Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Yes, but they would have had to have been hard at work 4.5 billion years ago, and capable of also building the solar system and thus the galaxy by extension..

As to that graphic, it's to show the geometrical relationship between the diameter of the moon in relation to the earth, c'mon you can see that right?

That doesn't conclusively prove a GOD did it though. You are saying, "Look, I found something interesting!" and then jumping straight to your own conclusions without giving it due process. How about letting smarter people analyze it? I'm fairly certain you don't have the education to accurately assess the implications of the data you've just shown us.

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
How about you write a short summary - in your own words - about the big claim you make in your thread title, instead of copy pasting incoherent new-age gibberish off random internet sites.

Thank you.

I've cobbled this together from my previous posts in different threads.

What good would a short summary be when you didn't even read the first sentence of the mans thread ?
SnF NAM !

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I'll wait for your explanation later.
Can't watch the vid right now

reply to post by randyvs

What good would a short summary be when you didn't even read the first sentence of the mans thread ?
SnF NAM !

What's the SnF for? The fact that he extrapolated a theory with complete disregard for professional opinion? Or that he left dozens of questions unanswered and dozens of issues unaddressed? I've seen plane crashes with more analysis and photographic evidence and in-depth discussion of the findings.

He didn't put a lot of effort into this thread. So what's the SnF for? And by the way, the short summary thing was an attempt to extract a coherent and substantive statement pulling all evidence into account and connecting all the dots without whimsical conjecture getting in the way.

I'll second that request.

And from the very large, to the very small..

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by squiz

Decades of confounding experiments have physicists considering a startling possibility: The universe might not make sense.
...
However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.
...
With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.
...
The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers. But in papers, talks and interviews, Arkani-Hamed and many other top physicists are already confronting the possibility that the universe might be unnatural.
...
Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.
...
The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it’s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.
...
Now, physicists say, the unnaturalness of the Higgs makes the unnaturalness of the cosmological constant more significant.

www.simonsfoundation.org...

Notice the escape clause to extend the probabilty argument?

"then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky?"

Why else indeed, never mind that big fat elephant in the room.

So let me get this straight..

When they finally squeeze out the illusive Higgs Boson aka The God Particle, in the hope of upholding the Standard Model of Physics, while it does that, nevertheless it points to God of all things as a fine-tuner from an initial cause, so the scientists immediately posit the notion, or the theory, that there must be an infinite number of failed universes wherein ours just happens to be the one with life as we know it, or we wouldn't be here to observe it in the first place. An "escape clause" as you call it. It's pretty funny when you really think about it..

And if it were so, amid all that failure, time and time again in eternity, why would "it" be so persistent, as if willing to succeed at all cost, even at the cost of an infinite amount of failed starts, that's quite the urge to be creative if you ask me, especially when framed in an eternity which is a rather long time to say the least to eventually succeed where every other universe failed

That's hilarious, you see, because even by their account it STILL points to God or an intelligent first/last cause! And here we are joining the circle. Is that not co-creative and participatory? Is it therefore not meaningful and significant?

Are they saying that this universe is absurd and meaningless because it's so perfectly ordered and fine tuned.. (huh?) or, if meaningful, then at best only when framed relative to an infinite ocean of absurdities and impossibilities, all to avoid the obvious elephant in the room, a superintelligent designer.


Those scientists are a RIOT!

The kind of evidence you present will never convince most people because coincidence caused by natural processes is always more credible than cosmic intelligence or intelligences deliberately rigging planetary mean distances and sizes of planets/moons as a kind of clue to their presence in the formation of the Earth or Solar System. That is too far-fetched for most people to believe.

On the other hand, if you are looking for evidence of transcendental design revealed by certain scientific facts and discoveries, study the research presented here. Be advised, however, that you need good mathematical ability in order to understand it and that some background reading of earlier articles and introductory material in the website is helpful. As the mathematical analysis is rigorous and free of ad hoc models or hypotheses, the evidence presented at this website is irrefutible.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

So what's the SnF for?

Because I've been waiting for his greatest hits album to come out and finally, here it is.


reply to post by boymonkey74

Just because we don't know why doesn't mean God did it.

By the same token just because you can explain how a magic trick is done.
That doesn't negate the Magician.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Yes, but they would have had to have been hard at work 4.5 billion years ago, and capable of also building the solar system and thus the galaxy by extension..

As to that graphic, it's to show the geometrical relationship between the diameter of the moon in relation to the earth, c'mon you can see that right?

That doesn't conclusively prove a GOD did it though. You are saying, "Look, I found something interesting!" and then jumping straight to your own conclusions without giving it due process. How about letting smarter people analyze it? I'm fairly certain you don't have the education to accurately assess the implications of the data you've just shown us.

Here's an analysis albeit from a different perspective (re: downward causation) from a smarter person..

The God Theory

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

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.

an excerpt

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.

reply to post by randyvs


You want science to explain it? Then wait your turn. They're busy curing cancer because they're tired of waiting for your god to do it.

reply to post by randyvs


Where is the magician?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Op your mistake, as I see it, is that your implying the entire planet sun moon relationship was designed in favor of our type of life.

When in reality it is vastly more likely our life was molded to fit this planet sun moon configuration.

What would be easier, to move and make planets to suit a type of life, or for life to adapt to the already present planet sun moon configuartion?

I will give you an example: oil was created to suit the type of cars we drive, vs our cars being designed around the abilities of oil, which seems more likely to you?

I believe your right, there is a cause and effect relationship, your just seeing the effect as the cause, which is entirely backwards to common sense, IMHO.

Also the maths and shapes your using are known as sacred geometry, and are nothing new, want to blow your mind for ya?

Try to explain the golden rule, not the religious one, the mathmatical one, the one that has to do with the spiral of a snail shell, and is even used in proportion to the makeup of our bodies, it is real, it exists, we don't know why, but it permiates all life on our world.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by randyvs

 

You want science to explain it? Then wait your turn. They're busy curing cancer because they're tired of waiting for your god to do it.

edit on 30-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Really ? Is that what you think or is that what they want you to think ?

Same old stuff. Again? Why?

The myth of the "perfection" of the solar eclipse. The fact is there is no perfection involved. In order for it to be "perfect" the ratio of the distance between the Sun and the Earth and the distance between the Earth and the Moon would have to match the ratio between the diameter of the Sun and the diameter of the Moon. It doesn't.

The distance of the Moon from Earth varies, depending on the time of the month, from 364,397 km to 406,731 km, with an average of 384,748 km. That alone sort of removes the idea of any "perfection".

The distance of the Earth from the Sun also varies, depending on the time of year, from 152,097,701 km to 147,098,074km, with an average of 149,597,887.5 km.

So the ratio of the two orbits varies from 417 to 361, with an average of 388. The ratio of the sizes of the Sun and the Moon is about 400 so yes, sometimes the ratio is the same as the ratio in sizes but most of the time it is not.

In fact, it is a rarity for there to be a "perfect" eclipse. Annular eclipses are more common as are eclipses during which the Moon appears larger than the Sun.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Given the age of the universe and IF there were stage 3 civilizations then yes it is possible.
Much more believable than "God did it".

"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

Strange Moon Facts


Who Built the Moon

Because elements on the moon, even on the surface of the moon, predates the age of the earth by about a billion years, and yet is composed largely of the same type of material which forms the earth's mantle, and by chemical analysis was formed at about the same distance from the sun as the earth, there's a big time problem with presently held views regarding the moon's formation which propose that the moon was formed by not one but TWO separate collisions with the early earth, called "the double whack theory" by an unknown rogue planetoid.

Given the "coincidences" in favor of life which have only been touched on in the OP, this model becomes increasingly absurd and unbelievable.

Therefore, the moon or it's originating "object" must have pulled or sucked the material directly from the early earth, to then settle in at a location much closer to the earth such that it would help drive the whole process of evolution and the cycle of life in such a way that only now that we are here as observers, the visible diameter of the moon perfectly reflects and eclipses that of the sun.

My contention in regards to the origin of the moon is that it is a very STRANGE object, and an unnatural one at that, which to seed life and planetary evolution in favor of life would have had to have been introduced at the appropriate time into the accretion disk of the galactic formation, to assist an appropriate candidate planet in realizing the object of creating life.

Whether an ancient ANCIENT stage 3 alien civilization or God or both working in tandem, it's still proof of intelligent design, and how did those ancient aliens evolve in the first place anyway, to become agents of creation?

So I'm not discounting the possibility that the moon is an astro-engineered object, as a tried and tested cornerstone for a sure foundation, but it stretches the imagination to try to fathom where this "seed of life" came from in the first place and how it ended up in this particular location in the galaxy and solar system formation resulting in the perfect tilt and wobble equilibrium balancing that is responsible for life on earth, while perfectly reflecting the sun in visible diameter and, at the same time, squaring the circle in terms of it's geometrical relationship to the earth.

Obviously, over the course of earth evolution and the evolution of life on earth, the moon can be seen to be running a program.

So whoever did it, I still like to refer to it as a moon seed by intelligent design.

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

Could that be a reference not just to the building of the temple, but of the earth temple, and could it be (I sound like the narrator from "Ancient Aliens") that a strange object that once helped terraform another world in cosmic history ended up being re-used for the earth's creation and, "if so" (there I go again) perhaps it was God who got the last laugh at "the builders" expense by using something that they no longer had any use for (rejected by the builders).

Just some interesting speculation worthy of consideration, because it's a real quandy.

Strange Moon Facts

reply to post by Phage


Phage on another topic www.abovetopsecret.com... we think you are the real John Lithgow and when ever I read a post you have written it is in John Lithgows voice.
Once again you have shown us the truth cheers John

reply to post by Phage


Good ol' Phage. We can always rely on you to grade the garbage. Have a star, chap!

reply to post by Phage

And you're thoughts on the "squaring of the circle" geometrical relationship involving the diameter of the moon in relation to the earth..? That must also be taken into consideration with the fact that the visible-observable diameter of the moon equals that of the sun, at least at this stage in earth evolution now that there's someone to observe it.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Or maybe just maybe gravity helped the moon become our moon eh?

I'm failing to see the proof of intelligent design here.

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Yes, sacred geometry can also explain it.

www.goldennumber.net...

And I can see what you're saying about life adapting, but it really is a precondition FOR life to exist as it does, so from what I can tell it appears to have an anticipatory design built in to the initial cause which favors life even life as we know it.