Undeniable Proof of Intelligent Design.

reply to post by Phage


No I'm saying that life as we experience it on earth including our own form would not exist otherwise, and that it appears to have been designed with this outcome, including we ourselves in mind from a first cause.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Coincidence? Hardly.

A highly complex combination of chemical and biological processes resulting in forms of life suited to this planet? Absolutely.

I was actually referring to the unique geometrical configuration of the earth-moon-sun system that is conducive to life as we know it. Just the luck of the draw in your opinion?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

I was actually referring to the unique geometrical configuration of the earth-moon-sun system that is conducive to life as we know it. Just the luck of the draw in your opinion?

No. Life is "as we know it" because the Moon is there. If it wasn't there, life still would be. Intelligent life? Maybe.
But what "unique geometrical configuration" are you talking about?


By the way, that "squaring" thing?

If you bisect this triangle and assign a value of 1 to each base, then the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) equals phi (1.618..)

Remarkable. Or not. Make any right triangle you wish with sides a, b, c. Make it so that the ratio between c and b is the same as the ratio between b and a. Guess what you get? Surprise...phi! Another fun fact associated with phi. Some believe that the Egyptians purposely included phi in construction of the great pyramid.

and the perpendicular side equals the square root of phi.

Well, yes. That's what Pythagoras tells us about right triangles. He also knew about golden triangles.
www.goldennumber.net...

This represents the circumference of the earth

Ok, a circle with a radius of 1.0

A circle drawn with its centre at the apex of the pyramid and its radius just long enough to touch the earth circle

Ok. A circle with radius 0.27

will have the circumference of the moon!

Using that ratio, the Moon should have a radius of 1720 km. It doesn't. So just like the claim of the "perfect" eclipse, this one isn't quite right either.

The problem here is people fall into a collective consciousness of looking for perfection. the thing is the more "perfect" something is the less it is. I'll give you an example. You got a smoking hot celebrity. Because she is so good looking the main thing that will stand out about her after you've grown a tolerance to her appearance will be her flaws.

This is why divorces and break ups happen. I'm not saying it's the main cause. But have you ever wondered why someone would cheat on someone when your like man shes hot. It's because once the tolerance grew her flaws became more apparent.

So where do we find perfection? In imperfection. I'm not saying that the most unattractive is attractive. But beauty in my humble opinion is in the average. Because first you will notice flaws and then comes seeing the beauty.

We have to apply this philosophy to all things before we get it. But perfection is just the opposite.

reply to post by Phage

Yeah it's off by 17 kiliometers by your calc.

Funny how you didn't find the geometrical relationship of the diameter of the moon to that of the earth to be the least bit curious or interesting..hmph.

reply to post by metalholic

And intriguingly, the relationships put forward in the OP shows, as a result of Phage's corrections regarding perfection (or a lack of it), shows a minor deviation from absolute perfection, but there's no mistaking the apparent design aspects within the framework of sacred geometry. It's also obvious, at least to me, that the moon has been running a type of evolutionary program in relation to the earth and the evolution of life on earth, with we ourselves as observers existing at the point where the visible circumference of the moon perfectly and nearly perfectly eclipses that of the sun, something that could only be significant or meaningful from the perspective of a self aware observer from earth, which some try to dismiss as mere coincidence, to avoid (seemingly at all cost) the implication of intelligent design.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

There are many coincidences which are interesting.

That doesn't mean they are significant or indicate any relationship. Nor does a single example in a very small sample (the Solar System) indicate that there is anything unique about it. That's the point about "Crown of Creation". You are taking a point of view which is based on the idea that there is something special, something unique about the Earth and its Moon. You are taking a very provincial viewpoint when there is a whole galaxy out there, about which we know few details.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

something that could only be significant or meaningful from the perspective of a self aware observer.

Perhaps instead of "self aware" you should use the term "theologically biased". Not that there is anything particularly wrong but that is a bit more honest nomenclature. I'm self aware. The only significance or meaning I see is that the Sun gets covered by the Moon sometimes.


How long have those self aware observers been aware that what they were observing was the Moon obscuring the Sun?

reply to post by Phage

Fair enough, and it's an unknown yes. However, let's look at the corollary to that idea and put it forth as an open ended question and just consider how potentially unique it may very well be.

On how many worlds might it be possible for a self aware, sentient observer to witness (with a filter so they don't hurt their "eyes") their single, GIANT moon, perfectlyeclipse their sun?

Do you think it's probable that such a configuration happens more than once in a galaxy, do you?

There's another factor too regarding the evolution of life on Earth including our own and that's the cosmic rays directed our way periodically from Cygnus X3 which is one of THE most luminous objects in the entire galaxy or one of the top two or three anyway.

reply to post by Phage

You are biased also, in direct proportion the other way, to the degree that you are willing to dismiss any notion of the possibility of meaningful significance and/or intelligent design in these matters, so I guess you've answered my earlier question about random "luck of the draw". That's quite the coincidental factor though isn't it? Talk about LUCK! Wow!

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Do you think it's probably that such a configuration happens more than once in a galaxy, do you?

Hundreds of billions of stars. More billions of planets. More billions of moons. But again. Even if it were unique, why is that significant (other than being unique)? I'm sure that many "significant relationships" can be found. I'm sure many of them happen around lifeless worlds. The only thing that makes the Earth and Moon significant (to you) is a circular argument; The Earth is special because I am on it. There is a "relationship" between the Earth and the Moon. This relationship is special because I am on the Earth.

Do you think it's probable that intelligent life evolved on one planet in this galaxy?

reply to post by Phage

You've missed the point, that life is it's object, this life, obviously, but the anthropic principal, that if it were any other way or we wouldn't be here, doesn't render the data meaningless and absurd or insignificant. That we are here is precisely what makes it significant, and it's clearly no mere accident or coincidence, but is custom designed and tailored perfectly in favor of life.

Originally posted by Phage
Do you think it's probable that intelligent life evolved on one planet in this galaxy?

I didn't used to think that way. Just thought it was a factor of the total number of stars with planets in the Goldilocks Zone, take a percentage of them and you'll get a rough estimate for living worlds and of those an average for intelligent life.

Now, after examining the apparent uniqueness of the earth-moon-sun configuration, and the resulting tilt and wobble of the earth which produces the perihelion and solstice of the cycle of life, tides, trade winds, liquid water over 90% of the surface etc. 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), the implication of which would be that if we are or have been visited by advanced ET lifeforms they are most likely coming from another galaxy altogether employing physics capable of folding or removing the intervening space.

The SKA or Square Kilometer Array will either disprove or further validate this contention within the next 20 years.

Re: Crown of Creation - Since we are very recent or new in cosmic time and space, and since I am convinced that the true nature of the universe and evolution is information within a non-localized holographic type framework or that it doesn't occur in isolation, then perhaps it's not unreasonable to conclude that the adage of "the last shall be first and the first, last" might have some validity, even if there are, somewhere out there, technologically (and spiritually) advanced civilizations millions or even billions of years ahead of us in time. So yes, morphologically, mankind might very well be the crowning glory of creation. What an embarrassment if that were the case, eh?

reply to post by metalholic

The problem here is people fall into a collective consciousness of looking for perfection.

I see the problem as, once we accept a premise we go looking for more and more evidence to substantiate that premise. And we will force that evidence to fit even if it's like taking a sledgehammer to slam puzzle pieces into the wrong place.

If I have been conditioned to believe that clouds have intelligence, then it's no great leap for me to conclude that storm clouds are angry. Gray clouds are evil. Small puffy white clouds are angels. And I will come to these conclusions without ever once doubting the first premise that clouds are intelligent.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

You are biased also, in direct proportion the other way, to the degree that you are willing to dismiss any notion of the possibility of meaningful significance and/or intelligent design in these matters

My bias is in the direction of looking at what is presented without looking for any particular "reason" behind it. My bias is in not having the arrogance to think that the world revolves around me. In not believing that the Solar System was created for my benefit.

That's quite the coincidental factor though isn't it? Talk about LUCK! Wow!

There are a lot of coincidences in the world. Someone who is self-centered thinks they have something to do with them. But what is "lucky" about this one?

reply to post by Phage


And all I'm saying is that it's not luck at all but was clearly made by design with the intent of producing the life on Earth that we see and experience, and that furthermore, yes the whole of all creation has been created and fine tuned in such a way so as to make experience, including our experience, possible. This is just deductive reasoning, not the fancy of a solipsistic narcissism.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

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)

"Not unlike our own". Well at least you get that part of it. There will not be life like us because it will not be evolving under the same conditions we did. That's the point. Like I said before, if the Moon were not there (no matter what "relationships" you want to come up with about it), we would not be the way we are. We would be something completely different becuase the Moon is just one of a number of factors which influenced our evolution.

I am convinced that the true nature of the universe and evolution is information within a non-localized holographic type framework or that it doesn't occur in isolation, then perhaps it's not unreasonable to conclude that the adage of "the last shall be first and the first, last" might have some validity, even if there are, somewhere our there,

What?

So yes, morphologically, mankind might very well be the crowning glory of creation.

Morphologically? You mean we're the best lookin' critters in the Universe?

reply to post by Phage

yes the whole of all creation has been created and fine tuned in such a way so as to make experience, including our experience, possible.

Yes. I know you think you are very, very special. I don't happen to think so.
In fact, I wish we had evolved as a avian life form rather than a ground hugging one. That would be cool.

reply to post by Phage


I really hope we are not the best looking ones....I want to meet the Green girl from the star trek movies.
Also If we are the crowning glory, the best a creator can make....he needs to get fired.
Chimpanzees can eat and breath at the same time, we can't and that is why so many of us die from choking on food each year.
Heck I bet I could design a better lifeform lol.

But seriously we were not designed, we evolved into what we are.

reply to post by Phage

Non-local, holographic universe, are you not familiar with the idea and the science. If the universe is made up of information within a non-local framework, then evolution isn't purely an isolated phenomenon, and so the last or more recent would conceivably be the most evolved ie: the last shall be fist and the first last. Ah never mind, it's out there and not really on topic. It's just an idea I've had, that evolutionary development might involve information sharing within the context and framework of an interpenetrating, organic, cosmological unity.

As Phage noted (and although I have disagreed with him many times, you just can't ignore that he does his homework, and I am compelled by his thoughts in this thread), different ecosystems will present very different evolution. We cannot assume that any species or organism from an ecosystem different from our own will follow any of the 'rules' we know. It is impudent to assume that life from another planet (which mathematically is probable) would look, behave, and interact in any familiar manner. Now, are they god's creations too? Is the 'science' of their planet more or less perfect than our own? Or must they follow the same design? Is this important to the ID ethos?

In our universe is a recurring set of physics. Does this prove intelligence, or do people assign this as intelligence in the same manner that natural events such as earthquakes were assigned supernatural cause by primitive people? Science is not fixed, and continues to explore and discover. One day we will likely have a very clear understanding of these recurring physics (golden ratio, Mandelbrot sequence etc.) and how they arrive. Until then I will file it under "I don't know" as science does. Maybe the scientists have a pretty good idea, but haven't quite got there yet. Giving any supernatural powers to these things in the meantime does everyone a disservice.

ID, to me, presents itself as a set of moved goalposts. Science has been pretty good at disproving most of the supernatural claims. As this continues, the supernatural claims simply move to the next safe haven....for a while.
In time (if not already) ID will be shown to be simply another myth, and will follow all the others that failed the test of time.

The universe is awesome enough without making up silly stories about it.