Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

Are you suggesting that ancient aliens helped build-design the moon-earth-sun configuration/relationship 4.6 billion years ago and if so, how did they evolve in the first place? Also, the sun's origin, dimension, and mass, is tied to the galactic formation and accretion, so that would rule out ancient alien involvement would it not?

The answer is, we don't know. Your the only one trying to pass off opinion as fact.

Also, the ingredients need to come together in just the right way, obviously, for a sustained evolutionary process to occur. The mere presence of those ingredients being present doesn't of themselves assure that life will happen every time, don't be absurd and look again at the set-up/configuration that's given rise to life on earth. And you accuse me of making assumptions,

It isn't just certain elements being there. "Just the right way" is one of the ingredients. If that is present then yes life will happen everytime. The difference is that you don't accept that this can happen without being guided. Great but it is just your opinion

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

Are you suggesting that ancient aliens helped build-design the moon-earth-sun configuration/relationship 4.6 billion years ago and if so, how did they evolve in the first place? Also, the sun's origin, dimension, and mass, is tied to the galactic formation and accretion, so that would rule out ancient alien involvement would it not?

Also, the ingredients need to come together in just the right way, obviously, for a sustained evolutionary process to occur. The mere presence of those ingredients being present doesn't of themselves assure that life will happen every time, don't be absurd and look again at the set-up/configuration that's given rise to life on earth. And you accuse me of making assumptions,

Honestly, if there was any alien intervention it probably occurred somewhat recently (last few hundred thousand years or so), not 4.5 bya to set up the moon. That event was decided by a planetoid colliding with the earth, but it's not entirely impossible that advanced cultures existed at that time. 4.6 bya was when the first star in our binary system went supernova and was absorbed by the other star. That made our sun into a yellow dwarf and created our modern solar system. It's possible there were planets and potentially even life already in the system before that event. We still haven't even found the leftover brown dwarf, it's out there somewhere. Don't forget, 4.5 billion years is a long time, but the universe is at least 13 billion years old, which allows for plenty of time for life to evolve in more early formed star systems. Then again, you never know, perhaps the supernova is another vital part of the equation for life. Without it, there would be no heavy metals on earth, including the iron in our blood. I have doubts about an advanced culture being able to take a piece of the earth and put it in orbit around the earth, however. That would require incredible energy and technology beyond our wildest dreams. Seeding life or modifying existing life, perhaps. Terra-forming an entire star system.. very doubtful.

reply to post by daskakik


I'm offering it as a hypothesis, for serious consideration, both from the microcosmic level (Higgs Boson mass) to the macro, recognizing outwardly unfolded causes from initial conditions, and going whoa! It's equally trippy in either case as I've already pointed out, even equally absurd when the degree of fine tuning involved must evoke the anthropic principal to avoid the possibility and implication of by-design. It's hilarious, equally discombobulating and capable of gobsmackng us, and overturning cherishly held beliefs and paradigms about the true nature of the world and our place in it. One hypothesis is that it's unintended, the other by intention ie: with purpose. One is mute, the other communicates something, one is mindless the other fully informed in eternity, but done in such a way that it is left to man in participation, at the most unfathomable level, to complete the circle i.e.: to lay the foundation of heaven on earth. One argument would indicate, as fact, that man is just a thing, whereas what I'm saying is that we are a phenomenon of creation, standing as it were next to the very Godhead and even here we have an intercessor to ensure that nothing of value is or can be ever lost.

reply to post by Barcs

The only real alternative hypotheses for moon formation, to that of the mass impact / double-whack theory, which might be called into question if there are shared whole number integers and ratios involved between that of the moon, earth and sun, along with the "coincidence" of the present-day/epoch phenomenon of eclipse (now that there are humans to observe such things) - would be an object, even a type of astro-engineered object pulling the mantle material directly from the proto-earth, to just the right size, mass, and orbit etc. Because it's not in doubt that a) the moon is made predominately of earth-mantle material and b) formed at the same distance from the sun as the earth i.e.: it's not a captured body like other moon's in our solar system.


As to stage-three civilizations, you're probably right that's it's not impossible that they could have existed 4.5 billion years ago, which is why i like to raise the notion or specter that it could very well have been "the stone that was rejected by "the builders" that became the cornerstone" as it were, but quite literally, which would be rather funny and amuzing imho. Such strange objects, as assists to candidate planets, might have at one time existed like a seed-pod, with the individual "seeds" finding their way to the desired location to then play the rather surreptitious role of "program-Life" cornerstone, or, find their way (or be appropriated) as "leftovers" from prior terraforming initiatives from eons past (already tried and tested), left behind or "rejected" by "the builders" and embedded into a new creation, but if already rejected or left behind, then by whose hand this time 'round..?

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy?

Job 38:4-7

Therefore thus saith the Lord God: “Behold, I lay a stone in Zion for a sure foundation, a tried and tested stone, a precious cornerstone, he that believeth shall not make haste.

~ Isaiah 28:16

things that make ya (or me at least) go hmmmm.... and sometimes laugh at the sheer wonder of it all.

Regards,

NAM

Originally posted by daskakik

As for Cygnus being a cross, so what?

I suspect that it might very well have been meaningful or significant to the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth, you know like seeing the writing on the wall... quite literally!

23 Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up his cross and follow me.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Cygnus, considered since ancient times as the source of a death and resurrection principal (random DNA mutation?) and often associated with a bird of life and a swan (symbol of grace), in the constellation known now, and in ancient times, as "The Northern Cross".

Perhaps another "sign" or allegory once recognized by an old friend of mine.. ? Hey you never know because as it appears, anything is possible.

The reversal of Cygnus makes the asterism of the Northern Cross, with Deneb now at the top, the cross seen rising on its side in early northern summer evenings, standing upright in the west in early northern winter after sunset.

stars.astro.illinois.edu...

And yes, it also has extra stars which give it wings and thus the symbol of a bird often a swan in the dark rift of the Milky Way, but it was also seen as the Northern Cross with Deneb, the constellation's apex, being close to the pole star and once serving as the pole star. It's main form as a constellation is that of a cross, which picks itself up every year on the northern horizon.

Hmph.. I wonder if anyone else has noticed this..? Could be an ATS exclusive..

What am I suggesting, that the UCA knew, from the very origin of creation or least that of our own galaxy, and thus from the very beginning.., what the preferred method of Roman execution would be during one human lifetime, to the degree that the relative luminosity of a certain stellar constellation when seen from earth, would be recognized as a sign and allegory by that one individual? Yes.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

I'm offering it as a hypothesis, for serious consideration, both from the microcosmic level (Higgs Boson mass) to the macro, recognizing outwardly unfolded causes from initial conditions, and going whoa!

Going whoa doesn't make something true.

It's equally trippy in either case as I've already pointed out, even equally absurd when the degree of fine tuning involved must evoke the anthropic principal to avoid the possibility and implication of by-design. It's hilarious, equally discombobulating and capable of gobsmackng us, and overturning cherishly held beliefs and paradigms about the true nature of the world and our place in it.

Why do you keep writing like you have proven anything?

Why is it that you only seem to accept by-design as long as it's in accordance to your cherishly held beliefs and paradigms?

One is mute, the other communicates something, one is mindless the other fully informed in eternity, but done in such a way that it is left to man in participation, at the most unfathomable level, to complete the circle i.e.: to lay the foundation of heaven on earth. One argument would indicate, as fact, that man is just a thing, whereas what I'm saying is that we are a phenomenon of creation, standing as it were next to the very Godhead and even here we have an intercessor to ensure that nothing of value is or can be ever lost.

The truth doesn't care about your need to feel like your standing next to the very Godhead.

Why only two?

In the end it might turn out that both of those hypotheses were wrong.

Originally posted by daskakik

The truth doesn't care about your need to feel like your standing next to the very Godhead.

Btw, you wrote in "with little to actually back it up" in my quote as if I wrote that, please don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

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.

Why only two?

Life was either intended from a first/last cause ie: by-design, or uninteded ie: mindless, either purpose driven in favor of life by anticipation from an initial cause or a chance occurrence or just as a byproduct of a mindless process without intelligent intentionality (by design). It was either done by design, or it wasn't. And like I said, heck of a thing or "very trippy" in either case when framed by eternity or an ocean of absurdity in the case of the anthropic principal.

Neither have I discounted a cosmic evolutionary process involving sacred geometry, but that still leads to a type of anticipatory design in favor of life or it would not have had the opportunity to emerge in the first place.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Fixed the quote and Haisch's musings are not proof of anything, it is also just an opinion.

So as not to waste the snipped part, you have given your hypothesis "with little to actually back it up".

Life was either intended from a first/last cause ie: by-design, or uninteded ie: mindless, either purpose driven in favor of life by anticipation from an initial cause or a chance occurrence or just as a byproduct of a mindless process without intelligent intentionality (by design). It was either done by design, or it wasn't. And like I said, heck of a thing or "very trippy" in either case when framed by eternity or an ocean of absurdity in the case of the anthropic principal.

Actually you don't know that.

Neither have I discounted a cosmic evolutionary process involving sacred geometry, but that still leads to a type of anticipatory design in favor of life or it would not have had the opportunity to emerge in the first place.

This just looks like your trying to force design in no matter what.

Originally posted by daskakik

This just looks like your trying to force design in no matter what.

No I'm saying that it's very difficult to avoid when confronted with the fact of life, as if life itself were an intended outcome, by anticipation, from the origin of a first/last cause in eternity, including the configuration of the earth, moon and sun and their particular relationship to one another. Even as a cosmic evolutionary process say where one giant moon is better than two smaller, irregularly sized moons, the final outcome appears to have arisen not by some sort of random, capricious process, but in a very intentional high-precision manner, with life as an intended consequence, as the goal or the objective, and thus something that's anticipated from the mass of the Higgs Boson and the highly refined value of the cosmological constant, at the micro level, to the configuration of the axis of life itself, at the macro level. It's very very precise and finely tuned, from initial conditions, which denotes intelligence, even infinite intelligence when the final outcome can be seen realized. What is life then but it's very purpose, including our own life, and that's where it starts to get "trippy" when we consider the all-inclusive nature of it, including our own selves.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

It isn't difficult if you actually come into it with an open mind and without the need to be special. Add to that the fact that we know next to nothing and an honest person can only come to the conclusion that we need more info before proclaiming "I have the truth".

reply to post by daskakik

I'm just pointing to something rather intriguing (to say the least) and on the basis of observed phenomenon and the objective reality as objective evidence (isn't that what the atheists were asking for all along.?) - offering a rational hypothesis born of deductive reasoning and logic capable of reconciling all available data, not the least of which is our own experience of being alive, not as "things" but as a process even intrinsic to the whole process at all levels. Only then am I forced to conclude that indeed yes, we are rather special, unique, even wonderful, but I don't begin with that presupposition, nor do I assume that ID is impossible or cannot function as a valid hypothesis in the face of the data which is definitely of the objective, in-your-face, variety. And if I were any more open-minded my brains would fall out of my head. Blind faith never worked for me, so I'm not your average run of the mill believer setting out merely to prove his previously held beliefs, to the contrary I was trying to prove it all wrong, but simply couldn't escape the reasoning and evidence for ID. As far as hypotheses go, it's not a bad one at all, the only problem being it's implication, especially for staunch atheists, who would be willing to make an appeal to ignorance before ever admitting to the notion of Intelligent Design by the UCA, or who Jesus referred to as Abba.

Best regards,

NAM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

I'm just pointing to something rather intriguing

When you start calling others ideas absurd and when you offer hypotheses and come to conclusions then you have gone past just pointing something out.

You have used the term staunch atheist a couple of times and once even called me one. Don't know what it means to you but I don't think it fits me.

reply to post by daskakik

By staunch atheist I am referring simply to someone who's taken a strong or firm position on the side of atheism, to the exclusion of the possibility of God. Not open minded at the other end of the spectrum you could say. Atheism according to its proper definition as a mere lack of belief implies an open mindedness or receptivity to God as a possibility (however remote a possibility it might be to even begin to fathom), so a distinction needs to be made.

Also, nobody needs to accept anything anyone else says and they are free to evaluate all information and data and form their own conclusions. They don't have to take my word for it, I'm just asking them to consider the data and the hypothesis that I've offered is just my take on it. I've learned a few things in the process and it's incumbent on us to share the things we learn and discover.

I don't want to shout anyone down, but when you consider what I've been put through simply for bringing this information to the fore, it's almost understandable that I might feel "pushed" around a little and as a result push back a bit.

The seething contempt inherent in many of the replies, including your own, is unmistakable. So I'm not sure if I owe too many apologies.

"There is a principal which serves as a bar against all information, and proof against all arguments and that cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is called contempt, prior to investigation."

~ Herbert Spencer, Scientist

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

By staunch atheist I am referring simply to someone who's taken a strong or firm position on the side of atheism, to the exclusion of the possibility of God. Not open minded at the other end of the spectrum you could say. Atheism according to its proper definition as a mere lack of belief implies an open mindedness or receptivity to God as a possibility (however remote a possibility it might be to even begin to fathom), so a distinction needs to be made.

Knew that wasn't me.

Also, nobody needs to accept anything anyone else says and they are free to evaluate all information and data and form their own conclusions. They don't have to take my word for it, I'm just asking them to consider the data and the hypothesis that I've offered is just my take on it. I've learned a few things in the process and it's incumbent on us to share the things we learn and discover.

And some of us have evaluated that information and shared our conclusions. They differ from yours. Can't you just accept that?

I don't want to shout anyone down, but when you consider what I've been put through simply for bringing this information to the fore, it's almost understandable that I might feel "pushed" around a little and as a result push back a bit.

Having people disagree with you is not being pushed around.

The seething contempt inherent in many of the replies, including your own, is unmistakable. So I'm not sure if I owe too many apologies.

I guess it might have something to do with the way you come off. Maybe you don't realize how your writing style is seen by others. The problem I have with it is that you talk with certainty about things that are unproven and when called out on it you usually act like you can't believe that we can't see what is so obvious or you try to play it off like you were "just saying".

At times when you accept info that is contrary to whatever you are offering, you then continue to post as if that information was not made available to you or as if you hadn't acknowledged it. This looks like you are just dismissing anything that doesn't fit your theory.

Nobody asked you to apologise for anything.

reply to post by daskakik

I haven't seen any other "conclusions" than that it's "not quite perfect" or "we just don't know", "it's just a coincidence" and "you're wrong", in other words nothing really substantive has been offered in rebuttal, with the claim made that it has been fully rebutted, even conclusively, when in truth what's been presented has never really even been addressed, just dismissed, and yes, with a certain contemptuous bias and tone and I'm not sure the title of the thread being something else would have made any difference to the atheist participants.

You propose a hypothesis: Similarities in measurements plus the balance of other factors that sustain life on earth indicate Intelligent Design.

The problem is there aren't any experiments or observations that can prove or falsify that statement. The only part of the argument that is objective is your citations of the measurements. They exist, they are proven true. However, the "indicates ID" part of it is not. That is your conclusion based on your opinion of what those factors indicate, it is not based on testable data so it can't qualify as objective evidence.

reply to post by Barcs

Ah but you accepted the random-chaotic, Mars-sized, planetary impact theory for moon formation based on nothing but theory. However, if it can be shown with objective data and analysis that the moon must have been formed with the dimensions and future rate of rotation of the earth and sun in mind (however it formed), that would logically bolster the ID hypothesis and bring the coincidence/chance theory into question..
So far there are two MAJOR "coincidences" that we've examined in this thread and OP those being the present epoch (when there are observers to witness it) "coincidence" of the visible diameter of moon and sun, as well as the rather intriguing size ratio of the moon to the earth (I won't post the pyramid pic again), and those are astounding for an object (moon) that was supposed to have been formed by an oblique impact with the earth by a Mars-sized planetoid, not once, but twice (to try to explain the present rate of rotation of the earth). But what if there were a whole series of measurements showing whole round number integers and ratios in the earth-moon-sun configuration, which would cause the "coincidence factor" to increase still further to the point of no longer representing a valid hypothesis, as if those two things when taken together (eclipse and moon-earth pyramid ratio) were not enough.., then, regardless of what's "out there", we would be looking at the hallmarks of a design, weighted, even perfectly established (not unlike a "cornerstone" of life) to favor the evolution of life on earth as we find it, but not as a chance or a fluke or some lucky "fortuitous" coincidence, but by-design or with intent and by anticipation beginning with the end (life) in mind. Just think it through all the way, from final effects to initial causes, and then simply ask if this came about as an unintended or an intended consequence. Don't make ANY assumptions in other words, take a good solid look at the data without any bias whatsoever and regardless of what you think of me or my writing style, and inquire into it. There's enough data for it to speak volumes, regardless of the unknown unknown within which it's immersed and which for all due purposes will forever remain an unknown, even if we were able to conduct a successful survey of the entire galaxy and find one or many earth-like worlds. We still are left with the data before us, and it's... uncompromising in it's objectivity.

Would you have us say "don't know anything nothing to see here move along.."..?

At least the anthropic principal attempts to make some sort of sense of the data within the context of a coherent representation of the whole of existence, even though it renders the data in effect meaningless and of no consequence or significance whatsoever simply because if it were any other way we wouldn't be here to see it or talk about it (not the greatest "scientific" argument however, as an explanation, I realize).

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

I haven't seen any other "conclusions" than that it's "not quite perfect" or "we just don't know", "it's just a coincidence" and "you're wrong", in other words nothing really substantive has been offered in rebuttal, with the claim made that it has been fully rebutted, even conclusively, when in truth what's been presented has never really even been addressed, just dismissed, and yes, with a certain contemptuous bias and tone and I'm not sure the title of the thread being something else would have made any difference to the atheist participants.

Those are all valid conclusions. They don't have to be a rebuttal to be conclusions.

You know saying "we just don't know" isn't a dismissal of your theory but it is a rebuttal of the certainty of your claims.

Like I said before, the hypothesis is a just as much of a problem as the title so, yes it would not have made a difference.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Ah but you accepted the random-chaotic, Mars-sized, planetary impact theory for moon formation based on nothing but theory.

What do you mean it's based on nothing but a theory? Isn't gravity as well? Theories are substantially backed by evidence in science. The moon is composed of earth material, this is fact. The moon is tidally locked to the earth, also a fact. The earth's axis is no longer straight, another fact. How else can you explain these three factors? You say the moon stabilizes the wobble of the earth, but how do you know this wobble wasn't caused by whatever hit the earth in the first place? What else can provide enough energy to shoot a piece of the earth that large into space at orbital velocity and shatter it into a million pieces? All the nukes in the world couldn't do that.

However, if it can be shown with objective data and analysis that the moon must have been formed with the dimensions and future rate of rotation of the earth and sun in mind (however it formed), that would logically bolster the ID hypothesis and bring the coincidence/chance theory into question..

Please explain how one would objectively determine that the moon was created with the future rate of the earth & sun in mind? Obviously if it was intentionally designed, yes, but that's a guess and there's no way to objectively determine something like that.

So far there are two MAJOR "coincidences" that we've examined in this thread and OP those being the present epoch (when there are observers to witness it) "coincidence" of the visible diameter of moon and sun, as well as the rather intriguing size ratio of the moon to the earth (I won't post the pyramid pic again), and those are astounding for an object (moon) that was supposed to have been formed by an oblique impact with the earth by a Mars-sized planetoid, not once, but twice (to try to explain the present rate of rotation of the earth).

The double hit theory is outdated, and they were never able to resolve the math behind it. More recent math suggests that it was hit once, but an object much larger than Mars. This didn't just knock a chunk off the earth, it shattered it into small pieces and debris that eventually attracted together via gravity. I don't know why this seems so ridiculous to you. This was in the aftermath of a supernova explosion. The debris formed into planets and chances are some had intersecting orbits and eventually collided. It's not that far fetched, as least not as much as some external entity purposely designing it that way.

reply to post by Barcs

Originally posted by Barcs

Please explain how one would objectively determine that the moon was created with the future rate of the earth & sun in mind? Obviously if it was intentionally designed, yes, but that's a guess and there's no way to objectively determine something like that.

Actually, there IS quite a lot of objective and verifyable evidence by which to determine something like that.

Here, instead of quoting and wasting hours trying to present it to you, and the readership, in bits and pieces, just read this book (below) and I invite all readers and members to check it out, you might even be astonished as the rest of the puzzle pieces start to fall together to form a picture and a type of message seemingly intended for our own recognition in the fullness of cosmic time and history.

Who Built the Moon?

Free E-Book on line
contraeducacao.files.wordpress.com...
If you wish to download the free pdf instead, just google and you'll find it.

I'll make a post later about the fact that while their final conclusion or speculation in attempting to answer the question of "Who Built the Moon?", while absurd (talk about killing the grandfather paradox!), the rest of the book and it's contents nevertheless provides a very powerful and compelling argument that the moon's and the moon-earth-sun's geometry and inter-relationship is of unnatural origin and thus most definitely by design. And if it formed by a great impact with another larger planet in the same orbit (?), which cannot and needn't be ruled out, what we'd be talking about here in that case is a rather high-precision engineered game of cosmic billiard balls. Talk about fine-point control over time and space and matter though, it defies the imagination to begin to consider, which is why I prefer the strange object or "moon-seed" (astro-engineered "life-seed") theory as a secret "cornerstone" of solar system formation and the "setting" up of an earth-world, but in either case, the design elements, shared by moon, earth and sun, are unmistakable and do serve as objective verifiable evidence, of intelligent design, or what I prefer to call super-infinite-intelligent design, because it's right through the roof in regards to the anticipation of future causes from initial effects.


Best regards,

NAM