Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

page: 25
23
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


To be alive, and to see and recognize it is special, I think you're mistaken simply because of an atheist bias of some sort.


I like life. Especially when you consider the other options. But I don't have the arrogance to think that life in any form on any planet would be less "special" than life on Earth

But your religious bias seems to have also made you into an earthist bigot.

Now you're assuming Phage. I don't think either of us have ever said any such thing, you're assuming our bias FOR us, you see.

I showed that earlier, that I have no such bias, and am one of the most inquisitive in this regard. Don't assume "earthist bigotry", I'm just examining the facts before us, and only inferring from the data-set itself, I'm not saying such a thing cannot occur elsewhere especially when we have an example of a galaxy containing at least one since there are after all many many galaxies, probably over a trillion of those total.


Originally posted by NewAgeMan
And just to show that I am unbiased in my research and desire to try to know if there are "earth twins" out there even within our own galaxy, please see this thread

Square Kilometer Array or SKA

A planet-hunting survey as we know is already well under way, which will really pick up steam beyond 2020 when the SKA comes on stream, so within 10-20 years, we will begin to see the formation of a type of statistical probability model emerging for our galaxy.

However as I've pointed out elsewhere, the mere presence of a rocky world at about the right distance from a sun-like star isn't sufficient in and of itself to say that it's an "earth twin" or earthlike world. However, with the SKA the actual molecular composition of the atmosphere can show if the planet is a rocky water world. If such a world doesn't have a moon like ours creating the dynamics we enjoy here on earth, there would be, as far as I've been able to gather from the research I've done, a marked difference in atmospheric conditions between one half of the planet and the other ie: raging storms, which would certainly not preclude the possibility for life on such a world, just not life like on earth. They may call it an earth twin, but unless it's global atmospheric conditions, globally, show similarities to earth, which the SKA will be able to determine, then it can't really be called an "earth twin" and life, even close to what we see here with animals running and flying around, is highly unlikely in the extreme.

Best regards,

NAM

edit on 10-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by randyvs
 

Your hilarious Randy!


Often, but not always.

And I ask in sincerety.




As has been pointed out many times. There is no reason to expect that life anywhere else would evolve in the same manner it has on Earth. Nor is there any particular reason to think that there is anything particularly special about life on Earth.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Now you're assuming. I don't think either of us have every said any such thing, you're assuming our bias FOR us, you see.
I'm sorry. I only assumed that you would infer my meaning that life on Earth is no more special than life which would evolve on other worlds. Since it was in the same paragraph that means the ideas are meant to be connected to each other. At least it did when I went to school.


I'm not saying such a thing cannot occur elsewhere especially when we have an example of a galaxy containing at least one since there are after all many many galaxies, probably over a trillion of those total.
Ok. So what makes your "earth-moon-sun" configuration so special then? Yes, it made us the way we are. But if it had been different something unlike us, but just as "special" (in the sense that life is "special") could have evolved. Just as life evolving on other worlds would be unlike us but just as "special".



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

This debate, as I have pointed out ad nauseam ..is not one of facts or proof. On either side.

Unless of course LIFE was not an accidental occurrence by mere chance or fluke, but was an intended outcome "by design". Surely once must consider the data in light of either these two hypothesis. Theories must be tested against facts, and there are facts that have been placed in evidence, facts which I contend support the intelligent design hypothesis and render absurd the fluke/coincidence theory.

There's some more data that I need to bring into evidence, but I'll need some time to pull it together, but it shows a surprising series of round whole number measurements, and interesting ratios which apply only and exclusive to our moon in it's relationship to the earth and sun, and not to any other moon in the solar system in their relationship to their host planet, nothing even close to the nice round integers and ratios involved with the earth-moon-sun. It's very very unusual in the extreme.

Stay tuned..



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

There again the assumption, never have I implied that life on earth is more special or better than (that's you assuming my bias once again - must be my avatar) only that it's quite extraordinary to even exist in the first place, and it gives me pause when considering the Drake Equation for example which is rendered absurdly even childishly simplistic when we do consider the framework of the unique earth-moon-sun configuration by which life HAS evolved here on earth.

All we know, is that we have one in this galaxy, that's ALL I know at this point, which bodes quite well for other earth-like worlds in the UNIVERSE, but not necessarily in our own galaxy, and I mean planets just blooming with life as on earth, not a bacterial smudge on a rock or some weird creature at a heat vent (not that they're not "special")

By special I would only mean a planet in bloom for the duration of a long period of evolution like that which has taken place on earth requiring a certain distance, degree of tilt, and stabilized wobble and thus a very narrow range of lunar influence where apparently the bigger a singular moon is in relation to it's host water world planet, the better, although rendered here in a very curious geometrical relationship both to the earth and the sun..

Regards,

NAM

edit on 10-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Ok. So what makes your "earth-moon-sun" configuration so special then?

The way it's so perfectly set up and balanced in favor of life in abundance, as a perfect model of what really works, for starters.. plus the other things we've been looking at in this thread. It's a model planet for the evolution of life, a worthy example, and a very interesting and unique one at that, which might very well alter our view of our place in the cosmos, not to say that we are alone, necessarily, but only that we are meant or intended to be here by anticipation and with intent ie: built into the design or the originating blueprint.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
When NAM starts quoting himself and making post after post just repeating what he has been saying throughout the thread, without bringing anything new to the table then, it is time to stop hitting your head against that brick wall.

Phage, I think you clearly pointed out the hole in the OP's theory. Those that can follow the logic don't need further convincing and I doubt you will ever convince the OP. I have seen him fill page after page, almost by himself, replying to himself and just bumping his own threads. It's like autopilot.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   

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.


because they don't have to ..

they link the source so you could check it out for yourself so you can't flame the OP for his views.. he's just putting this data out for other to comment on ..

WOW~!! .....and new age gibberish .. LMAO .. and you just posted without even reading the OP .. ~!!!!



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I do have more valid data to offer (not all just repeat stuff) and I will, and you know just to say that someone's been "debunked" doesn't make it so. You are also a strong atheist that should be noted by the reader.

All I"m asking for here is open-minded consideration nothing more, not an axe to grind or a preconceived bias. It's not too much to ask.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

My experience in your other thread was that you ask that everyone keep an open mind while yours is so tightly shut that any facts presented by other members are quickly dismissed. I think that that should be noted by the reader.

This seems to be the case in this thread as well.

edit on 10-6-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


By special I would only mean a planet in bloom for the duration of a long period of evolution like that which has taken place on earth requiring a certain distance, degree of tilt, and stabilized wobble and thus a very narrow range of lunar influence where apparently the bigger a singular moon is in relation to it's host water world planet, the better, although rendered here in a very curious geometrical relationship both to the earth and the sun..
It is your assumption that the abundance and diversity of life on Earth is dependent upon the existence of the Moon. It is a very weak assumption and you have provided nothing other than your opinion that it has any validity.

You continually repeat that it is true because it must be true because there is a unique relationship and that demonstrates it's true because it is.

edit on 6/11/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

It's pretty straightforward that the particular tilt and wobble of the earth, due to the dynamic equilibrium stabilizing influence of the moon is at cause in the whole cycle of life on earth, from the movement and churning of ocean currents and of course tides, to the prevailing winds and resulting precipitation, to the very gestation period of fertility itself including human fertility.

Your contention otoh seems to be that any old moon would have been sufficient to bring about the whole process of evolution on earth including the emergence of intelligent life, but you've provided no basis for that conclusion or inference whatsoever except to say that there's no reason not to believe that it would not have happened otherwise (talk about a double negative).

Would you like to clarify precisely what you're talking about, and why it's more than mere speculative conjecture along with an apparent bias in favor of life on earth not being special, including the very unique earth-moon-sun configuration that has given rise to life on earth in the first place? I don't think the long-span evolution of life is an arbitrary thing, and that much is pretty clear when we see what does work and why, and what a fine razor's edge of perfect balance that the threshold for life in abundance on earth requires.

I'm not the one here making "odd inferences" without any basis in fact or reality in order to sustain and uphold a bias.

One other question: In regards to the moon's formation, to explain the composition of the moon being comprised predominantly of earth mantle material, do you subscribe to the theory that the earth was impacted by an unknown Mars-sized rogue planetoid?

If so, whether a single or a double-whack (as the more recently revised version claims), for reasons and explanations that we've been exploring, and will continue to look close at, that's quite the fluke-coincidence is it not, that the moon, earth and sun would accidentally fall into such a configuration and geometrical relationship?

Best regards,

NAM

P.S. This is not a popularity contest or a me vs. you thing or even an atheist vs. God issue (another false assumption some people seem to be making), but a very important and very intriguing inquiry worth making and exploring for reasons already outlined and still to be investigated.

edit on 11-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

It's pretty amusing when you say:


Your contention otoh seems to be that any old moon would have been sufficient to bring about the whole process of evolution on earth including the emergence of intelligent life, but you've provided no basis for that conclusion or inference whatsoever except to say that there's no reason not to believe that it would not have happened otherwise (talk about a double negative).
(Emphasis mine.)

Immediately after saying:


It's pretty straightforward that the particular tilt and wobble of the earth, due to the dynamic equilibrium stabilizing influence of the moon is at cause in the whole cycle of life on earth, from the movement and churning of ocean currents and of course tides, to the prevailing winds and resulting precipitation, to the very gestation period of fertility itself including human fertility.
(Emphasis mine.)

Especially given that your argument basically boils down to the following:

1. As far as we know, there is only life on our planet.
2. As far as we know, only our planet has this particular configuration of star-planet-satellite.
3. Therefore, that configuration is the cause of life on this planet and therefore must have been designed with that end in mind.

You're making one enormous "correlation = causality" leap to get from 1 & 2 to 3.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I would say that the only unique thing (about earth moon relationship) is that there is witness to it. At any point in the solar system you could look at some thing “unique” (ie the earth is not the only place even in the solar system where full lunar eclipse occurs) and say that its the result of intelligent design. For example the fact that the sun is “just right” (has the right spectrum) and that the earth is in just the right spot, or that gravity is just right for stars to form in the first place, or that the forces of nature are just right to let the universe exist at all, that it must have been by design. This is not necessary true, only that was able to exist could. ie its no surprise that the world is perfect for the life that evolved on it, for those it wasn't would die. If intelligent life evolved on a different planet, with a different earth sun moon relation ship, that would be perfect for them too. Or if it could not survive there would be no witness.
edit on 12-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I find it interesting that the thread title says "undeniable proof" yet the best arguments that anyone can come up with are coincidences that probably have nothing to do with it. Yeah our planet (mars & venus too) are in the habitable zone and things seem just right... but then you look at 99.999% of the rest of the universe and it is all out of wack. Intelligence doesn't make much sense considering all the billions upon billions of stars that are not set up like that. If the eclipse thing was true, why isn't it consistent all over the place? Why would an intelligent designer waste so much time and effort designing all these extra stars and planets for no reason? For "undeniable proof" you need to do much better than that!
edit on 12-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
there is most definitely intelligence in the system, If this is innate or emergent is the question ?



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Redarguo
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

At any point in the solar system you could look at some thing “unique” (ie the earth is not the only place even in the solar system where full lunar eclipse occurs)

Yes, it is, and ours is the only planet with just one moon. You don't find the configuration the least bit intriguing, and I'm not just talking about the eclipse but the moon-earth geometrical relationship (and there's more where that came from, coming soon..).

Best regards,

NAM



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by rom12345
there is most definitely intelligence in the system, If this is innate or emergent is the question ?

Precisely. It was either built-in to the originating "blueprint" of creation from the moment of creation by anticipation and therefore intentionally or, it's the outcome of an emergent, cosmic evolutionary process according to sacred geometry, but in either case it's a PERFECT model of a living world just blooming with life or an example of what REALLY works, and therefore from an emergent evolutionary context it would appear and be logical to conclude that we really do stand atop a mountain of cosmic evolution.

But I am not starting out with that idea (crown of creation), only considering it among all possibilities.

Another idea is that a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way, of which there are many, is capable of producing at least one of these type of configurations and that's it's a galactic evolutionary framework who's aim is LIFE, and on that score I think it's also important to consider the evolutionary impact of Cygnus X3 which we've already discussed.

I'm open to all possibilities, except maybe the chance-fluke hypothesis bandied about by atheists to avoid any possibility of ID and it's potential implication or significance, because it doesn't make any sense in the face of the data, and there's still another data-set that I need to bring forward, although it might take me a week or two to pull it all together.

Best regards,

NAM

edit on 12-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Originally posted by iterationzero
1. As far as we know, there is only life on our planet.
2. As far as we know, only our planet has this particular configuration of star-planet-satellite.
3. Therefore, that configuration is the cause of life on this planet and therefore must have been designed with that end in mind.

You're making one enormous "correlation = causality" leap to get from 1 & 2 to 3.

Not that's not the argument. I don't have time at the moment but I'll come back and address this more fully. Your "therefore" isn't the reasoning I'm using, and I would not be putting forward a design argument unless there were design elements to be observed, and there are still more to come, to show precisely why design over chance occurrence is the better hypothesis.

For starters, the false assumption is that an earth-like world capable of supporting a long-term, sustained evolutionary process giving rise to intelligent life will occur when you have a rocky world in the habitable zone of a sun-like star regardless of lunar influence, particularly when we consider the specific and very precise dynamic by which such a process has occurred on earth. It's simple and straightforward deductive reasoning and logic, deduced based on observable phenomenon, not unfounded speculation and conjecture.

Furthermore, this argument doesn't require that the earth be the ONLY place in the Universe where such a process has taken place. That's another assumption of what is perceived to be my bias, probably due to my avatar and nothing more.

And lastly, for now, the so-called "scientific" explanation for our moon's formation involving an ancient impact with earth by an unknown, Mars-sized rogue planetoid, not once but twice (to try to make the models work out even though it doesn't explain the rate of earth's rotation) by chance or by fluke, doesn't make a very strong case (to say the least) for the notion that earth-like worlds with long-span evolutionary development of life abound, not just in the universe, but within our own galaxy.

Regards,

NAM

edit on 12-6-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
think it all the way through...





top topics
 
23
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join