Proofs of Design with Witnesses - Final Proof Cannot be Argued

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

so who designed god?

Ask God if you really want the truth?

or

You have to accept his existence before you get to ask
that quetion.

put the cart before the horse? no thanks.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Damn it! Almost had one.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

Damn it! Almost had one.

i dont think you tried very hard...

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

so who designed god?

Ask God if you really want the truth?

or

You have to accept his existence before you get to ask
that quetion.

So does that mean you ( or anyone who doesn't accept the viability of the modern evolutionary synthesis for that matter, not trying to single you out personally)have to accept evolution before you're allowed to question IT?

a reply to: TzarChasm

"
okay...assuming your evidence is all correct and points conclusively to some sort of divine intelligence...what created that intelligence? you said once that purpose cant come from purposelessness. you keep posting threads where the organization of information indicates design. so who designed god? who created god? lemme guess, he is exempt from that rule? no SPECIAL PLEADING please. "

Word

The question is not what created God (Father, Mother, Son). The question is what created the letters. Apart from knowing them, you cannot investigate them.

a reply to: peter vlar

What's up Peter, I was being facetious with Tsar for asking a
question no one knows the answer too. And has nothing to do
with the existence of a designer as was claimed in the OP. Who
designed the ultimate designer isn't pertinent information if
indeed a designer does exist. So it's not like the question can be
answered anyway. As Tsar already knows full well. So the answer
to your question is, no you don't have to answer anything. But at
least the answer to any question about evolution one may have?
Is ready available.

a reply to: TzarChasm

i dont think you tried very hard..

And this displeases you?

a reply to: randyvs

As usual, facetiousness and humor are lost in translation without body language or tone if voice as indicators as likewise, I was merely kidding with you as well. I am under no delusion you and I will ever see eye to eye on either evolutionary theory or religion which is all fine and good. It doesn't mean I like you any less or don't still enjoy out conversations in and outside if various threads.

There are certainly many others I would have posed that query in a more serious tone however.

a reply to: peter vlar

I got a kick out of Tzar. He almost seemed discouraged that I
didn't pursue his indoctrination with more diligence.


Excellent thread IMO OP!
SnF

a reply to: randyvs

Cool since yo seem to understand what the OP is supposed to be can you explain it in terms everyone can understand?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Give it a shot in my own words but you can't laugh
if I muck this all up Grim.

OP is talking about words that are made up from an alphabet that
I've read could be as large 300,000 charecters strong. And I believe he has
shown that there are many of these protien based words that point to a
designer. And more precisely still the Christian God of the Bible.
So there is this language everyone agrees is providing information
and being carried around like a book in our DNA, genomes that are
most definitely the building blocks for life. But also OP is trying to
show how SOME OF these words relate directly to the
programmer/designer himself.

Revised again I should've said some of these words.

a reply to: Grimpachi

You just gonna leave me hang'n or what?

Ah! go ahead'n laugh, who gives a squat.

a reply to: randyvs

Patience Randy.

I have been looking up the meaning of some of the things you said like "protien based words".

You have to understand you guys talk in a code only you all can understand the rest of us struggle to reconcile your meanings with the english versions.

Thanks for your explanation and I am not laughing but I may need to find someone to translate before I ever get close to understanding what is being said. I guess my mind just doesn't work that way.

I do appreciate you trying though.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Grimpachi

Give it a shot in my own words but you can't laugh
if I muck this all up Grim.

OP is talking about words that are made up from an alphabet that
I've read could be as large 300,000 charecters strong. And I believe he has
shown that there are many of these protien based words that point to a
designer. And more precisely still the Christian God of the Bible.
So there is this language everyone agrees is providing information
and being carried around like a book in our DNA, genomes that are
most definitely the building blocks for life. But also OP is trying to
show how SOME OF these words relate directly to the
programmer/designer himself.

Revised again I should've said some of these words.

it only took dozens of threads from Enoch was right/AlephBet and another 10 pages of this particular one for someone to finally interpret gobbledygook into English. For that Randy I applaud you. It still doesn't lend any veracity to thread titles like "Proofs of Design with Witnesses - Final Proof Cannot be Argued" because it is all still an opinion and not any kind of proof let alone the Tolkienesque sounding 'Final Proof that can not be argued.' But still its nice to see something in a recognizable language format that attempts to transpose the OP's intent.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I meant i wouldn't blame you for laugh'n really.

i just tried to describe it the easiest way I could think of
but now I read it and it's #####en horrible so even I'm laugh'n.


sorry

a reply to: peter vlar

Hey one of two ain't half bad right?

I fear I totally lost Grim tho.

Trouble is I can see why.

OPs prolly the one laugh'n his booty off.
OP has the most important say if I butchered it up or what?
OP did I get anywhere near what you're conveying here?
Or should I get a meat cleaver for Christmas?

a reply to: randyvs

It's OK Randy I thank you for trying though I am glad you said that.

I am afraid I just will not get it but like I said its OK.

We all gave it a shot if peter understands then good on him and you. Time for a drink.

a reply to: AlephBet

Maybe I can help.

WIKI
"The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells. "

If you take a language like German, it can be translated (or transcribed) into English. There are rules for this transcription. Likewise, between the ones and zeros of binary, you are reading words on a screen in English. This too is transcribed by the computer processor so that the binary information can be read by you. Proteins are produced by triplet codons.

WIKI
"a three-nucleotide codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid."

If you will do a bit of light reading from the introduction in this pdf, you will see how this mirrors the Hebrew language. Letters of Hebrew form in roots to form words. LINK

Start on Page 34 and read about the roots. The rest of the Lexicon is the complete tree of knowledge. The tree of Life is DNA. The book of Life records our words and essence.

If you can get this, then simply read the OP again to the point you read John 1. Sequences of letters make words. Sequences of codons make proteins. They are parallel to each other. Our future story is transcribed from these letters in the Biblical narrative.

From here, you need to know what is actually being transcribed. Invariance is a state of set order and unity. Symmetry is the form this order takes. From the template, letters fill by patterns called archetypes. Each thing in existence is built from these archetypes (templates). There are two sources for these creations. One is God and the other is mankind. We are creators. The computer you are using is a good example of a virtual word constructed from words. Technology is the fruit of knowledge, or what is produced from the tree of knowledge (language). God's language is called the tree of life, or DNA producing reality. There are two levels of this creative nature. One is light and the other is information within the light.

Light cannot be seen unless it illuminates something that has be created. Matter is illuminated by light. Since light has no opposite, it cannot be seen. Matter's opposite is the light itself. Light contains all frequencies. God has no opposite and remains hidden.

In the OP, I said this:

-Witness Seven - Orthogonal Linear Transformation of Invariance is Translational Symmetry from higher dimensions. Collapsing wave function cannot occur from lower dimensions up, but upper down. Consciousness is in the higher dimensions above probability (restriction of law causing unity with multiplicity) and law governs all dimensions below. We have free will. If lower dimensions are governed, and consciousness arises from lower dimensions, then no free will. We would simply abide in invariance. Since symmetry breaks from the weak nuclear force, the electron is free. Otherwise, we would still be in a high state of order with low entropy.

Orthogonal means at right angles. .............. The dots are at right angles and make a 1D line.

.....
.....
.....
.....

A 2D plane is made by stacking 1D lines. They are at right angles. 3D stacks planes. 4D stacks sequences of changing states of matter. Once you arrive at a time sequence of changing states, you have a orthogonal linear matrix. All dimensions are at right angles to the previous angles. A 3D object has an infinity of movement at right angles, just as time has an infinity of probable states. Collapsing wave function is selecting a choice from the infinity, thereby, creating a new state of order. A computer works on the principle of invariance. A programming language is a set of instructions that allow the form to take shape on the screen. The operating system is the invariant symmetry that allows the translational symmetry to take place. Translation of the program makes the infinity of games, utilities, apps and so on. The human form is based on the same principle from DNA, but it's the operating system that is the proof.

Then I said this:

Best proof of all. God's will is to give and for us to receive. Nature proclaims this, mirrored by the male / female force of Strong and Weak Nuclear force. Thieves take. God Gives! He demonstrates this by His nature (Nature!).

The will of nature always gives and provides. Every form that is produced has a function and an environment best suited to its needs. Nature gives, which is the very nature of God. His will is to give. Thieves take. What does the God of the Bible stand against? Those who do not abide in his will, which perfectly matches the physics of invariant symmetry laws. The Strong Force in nature abides in invariance. The weak force does not.

At all levels, we have no excuse for not noticing the Designer by the design. There is an operating system governing the process. It is evident.

Romans 1 (notice the wording in bold)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine [invariant] nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Argue This: Your witness. Invariant Symmetry of the Strong Nuclear Force. It is invariant. You are translational. This is a proof, already provided by science. Why? There is an anchor that can be tracked back through the references provided in the Bible. They are mirrors.

If this is not obvious enough, God simply calls himself the Aleph Bet. How much more proof do we need?

a reply to: AlephBet

At all levels, we have no excuse for not noticing the Designer by the design. There is an operating system governing the process. It is evident.

It's tough dealing with folks on here not knowing the person you're
talking with. Some really need so much more, while others it will
never be enough. When the above is pretty much all I needed.
Fun discussion for sure right here. Thanks you guys.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Barcs
either way you are wrong. Sound matters much and effects even words. My point in the first place is that when two words have the same sound but different meanings then they are the same so the context is different and the power of the sound cares not for meanings when they tangle.

That's false. Words can sound exactly the same and have opposite meanings. Sanction can mean approve or it can mean to punish. Resign vs Re-sign are almost identical in pronunciation, yet one means to sign a contract extension, while the other means to retire or quit. How about the word cite? It can mean backing up a source or issuing a ticket as punishment. These are all almost complete opposites. Do you really think that "there" means the same thing as "their"?

English is a complex language and should be treated as such. It's fun to go back to root words and see where they all came from in Latin, but it doesn't prove anything about any of this, because what matters the most is what the words mean today. Pronunciation is irrelevant and any basic grammar or English class should have taught you about homophones.

originally posted by: AlephBet
I would like someone to demonstrate how preexistent invariance and symmetry lead to the conclusion that we evolved apart form design, a template and a governing force behind what DOES NOT CHANGE.

Please explain "preexistent invariance" and "invariant symmetry" in detail with citations to back it up and show exactly how that proves ID. Please connect the dots with specific references instead of misusing terminology. You can't just make a blanket statement like that without backing it up or at least explaining your point. 2 obscure words next to each other doesn't prove ANYTHING. It cannot be argued because the points don't make sense in the first place. They prove absolutely nothing.

The question is not what created God (Father, Mother, Son). The question is what created the letters. Apart from knowing them, you cannot investigate them.

You can't even prove they exist, so it's impossible to know them. Humans created the letters. Humans invented language and writing, so once again your points are completely reliant on guesswork.

We are still waiting for your proofs. It is NOT evident, that is your guess. There is not proof, there is your forced association with similar words and meanings that aren't the same. I just wish you were honest about it and said in the title that it was your opinion. You wouldn't get nearly as much backlash. Clearly, your goal here is to trick others into thinking you have proved something when you haven't come close. Yeah totally, invariant symmetry proves it and it's evident!!!

Something cannot be evident without evidence. See this is one example of a word where the meaning is virtually the same and it actually means something.