It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It was a poor choice of words, it should have said something like "Evidence of Intelligent Design".
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan
Very nearly equal
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.
Squaring the circle is a problem proposed by ancient geometers. It is the challenge of constructing a square with the same area as a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge. More abstractly and more precisely, it may be taken to ask whether specified axioms of Euclidean geometry concerning the existence of lines and circles entail the existence of such a square.
In 1882, the task was proven to be impossible, as a consequence of the Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem which proves that pi (π) is a transcendental, rather than an algebraic irrational number; that is, it is not the root of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It had been known for some decades before then that the construction would be impossible if pi were transcendental, but pi was not proven transcendental until 1882. Approximate squaring to any given non-perfect accuracy, in contrast, is possible in a finite number of steps, since there are rational numbers arbitrarily close to π.
The expression "squaring the circle" is sometimes used as a metaphor for trying to do the impossible.
Squaring the circle: the areas of this square and this circle are equal. In 1882, it was proven that this figure cannot be constructed in a finite number of steps with an idealized compass and straightedge.
Originally posted by pikestaff
I just cannot see god, no matter how powerful he is, being able to make every atom in the universe, every galaxy, every sun, every planet, moon, asteroid, every grain of sand, every leaf, blade of grass, molecule of gas, every strip of dna, no way.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
You can argue coincidence or random happenstance if you like, but it's a rather poor argument in the face of all the evidence and data to the contrary which points to a comic evolutionary process intentionally directed towards life, including life as we know it, and even human life. And if by design then it was by anticipation from the very beginning of time and space with the present outcome and effect enfolded in the originating cause, and that's not only intelligent, but what I call super-intelligent or infinitely intelligent.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
The God Theory"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
If you think of white light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will identify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.
If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.
More @ Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field.(MUST READ!)
Do you have any idea how big of an idiot that made you sound? It just unraveled the depths of your logic and rationality when problem solving to nil, making all previous logic and deduction extremely questionable, with such a very simple logic problem.
I also suppose you're one of these the earth is 6,000 years old types? Since you say nothing else is out there; hell even the Vatican recently stated there's a possibility of life elsewhere in the universe... and they used to kill people for suggesting the Earth revolved around Sun. You would think they'd drag their feet the longest; on the issue of life elsewhere in the cosmos. Of course it's going to have the man with the grey beard spin on it... too much money left to be made on willful ignorance to throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.
I do have a confession to make; I never expected to come here and read actual undeniable proof of intelligent design. You might judge me as not having an open mind on the subject and you'd be right; but the same could be said about your self if you're going to create a topic at least comprehend what those saying your proof is no proof at all... if you wanted nothing but like minded praise; and to completely ignore contrary evidence... organizing a campfire kumbaya may have been a better choice?
Deny ignorance doesn't mean; deny your own ignorance and argue your position, until you are blue in the face. But hey you have every right to believe whatever you want... and in a forum meant as a debate of the facts and logical rational theorem that rises off of those facts. But the op only stacks a belief on top of a belief... and two wrong will never equal a right.
Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
This debate, as I have pointed out ad nauseam ..is not one of facts or proof. On either side.
Then maybe you shouldn't make assumptions about what science says about the origins of the Universe. I make no claims about what that article says, unlike you making claims about what science says.
No. It doesn't. The naked eye can easily discern the difference during an annular eclipse (the predominant eclipse type). The major point of this thread is the erroneous claim that during a solar eclipse the Sun is perfectly covered by the Moon.
grasping at straws also clutching at straws
1. trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work Jerry, grasping at straws, searched the backup tapes from last week, looking for the missing files.
2. trying to find reasons to feel hopeful about a bad situation She thinks he might still be interested because he calls her now and then but I think she's clutching at straws.