measure things, organize things and perform math functions. Noticing lots of repeating numbers might just be our system. Or it could be coincidence. If you look for all kinds of crazy coincidences in the universe, you will find them.
edit on 1-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 




Numerology and mathematics are human creations that attempt to measure things, organize things and perform math functions. Noticing lots of repeating numbers might just be our system. Or it could be coincidence. If you look for all kinds of crazy coincidences in the universe, you will find them.


Especially if you have...afewloosescrews.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
There are two thread going on (winding down actually) that are on this topic (one pro and one con). While replying on the other thread I discovered a source that I think is very sound about the origins of life and just how that first 'molecule' came into being.

And the original theory comes from Richard Feynman.

faculty.washington.edu...



Origin of Life

In exploring life’s origin, one conundrum has been the issue of how scattered molecules coalesce to form a condensed mass. Recent experimental results imply a potentially simple answer to this conundrum. In aqueous media, it has been long known that like-charged substances do not repel one another, as expected; they actually attract one another. Feynman referred to this paradoxical attraction as “like-likes-like” and went on to postulate that the attraction occurs because of the “unlikes” that inevitably gather in between, thereby creating the attractive force.


Like-charged particles or molecules attract one another
because of an intermediate of opposite charges. The
opposite charges arise directly from exclusion-zone
formation.
Feynman’s thesis has been supported by elegant experiments of Norio Ise at Kyoto University and we have recently been able to confirm this thesis with direct evidence (Nagornyak et al., 2009). We found that like-charged gel spheres immersed in water and separated by as much as half a millimeter attract one another; they attract despite the large separation, and after some time they coalesce. Further, we confirmed the expected presence of opposite charges lying in between the spheres. The opposite charges derived from the exclusion-zone that develops around each sphere, generating opposite charges beyond, and in high concentration in between the spheres. Thus, it is true that like-likes-like through an intermediate of unlikes, as Feynman theorized.

We now understand why like-charged entities attract in aqueous solution. The energy mediating the attraction comes from radiant sources, which builds exclusion zones and separates charge. The attraction is therefore energy consuming, although the energy is freely available from the environment.

The upshot is that a mechanism for building condensed masses is now experimentally verified. In order for it to work, all that is needed is water, light, and molecules/particles. Even if those entities bear the same charge, they will self-assemble into a condensed mass. This process is presumably the first step in producing the condensed mass that ultimately became the cell. It is sufficiently simple that one wonders whether life is being produced this very day (Pollack et al., 2009).



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join