Proofs of Design with Witnesses - Final Proof Cannot be Argued

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Aleph, is it true you've written a book?

Two.

a reply to: AlephBet

Oh, interesting. One might argue three with how many threads you post!

What are the names of your books? Where can I find them? Online?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Barcs
True not every word shares the same meaning as the root word but the sound made is always the same therefore you are saying one thing but meaning another. That is true babble if you ask me. If the sound is what has power then who really knows what is being said although most of the time we understand what is being implied.

The sound is NOT what has power. The MEANING is what matters. Otherwise you could claim 90% of the English language is mere babble.

BTW you do not have the root word of the words you mentioned. It is volve and all the definitions stem from that. To roll or turn that is the common ground there.

Okay, now please explain how evolution involves rolling or turning. The fact of the matter is that it does not. My point has been proven, you can't equate modern terminology (especially scientific terms) to their original root. Sure, many of those words are related, but not all of them are, and it doesn't prove anything about any of this.

Root words are where words ORIGINATED FROM in Latin, not what they mean today. To suggest anything that sounds the same is related, is silly because it's different in every non latin based language on the planet.

originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: Barcs
Involution and evolution are on the same path up, or rising, but this is not a direction by our cardinal directions. Rather, involution is a process of something circling in, then out.

Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with going up or rising. Only people who aren't familiar with the science claim that. It also has nothing to do with "volve" Evolution has to do with genetic mutations and natural selection. Nothing rolling or turning or rising about it. Don't get me wrong, new species can emerge, but it's not required nor is it required for something to go from simple to complex. Species rise and fall.

An acorn to an oak tree is a giant version of this. The acorn is not the oak tree no more than the oak tree is the acorn.

Absolutely not true, in regards to evolution. You can't say that an acorn is an oak tree just as volve is evolution. They aren't the same, not in the least.

The information (archetype of information and letters) is in formed into soil. The rising of the oak tree from the letters is a direction outside the letters themselves.

The oak tree does not rise from letters. A tree reproduces with seeds. No letters necessary, simply copied DNA from parent to offspring. You are adding letters in, simply because they represent atoms.

Fractals 'in' nature came from a higher dimensional state.

I need proof of this statement.

Our cardinal directions are lower than the 'up' I am showing here as a direction. Down is also a direction in the process.

Which process are you talking about?

When a 2D plane of creatures is moving from down to up in a sequence of frames, a 3D creature could see them coming, the going by being at both right angles (orthogonally above). The 2D creatures only sees front, back, right and left. You see two more directions as a 3D creature since you can see their up and down. By this, you can infer how something above you (up) can see your future and past as up and down.

There is no such thing as a 2D creature. You are using metaphors with up and down, not cardinal directions. Where is the proof? All I see is speculation.

Now, apply this to your conversation of the letters. Where are they descending from and what are they causing in the whirlwind / vortex? This is a vortex acting on more dimensions than our time/space reality.

Prove that a vortex acts on more than one dimension.

Are we moving in space, or is the fabric moving around us? Yes.

You answered an either / or question with the word yes. If this is how your logic works, I completely understand why you are so confused. You may want to do a little research about the English language and word meanings.

a reply to: Barcs

Well you say sound doesn't have any power yet without it where would we be? You want me to introduce you to the reasons that darwin would use the root volve to describe what his thinking was. You are not looking very hard. Volve is to turn. Evolve would be to turn into something else.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Barcs

Well you say sound doesn't have any power yet without it where would we be? You want me to introduce you to the reasons that darwin would use the root volve to describe what his thinking was. You are not looking very hard. Volve is to turn. Evolve would be to turn into something else.

make the following sounds out loud. bla thar gut nez mok too rak. mean anything to you? would it mean anything if you played it over a loud speaker? sound has power because of the ideas you convey with it. so really its ideas that have the power.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Barcs
You want me to introduce you to the reasons that darwin would use the root volve to describe what his thinking was.

Oh please do... I'm certain there will be a grand illumination once you are through.

You are not looking very hard.

nor are you it would seem, to not use the correct usage or definition of the root while scolding someone else.

Volve is to turn. Evolve would be to turn into something else.

Actually the Latin root Volve means to roll or turn over, not simply to turn. The accepted modern definition is

To turnover; revolve, especially in the mind; consider; think over.

you're really reaching in a vain attempt to make appoint that does not exist. The actual Latin root of Evolution is: evolutio unrolling, from evolvere. It does not stem from 'volve' as you so claim.

The word evolution originated from Latin word evolutio, which means unrolling, something like unrolling of the scroll, and the word existed a couple of centuries before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. He infact did not even use the word evolution in his book until the last line which was:There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Darwin did not even prefer the choice of word evolution for describing — genetic adaptation of species to the environment as a result of natural selection, and breeding and mutation. He preferred other words such as “transmutation by means of natural selection”

a reply to: deadeyedick

When I want to know the etymology of a word, I go to the Online Etymology Dictionary.

Evolve (v.)
1640s, "to unfold, open out, expand," from Latin evolvere "to unroll, roll out, roll forth, unfold," especially of books; figuratively "to make clear, disclose; to produce, develop," from assimilated form of ex- "out" (see ex-) + volvere "to roll" (see volvox). Meaning "to develop by natural processes to a higher state" is from 1832. Related: Evolved; evolving. Evolve- Etymology

Volvox (n.)
genus of fresh-water algae, 1798, from Latin volvere "to roll," from PIE root *wel- (3) "to turn, revolve," with derivatives referring to curved, enclosing objects (cognates: Sanskrit valate "turns round," ulvam "womb, vulva;" Lithuanian valtis "twine, net," vilnis "wave," apvalus "round;" Old Church Slavonic valiti "roll, welter," vlŭna "wave;" Greek eluo "wind, wrap," helix "spiral object," eilein "to turn, squeeze;" Gothic walwjan "to roll;" Old English wealwian "roll," weoloc "whelk, spiral-shelled mollusk;" Old High German walzan "to roll, waltz;" Old Irish fulumain "rolling;" Welsh olwyn "wheel"). So called from their motion.

Evolution (n.)
1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).

Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution. Evolution- Etymology

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Barcs

Well you say sound doesn't have any power yet without it where would we be? You want me to introduce you to the reasons that darwin would use the root volve to describe what his thinking was. You are not looking very hard. Volve is to turn. Evolve would be to turn into something else.

I said that sound doesn't influence meanings of words, not that it means nothing at all to anything. That's not even close to what I said.

And there you go again, using different meanings of words to equate terms that aren't related.

1. Volve does not mean "turn into something"
2. Turn does not mean "turn into something" in the definition of the word volve, it means turn over as in rotate or move in a circular motion.
3. Evolution does not work by a creature "turning into" another, nor does it work in a circular motion. Peter explained it perfectly when he said that it is more like "unfold"

Equivocation is a fallacy, and you really need to stop using it. Sorry but you are dead wrong on this. Words can be spelled exactly the same but have 2 different meanings. That doesn't mean you can interchange them to mean the same thing. Sorry.

a reply to: peter vlar
You said nothing. nice circles

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.

a reply to: Sabiduria
That makes sense but not always needed to know the simplistic relationship between the words in question. It is right there in plain sight.

a reply to: deadeyedick

No, I was rather clear in what I said actually. You haven't got a clue but keep talking like a faux linguist all the while merely imitating Popeye, talking out the side of your mouth. Do some research and you won't have to embarrass yourself with such aching frequency.

a reply to: AlephBet

Oh look. EnochWasRight, back again under a sparkling new username yet posting the same old "Proof via scripture" drivel. Colour me bored.

so have we proven anything yet? has some spectacular revelation been unveiled or did the show fizzle out?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Didn't you read the OP? The proof is final and cannot be argued!

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: deadeyedick

No, I was rather clear in what I said actually. You haven't got a clue but keep talking like a faux linguist all the while merely imitating Popeye, talking out the side of your mouth. Do some research and you won't have to embarrass yourself with such aching frequency.

If you speak of me, you avoid the subject. If you speak of the subject, then you have actually said something. What is it about my words, the OP or the subject you would like to debate or clarify with your own version of the territory?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TzarChasm

Didn't you read the OP? The proof is final and cannot be argued!

Not argued yet. Ad hominem and avoiding the points made in the OP shows that I was correct; that is unles someone has something to say in regard to the OP points. Speaking about me is an avoidance of the OP. Changing the subject is avoiding it. Every one of my points were self-evident. 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. Did you get that last part? Of course, this is what God has claimed about himself. The Bible is a GIANT book of irreducible coincidence related to physics, DNA, Human nature, and a thousand other domains of existence. It is the image in Word. DNA is the image in word, as I have shown clearly in this thread.

originally posted by: AlephBet

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TzarChasm

Didn't you read the OP? The proof is final and cannot be argued!

Not argued yet. Ad hominem and avoiding the points made in the OP shows that I was correct; that is unles someone has something to say in regard to the OP points. Speaking about me is an avoidance of the OP. Changing the subject is avoiding it. Every one of my points were self-evident. 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. Did you get that last part? Of course, this is what God has claimed about himself. The Bible is a GIANT book of irreducible coincidence related to physics, DNA, Human nature, and a thousand other domains of existence. It is the image in Word. DNA is the image in word, as I have shown clearly in this thread.

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.

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.