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: 15
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.


Touché. Except, oh wait...I'm not the one calling them coincidences now am I?




posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


No, but you appear to be claiming that you and a select few have the infallible gift of translating causality to the point that you are able to determine what highly paid scientists have been unwilling to state for a fact. In other words, if you're so smart, what the hell are you doing on a conspiracy forum? Write a book and earn your wings instead of arguing senselessly on the internet.

Go on! What are you waiting for? Take these not-coincidences and print them in black and white and make a few million off of your flawlessly perceptive methods which conclusively determine the intelligent nature of the heavens. Then bring the book to me with a few reviews from respected scientific organizations founded at a global scale and we'll talk about how much you really know.

If your theories were really worth anything, they would be fact by now. There's been more than enough time, more than enough bright minds, and more than enough technology to ascertain the veracity of what you and NAM are declaring to be truth. It is not fact, which means your posts on a conspiracy forum just are not enough to change that. And that's all we're saying.

And if you want to make it all fact, this is not the way to do it. Sorry to tell you.
edit on 1-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


If that is what you believe my claims to be, then by all means I can understand why you might be somewhat annoyed. My apologies for not being more clear about my stance on this thread. I am not here to make unfounded/outrageous claims, upset any apple apple carts, or rock any boats. In fact, I am usually nothing more than a casual observer here on ATS (as you can see by my membership date/number of posts ratio).

My only dog in this fight is that I noticed so many readers so quick to attack a fairly reasonable sounding postulation before they even took the time to understand what the OP was submitting. As I'm sure you've gathered by now, I do believe that the evidence IS in fact in favor of Intelligent Design, but I would never go so far as to claim it as fact. If you go back a few pages on this thread I willingly admitted that this discussion is more in the realm of ideological/philosophical rather than scientific.

Which begs the question, why are you even interested in such a discussion? If I may make a few assumptions, it would stand to reason that somebody such as yourself who strictly believes in a naturalist/humanist world shouldn't be concerned in the slightest with these types of debates. Unless, of course you have/are somewhere in the dark recesses of your mind entertaining such a possibility of a world much more expansive than science can reveal. In which case, I would encourage you to not be so hasty to dismiss.

In short, I have no illusions of grandeur. I am but a simple man in awe of a universe so vast and complex that not even those "highly paid scientists" or "respected scientific organizations founded at a global scale" you so rever have even begun to breach the very tip of the ice burg.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


BTW the GIF for your profile picture almost put me in a full fledge deep channeled trance.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


Good question. It keeps me sharp. This is my version of Sudoku. To me, the premise of this thread is the mathematical equivalent of a grammatically incorrect sentence. Like, severely grammatically incorrect. It looks the slightest bit wright, so it's perfect, because he wants it to be. You can rationalize any lie if you want to.

And like poor grammar, I don't see any reason to be even remotely satisfied with this theory.
edit on 1-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Is Earth special?


That's a very good question, and one I'm earnestly attempting to inquire into, but don't assume that I (as you appear to have) have formed a certain presumptuous bias in inititial approach to the data, I'm simply observing a causal relationship and framework in regards to the earth-moon-sun configuration, and recognizing the effect, (LIFE), but not any life, life in absolute abundance, as if representing a model of perfection in regards to what REALLY works, if life itself were the pursuit and objective in the cosmos. The implications of it cannot be so easily discarded by the anthropic principal or the analogy of the puddle in the crevice, it's not irrelevant, it's not insignificant or meaningless, but quite the contrary, a very meaningful and significant thing whether a mere "coincidence", fluke or "chance" occurrence... (exceedingly rare), or by some sort of predetermined superdeterministic intelligent design imbedded by anticipation straight into and out of the first/last in eternity, but not as a capricious random addition from nothing, but instead as an intelligent limitation from (slight flaw) absolute perfection in and out of the limitless formless potential out of which it's all emerged in eternity, by which experience, including our experience, might be possible.

It's quite the thing imho, not nothing of any meaning or significance and it's significant anyway because here of all places life in it's multifaceted splendor, has bloomed at last.

I'm in no way discounting any possibility for life anywhere else, just pointing to the configuration by which it HAS arisen here and inquiring in it, and indeed asking that question too since all options must be considered and explored. Maybe the earth IS special, it's a possibility and one I'm not discounting. Don'r assume or assume to think that you know what I am thinking, that's neither cordial and polite or even fair and reasonable. Thank you, because without mutual respect where are we?

And for the UFO buffs out there like I said before, if ET's are coming from somewhere it could just as well be from another galaxy since in either case they are not travelling through intervening space at sub-light speed to begin with.

Best regards,

NAM


edit on 1-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I think what you have failed to explain sufficiently is why your answer, in particular, is the best one in response to the observations you have described.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

So many words and such a small point. Yes, life is a strange and wonderful thing. I like life. I think it's cool.

But your "Undeniable proof" is somewhat lacking in demonstrating intelligent design...unless you have a very strong bias in that direction. Your claims about the Moon demonstrate nothing, even the one (tidal locking) which is valid.


I've come to the conclusion that the likelihood of intelligent life not unlike our own existing within our own galaxy to be not greater than 1 (us)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Good for you. "Life not unlike our own". How "not unlike" would you accept?
edit on 6/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Because it appears to have anticipated life, intelligently and in a perfectly fine tuned manner by the "Creative Agency", I'm not here to define the word God, simply suggesting that intelligent design is an infinitely more reasonable conclusion to draw than random, chance occurrence, in examining the data and the framework itself, maybe even seeing a type of allegory embedded into it intended (as if with a wink and a nod) for none other than our own recognition (at the appropriate timeframe in earth evolutionary development), like a sign and a marker, that in deed we really are children of a loving God who by anticipation is pleased to find an expression in and through the creation, and life, with us included and not excluded, and here we are (looking around).

It's a more reasonable interpretation of the data no matter how unreasonable it's apparent premise i.e.: that we are meant to be here as intended by anticipation and the world is meant to become a type of paradise, someday, maybe even by a newfound realization of our true place in the cosmos, as children of a loving God, a God we cannot understand for the life of us, but only see the evidence of, spread out everywhere before our eyes, and right in front of our face even when the moon shines at night like the midnight sun (same visible diameter).



Sorry I realize that's kind of hard on the eyes after a bit..



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



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Phage has already debunked the "fine tuned" part of your claim. We fall into a VERY large margin of error. That's less design and more opportunism.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

bump



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


It's a more reasonable interpretation of the data no matter how unreasonable it's apparent premise

No, it isn't.
And inventing relationships to fit the premise doesn't help.


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



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


It's a more reasonable interpretation of the data no matter how unreasonable it's apparent premise

No, it isn't.
And inventing relationships to fit the premise doesn't help.


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


Yes, it is.

The alternative, of blind chance, with rogue, Mars-sized collisions with the earthly earth to form the moon the whole thing a random and BLIND process, without intelligent direction, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in light of what we see, and experience, which in many ways does appear to have been a creation created for this, for this life, starting right here and now with what's in evidence.

If an absolute fluke, then - why life?



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The data shows that it's not a mindless process.

It was and is mindful, of the process of creating LIFE, not by chance, but by intent and anticipation, intelligently.

It's obvious, that life isn't an "accident" or a random fluke occurrence, and if so, why the expectation that the very same thing is happening everywhere else, why is that a reasonable assumption in light of the data I don't understand that part.

It rides on a razors edge of causality, so if that blind accident, which has produced life in abundance, is expected to be an absolute fluke occurrence then why expect the galaxy to be teaming with earth-like worlds?


That just doesn't fit the data.

Best regards,

NAM


edit on 1-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


If an absolute fluke, then - why life?

Why not?



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 




The data shows that it's not a mindless process.

No. The "data" shows no such thing.
The data only shows that life exists.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   



nexusilluminati.blogspot.ca...





Best regards,

NAM


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



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Intelligent design is just a logical fallacy.
If you accept that complex things ( living things for example ) must have a designer, the immediate problem is that the designer/god which made the Universe must therefore have a more intelligent or complex designer than itself. A "ubergod" is needed to design the original god!

This line of reasoning leads to an infinite line of gods, each one more complex than the one which it designed, and so on and on and on...................................



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Very nearly equal

Love it.
Works with horseshoes. Works with nukes.
Close enough for government work.
Good enough for God too, I guess.


And I do wish they would stop using the term squaring the circle incorrectly. When someone decides to redefine accepted terminology it's a pretty good indication that they are full of crap.
edit on 6/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I guess.. and it worked didn't it?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join