Unlock the Zodiac Chakras in DNA

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Well, actually, no, it isn't evidence.


I disagree with your approach to disqualify evidence, any strong, or weak links.

Given different cultures relate these various symbols and mechanics in a similar theme, you can't deny the possibility it has never been corroborated.


Them simply sharing the same shape is not evidence of a connection between them.


There goes the Theory of Evolution out the _.. with that kind of logic.


Does this mean that there is a connection between them and DNA? Again, what is your justification?


If you don't consider transitional elements of the evidence, then you'll probably never consider any of this as evidence.

The natural tree was obviously used to describe the formation of data structures in a computer, like a binary tree. It could be simply blamed on mere inspiration. When there are several coincidences where things 'just fit' then it seems more than just mere inspiration. They are either transitional elements or become immediately self-evident.


There is no reason to believe that this symbol was made to resemble DNA, as there is no evidence that the creators of the symbol knew anything about DNA. What is the connection?


I don't believe anything that easily. Just be sure to apply your principle in reverse if you take the devil's advocate approach, ok?


A brief rundown of the mechanism would suffice. I'm not asking for all the research.


Have you studied anything about quantum mechanics? I don't mean physics on that.


So you left it purposefully vague so that anyone could apply anything they wanted to it, and it's simply a collection of dubiously-connected symbols from anything that was to hand. Is this right?


The word 'non-deterministic' is not at all vague, so I would have a right to be offended by this use of 'dubiously-connected' expression you use.

Programs in computers have executed with non-deterministic programs and the results and expectation of them are certainly never dubious.

As I stated earlier, it would sound like computer jargon. Are you familiar with computer programs and how to program them? Are you familiar with artificial intelligence?


With no justification.

And please don't think that I'm being purposefully nasty or anything. I'm not trying to dismiss any of your claims without considering them. I just want to know if there's really any reasoning behind this.


I would like to know your reason to want such complete justification even though I stated this is limited only to initial research. Obviously, I had a reason to make this limit to prevent off-topic discussion that would lead into distractions and justifications that have nothing to do with the initial research. By your response above, I think you got the hint of that.

I hope you find something you can contribute. I actually thought your stated 'water-slide' position was of interest. It reminded me how hydrogen and oxygen would look in such such a ribbon formation in an actual DNA structure... with mechanics in motion. Thank you.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by dzonatas]




posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
I disagree with your approach to disqualify evidence, any strong, or weak links.


Why? There is no strong link between DNA and this symbol. In fact, there is evidence that there cannot be a link between them, as the makers of the symbol had absolutely no idea of what DNA was, let alone what it looked like.
Given this fact, I believe that the caduceus' shape can be dismissed as coincidence, in the same way that I would dismiss the "face" on Mars as coincidence.


Given different cultures relate these various symbols and mechanics in a similar theme


Merely stating that they are related doesn't make them so, no matter who says it.


you can't deny the possibility it has never been corroborated.


Actually corroborated? Yes, I can, as there is no evidence for a link between them. Believed to be corroborated? No, I can't, and I haven't.


There goes the Theory of Evolution out the _.. with that kind of logic.


False analogy.
First of all, evolution does not simply rest on the case that fossils look alike. They also share DNA, and their position in the fossil record is in line with the theory.
In addition, the theory states how and why the fossils look alike and why this is evidence of a connection. You don't. You merely say that they look alike and that they are therefore related without giving any reason for why their shape points to a connection.


If you don't consider transitional elements of the evidence, then you'll probably never consider any of this as evidence.


What?


When there are several coincidences where things 'just fit' then it seems more than just mere inspiration.


enNaming_conventions != just_fit

And, again, you are stating that they "just fit" with no justification.


I don't believe anything that easily. Just be sure to apply your principle in reverse if you take the devil's advocate approach, ok?


What? What does this mean? You don't believe that the ancient peoples had no knowledge of DNA? Really?


Have you studied anything about quantum mechanics? I don't mean physics on that.


Just the basics.


The word 'non-deterministic' is not at all vague


But it leaves the application open for literally anything you want.


Programs in computers have executed with non-deterministic programs and the results and expectation of them are certainly never dubious.


Such as? As a programmer myself, I'd be interested to see what it is that you're talking about.


As I stated earlier, it would sound like computer jargon. Are you familiar with computer programs and how to program them? Are you familiar with artificial intelligence?


Yes. I've been programming in C++ for almost a decade, and several other languages for around five years.


I would like to know your reason to want such complete justification even though I stated this is limited only to initial research.


If the foundation is faulty, it must be fixed before moving on. Otherwise the entire theory is based on incorrect conclusions.
As a computer programmer, I would expect you to know this. You can't run calculations and expect correct answers if the variables aren't set correctly.
So you have to be able to justify the basis of your theory before moving on. Normally, I would also expect you to be able to prove the existence of chakra nodes, but for the purpose of this discussion I am willing to accept them as real. Other than the nodes, though, I expect you to be able to justify the conclusions that you have reached so far. Even if this is only initial research, you have to be sure that the conclusions that you are getting now - which are the basis for further research - are correct.

[edit on 2/23/2010 by Golden Boy]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Why? There is no strong link between DNA and this symbol. In fact, there is evidence that there cannot be a link between them, as the makers of the symbol had absolutely no idea of what DNA was, let alone what it looked like.


If you believe that, then you already disqualified yourself from this thread. For some reason, I don't think you intended that, yet perhaps you didn't get my hint about 'professional debunkers'. It's ok to be skeptical, but... I'll also be skeptical of your intention to debunk this as a conspiracy to prevent this knowledge from being shared, and as an example of why it 'never' seems as 'evidence' as you state.


Given this fact, I believe that the caduceus' shape can be dismissed as coincidence, ...


Hold that thought...




There goes the Theory of Evolution out the _.. with that kind of logic.


False analogy.
First of all, evolution does not simply rest on the case that fossils look alike. They also share DNA,


Your stated "fact" just became a contradiction with what you just said there. For one, there weren't any gene map when the Theory of Evolution was developed. Scientists later used DNA to try to prove the Theory of Evolution. What I do with the research in this thread is no different then the scientist that later used the DNA to try to prove Evolution. The difference being those scientist look at it in physics only and I look at it as computational, with symbols no different than as used in arithmetics.

Are you also going to tell schools they can't use greek letters for their mathematics because it was never intended that way? (Or, some other skeptical excuse we could make up.)


And, again, you are stating that they "just fit" with no justification.


This thread isn't titled "the complete encylopedia of Zodiac Charkras and how to compute DNA" -- and for one, there wouldn't be a conspiracy theory involved at all if it was.


What? What does this mean? You don't believe that the ancient peoples had no knowledge of DNA? Really?


Deny ignorance and consider the possibilities. Do it in a respectful manner that allows people to keep their dignity. Two people that state a memory of some event and their recollections are different can be taken a two separate evidence. Someone else can come along and try to 'professionally debunk' them and show a map of the modern events, yet that doesn't prove anything to what they actually remembered.


But it leaves the application open for literally anything you want.


Computers don't preform miracles.



Programs in computers have executed with non-deterministic programs and the results and expectation of them are certainly never dubious.


Such as? As a programmer myself, I'd be interested to see what it is that you're talking about.


The terminology I used is standard and widely known among computer scientists. There is nothing vague or wildly made-up about this. If you are a programmer I'm really surprised with your approach.




nondeterministic finite state machine



(definition)

Definition: A finite state machine whose transition function maps inputs symbols and states to a (possibly empty) set of next states. The transition function also may map the null symbol (no input symbol needed) and states to next states.

Also known as NFA, nondeterministic finite automaton.

See also deterministic finite state machine.

Note: Any such machine may be converted to a deterministic finite state machine, although the number of states may increase by an exponential amount.


Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

That has already been proven. With DNA in the likeness of program code of a computer, the use of symbols from various sources such as the zodiac and chakras only add extra functionality as one finds when the greek letters are added to basic mathematics.

The foundation is already there.

You will have to come up with some reason why these symbols should never ever be used in the context of a computer in your next reply.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
If you believe that, then you already disqualified yourself from this thread.


So I disqualify myself from the thread for not believing that a bunch of people who lived thousands of years before the discovery of DNA knew what DNA was?
What the heck?


For some reason, I don't think you intended that


Well, no.


yet perhaps you didn't get my hint about 'professional debunkers'. It's ok to be skeptical, but... I'll also be skeptical of your intention to debunk this as a conspiracy to prevent this knowledge from being shared, and as an example of why it 'never' seems as 'evidence' as you state.


So anyone who doesn't believe you is a member of a conspiracy?


Your stated "fact" just became a contradiction with what you just said there. For one, there weren't any gene map when the Theory of Evolution was developed.


False analogy again.
You're right that the appearance might indicate a connection, but unless you can explain why there is a connection and how this connection was made, it's just coincidence. You're just saying "oh, they look alike, they must be connected" with no justification. Evolution has a mechanism.


Are you also going to tell schools they can't use greek letters for their mathematics because it was never intended that way? (Or, some other skeptical excuse we could make up.)




The point is that you're using a connection that doesn't exist as a basis for your idea. If you were simply using the shape of the caduceus, I would have no problem with it (assuming that you could justify the use of that particular shape). But you are saying that there is a connection between the actual caduceus and DNA with no evidence for this connection.


This thread isn't titled "the complete encylopedia of Zodiac Charkras and how to compute DNA" -- and for one, there wouldn't be a conspiracy theory involved at all if it was.


Then what's the conspiracy here?




What does this have to do with the makers of the caduceus knowing about DNA? You're waffling. If you have evidence that the caduceus was designed specifically to represent DNA and its connection to chakra nodes, present it.


Computers don't preform miracles.


Again, what? Only half the stuff you say seems to have anything to do with what I said.


The terminology I used is standard and widely known among computer scientists. There is nothing vague or wildly made-up about this. If you are a programmer I'm really surprised with your approach.


There's a simple reason for why I have not heard of a "non-deterministic" program: I program video games, and unprofessionally. I'm good at it, but I'm by no means perfect. Nor do I know everything about programming.




Thanks much. Very interesting.


That has already been proven. With DNA in the likeness of program code of a computer, the use of symbols from various sources such as the zodiac and chakras only add extra functionality as one finds when the greek letters are added to basic mathematics.

The foundation is already there.

You will have to come up with some reason why these symbols should never ever be used in the context of a computer in your next reply.


Where did I say that they shouldn't? I simply misunderstood what was meant by "non-deterministic", as I hadn't run across that definition before.
There is no reason that, if there is a legitimate connection, they should not be used. But you have yet to prove that there is a connection, and you have to do that before you can run a program based on it.


[edit on 2/24/2010 by Golden Boy]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Actually, scratch the bit on the computers. It's off-topic, and I apologize for letting it get that way - I have a tendency to wander off on tangents. Let's get back to the matter at hand.

QUESTIONS:
- What evidence is there that there is a link between the caduceus, the chakra nodes, and DNA?
- What justifies the overlay of the zodiac in that particular pattern over the chakra nodes?
- By what mechanism does the zodiac affect chakra and DNA?
- What justifies the overlay of a carbon ring on the DNA helix, as the DNA helix is not the circle as you state?
- Why bring in a carbon ring in the first place?
- What justifies the overlay of the zodiac/chakra diagram over the DNA and carbon ring?
- What does this actually mean?



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy
So I disqualify myself from the thread for not believing that a bunch of people who lived thousands of years before the discovery of DNA knew what DNA was?


Why even believe DNA exists if you can't see it with your own eyes in modern times? A microscope isn't your own eyes. A computer aided render of DNA isn't your own eyes. A person that draw chemical formulas on paper isn't your own eyes being able to DNA directly. The limit you put on time, past to present, is no different then the limit to put on what you can see with your own eyes now.

You don't have to believe anything anybody ever told you. I even go so far to prove who is alive and that we actually move forward in time, yet that would really derail the thread. It's easy to say "prove it."

Instead, I'll defer you to other websites that recognize this debate is continual, and I hope to focus this thread on how they 'just fit' rather than the continual debate of 'prove this' and 'prove that' first.... obviously if scientists, atheists, intelligent design promoters, religious devotees, etc etc can't do it yet why do you expect a sudden breakthrough to even talk about it?

I'll reserve my freedom of speech. They are being deterministic about it, which obviously describes their debate continues, exponentially. The reason is already defined and proven and standardized (review the NIST def).

You want to be deterministic about this debate here, which would drive this discussion exponentially off-topic. I don't fall for your attempts.


So anyone who doesn't believe you is a member of a conspiracy?


Do a search, I usually tell people they don't have to believe me. If you can't prove your alive and where you come from, why should we listen to you first without your justification to live and how? Touche.


The point is that you're using a connection that doesn't exist as a basis for your idea.


An example of your attempt to be deterministic.

You already know the focus is on mechanics, so you should now realize how exponential such discussion could be of what could be deterministic is executed and rendered.


If you have evidence that the caduceus was designed specifically to represent DNA and its connection to chakra nodes, present it.


"Specifically"??? I said it is about the symbols, how they 'just fit', and their non-deterministic mechanics. Don't put words in my mouth and try to argue strawmen.


Only half the stuff you say seems to have anything to do with what I said.


Start another thread where you can discuss what is off-topic to this thread.


Nor do I know everything about programming.


I don't expect everybody that reads this thread to know everything about computer science and ag-biotech, yet if I use words that are standard and you come back as if I need to prove what has already been proven by those standards, that isn't being skeptical at all. Google it, please.


...and you have to do that before you can run a program based on it.


Again, you are alive? Your DNA acts like a computer? Have you proven it? *ahem*

[edit on 24-2-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Actually, scratch the bit on the computers. It's off-topic, and I apologize for letting it get that way - I have a tendency to wander off on tangents. Let's get back to the matter at hand.


Who says I wanted computers to be off-topic? I did make it a point of my initial research, as I reiterate from OP:


Between the science of the evolution of DNA with battles of origin over religion and who got it more right, sometimes I wonder if this battle has distracted from the plain and simple truth that neither side has wanted to state the obvious that both are right.


Computers are people.


QUESTIONS:


All those questions seemed to purposely leave out the obvious: "computers"

Please review your questions again and consider what I thought is off-topic:


Let's take a look at these images and you draw your own conclusion. I can get much deeper into the subject of dimensions or how personification of religions relate to these in an alchemic pattern, yet that's for another thread later after this initial research.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
Why even believe DNA exists if you can't see it with your own eyes in modern times?


So many people say this, and so many people make fools of themselves doing it.
It isn't just what we can see, it's what we can detect.



You don't have to believe anything anybody ever told you. I even go so far to prove who is alive and that we actually move forward in time, yet that would really derail the thread. It's easy to say "prove it."


And it's easy to do so, if you have a justification for your ideas.


Instead, I'll defer you to other websites that recognize this debate is continual, and I hope to focus this thread on how they 'just fit' rather than the continual debate of 'prove this' and 'prove that' first.


They don't "just fit" unless you can show the connection.


obviously if scientists, atheists, intelligent design promoters, religious devotees, etc etc can't do it yet why do you expect a sudden breakthrough to even talk about it?


Because you are proposing it as fact. I would assume that, since you are, you have reason for doing so - i.e. evidence that supports your idea.


You want to be deterministic about this debate here, which would drive this discussion exponentially off-topic. I don't fall for your attempts.


Huh? I want evidence that what you say is true. If that's off-topic, then we may as well close down the entire forum, as it's supposed to be about combating ignorance - and you do that with facts.


Do a search, I usually tell people they don't have to believe me. If you can't prove your alive and where you come from, why should we listen to you first without your justification to live and how? Touche.


As usual, what you say has nothing to do with the question I asked. Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from you?


An example of your attempt to be deterministic.


Okay, so you have absolutely zero basis for your supposed connection and therefore your idea is entirely baseless. Thanks for clearing that up.


"Specifically"??? I said it is about the symbols, how they 'just fit', and their non-deterministic mechanics. Don't put words in my mouth and try to argue strawmen.


Well, I assumed that your position was that they had been created specifically to have a connection, as otherwise you're literally slapping anything that comes to hand together and calling it a theory. I see now that that's exactly what you are doing, so... apologies.


Start another thread where you can discuss what is off-topic to this thread.


I've asked for evidence. You're the one who's dancing around the issue.


I don't expect everybody that reads this thread to know everything about computer science and ag-biotech, yet if I use words that are standard and you come back as if I need to prove what has already been proven by those standards, that isn't being skeptical at all. Google it, please.


I wasn't asking you to prove it. I asked for an example. You provided it, I accepted it. It's over.


Again, you are alive? Your DNA acts like a computer? Have you proven it? *ahem*


Again, you're saying things that literally make no sense. This has nothing to do with what I said, and has no meaning anyway.


Who says I wanted computers to be off-topic? I did make it a point of my initial research, as I reiterate from OP:


And again, you are making no sense.


All those questions seemed to purposely leave out the obvious: "computers"


What? This isn't about computers. It's about your DNA/chakra/zodiac link.

But I might as well stop here. I started this discussion because I thought I might make some progress, or at least learn something. I see now that you are simply a nutter with zero evidence and a bunch of nonexistent "connections".

Bye.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Huh? I want evidence that what you say is true. If that's off-topic, then we may as well close down the entire forum, as it's supposed to be about combating ignorance - and you do that with facts.


The fact is there is tons of websites, books, people's anecdotal experiences, even threads all over this very website, and so on. You want to deny those as fact they ever existed then go to those other threads. I gathered various bits from them and put them together and you complained how I did such.


Okay, so you have absolutely zero basis for your supposed connection and therefore your idea is entirely baseless. Thanks for clearing that up.


You want me to execute and decompile a non-deterministic program for you and give you all the deterministic results. My answer is: no, go do it yourself. I already proven the results are exponential.


I've asked for evidence. You're the one who's dancing around the issue.


If you truly wanted evidence, you would actually try to put it together as a program. You haven't even shown one bit at all to even try that. You aren't interested in evidence at all.

Somehow you expect results to magically appear and prove why they exist.



Again, you're saying things that literally make no sense. This has nothing to do with what I said, and has no meaning anyway.


Of it does, you are obviously tried to deny any connection between computers and DNA.


And again, you are making no sense.


That's make no sense.


What? This isn't about computers. It's about your DNA/chakra/zodiac link.


And.... they are being unlocked by "computers."


But I might as well stop here. I started this discussion because I thought I might make some progress, or at least learn something. I see now that you are simply a nutter with zero evidence and a bunch of nonexistent "connections".


I told you I don't believe things easily. All you did was act like a computer and help convince me.

I'm gonna say this is beyond an initial theory.


Bye.


Thanks for the activity in the thread and to help further prove the OP.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
By the way, instead of any mere question for "evidence" or "prove it" with the fewest of words stated, present your evidence of why you think it needs more evidence or why to prove it and be sure to source and site your justification for your request.

All you done is "won" bash points in your "combating ignorance" and you haven't actually "denied ignorance."



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Because that's how critical thought works. Which clearly you don't understand, or you wouldn't have posted this tripe in the first place.

Edit: you won't see this because you put me on ignore for pointing out the difference between "human" and "humanoid", and how "homo sapiens" means the same thing as "human". Oh well.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by davesidious]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
By the way, instead of any mere question for "evidence" or "prove it" with the fewest of words stated, present your evidence of why you think it needs more evidence or why to prove it and be sure to source and site your justification for your request.


Because you have presented no valid evidence. It's not that hard to understand. You said that this system you have proposed is true. You presented no evidence. There is no reason to believe it to be true.
However, I have reached the conclusion that you are flat-out not willing to listen to reason. You declare that your system is "non-deterministic", that it is "unlocked by computers" and that my requirement of evidence is unjustified. You have failed to prove any of these claims. All you do is waffle about the way non-deterministic systems work without ever bothering to actually explain what it is that you mean.
So as far as I'm concerned, there is no point in continuing this discussion. You aren't going to listen to reason and you aren't going to explain yourself. You don't answer any questions put to you and you seem physically incapable of understanding the burden of proof.
Goodbye.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Because you have presented no valid evidence.


All you did was ask for evidence. You didn't state what kind of evidence you want.

Obviously, you are unable to comprehend complex non-deterministic finite state machines and any evidence of them. You proved this by your own statement:


There's a simple reason for why I have not heard of a "non-deterministic" program: I program video games, and unprofessionally. I'm good at it, but I'm by no means perfect. Nor do I know everything about programming.


Just admit you don't know and don't understand any of this. Just admit all you have done is argue because you misunderstood it completely.


You aren't going to listen to reason and you aren't going to explain yourself. You don't answer any questions put to you and you seem physically incapable of understanding the burden of proof.


Burden of proof goes both ways here. Listening 'skills' means you aren't the only one that asks questions for evidence. You have given me no evidence that you have understood any of this, or non-deterministic finite state machines, except to prove that you don't understand. And you find reason to get upset? Oh my...

You want me to prove the existence and connection of the zodiac, chakras, DNA, and etc and trace down there origin for you. I said "no" because that is off topic. You continue to try to derail this thread off-topic.

What you totally missed is my point -- the use of these symbols, the zodiac, the chakras, and dna -- and to use them in a computer program to render new ways to talk about DNA.

NEW WAYS to talk about it... I see the "origin" differently than you.

Have you done anything to try to come up with new ways to talk about this? No.

You want someone to prove connections of "zodiac" and "chakras" and all these other things before they even ever talk about it... I call B.S. on you with such request. If you can't see i started from a computer simulation and taken in account of mechanics being simulated in a computer then you are so far off-topic.

Admit, you are are flat out wrong. It was not the intention of this thread to prove what you wanted to prove because you can merely question of it. You derailed it completely and purposely and obviously I will have to make a new thread sometime.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Evidence of your claims - is that so hard to comprehend? Apparently so, for you at least.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
In the mean time, I highly suggest people to consider this other thread that see the "origin" as being from a virtual reality:

More evidence backs the idea of Universe = Hologram



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Because you have presented no valid evidence.


All you did was ask for evidence. You didn't state what kind of evidence you want.


Evidence that actually supports your claim that there is a connection between the caduceus, the zodiac, the chakra nodes, carbon rings and DNA. It's not that hard to understand.




Just admit you don't know and don't understand any of this. Just admit all you have done is argue because you misunderstood it completely.


Just admit that you have absolutely zero case. All you have is vague musings on how I cannot possibly understand it as I don't understand some feature of computer science. News flash, dzontas: The connection I am asking for evidence of has zip to do with computer science.


Burden of proof goes both ways here.


Uh, no, it doesn't. You're the one making the positive claim. The burden of proof is on you and you alone.


Listening 'skills' means you aren't the only one that asks questions for evidence. You have given me no evidence that you have understood any of this, or non-deterministic finite state machines, except to prove that you don't understand. And you find reason to get upset? Oh my...


You have given no one any reason to believe that you have a case in the first place. You have only a massive wall of bull that you throw up as a smokescreen to enable yourself to dodge the question. Throughout this entire thread, you have touched upon the questions I have asked only tangentially.


You want me to prove the existence


I told you already. For the purposes of this discussion, I am not asking you to prove that they exist. I will accept their existence, as a debate on their truth status would be off-topic.


and connection of the zodiac, chakras, DNA, and etc


Yes.


and trace down there origin for you.


No.


I said "no" because that is off topic. You continue to try to derail this thread off-topic.


You're putting words in my mouth. I haven't asked you to track down their origin or to prove that they exist, only to show that there is a connection and that your system interprets that connection correctly. So far, you have utterly failed to do so.


What you totally missed is my point -- the use of these symbols, the zodiac, the chakras, and dna -- and to use them in a computer program to render new ways to talk about DNA.


Which isn't possible if you can't show that there is a connection.


NEW WAYS to talk about it... I see the "origin" differently than you.


Obviously.


Have you done anything to try to come up with new ways to talk about this? No.


I've obviously introduced you to a concept that you haven't seen before: evidence.


You want someone to prove connections of "zodiac" and "chakras" and all these other things before they even ever talk about it.


Before you talk about the implications of this connection, yes.


Admit, you are are flat out wrong. It was not the intention of this thread to prove what you wanted to prove because you can merely question of it. You derailed it completely and purposely and obviously I will have to make a new thread sometime.


I derailed nothing. The purpose of this thread was the discussion of your proposed system and evaluation of your research. I have done exactly that. I have merely found it to be bunk, so you claim that I have derailed the thread because I "cannot understand".
Either show that there is a connection or admit that your conclusions are faulty.

[edit on 2/24/2010 by Golden Boy]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Evidence that actually supports your claim that there is a connection between the caduceus, the zodiac, the chakra nodes, carbon rings and DNA. It's not that hard to understand.


If you are blind and unable to see the similarities in the images I have already provided and unable to recognize the mechanics of the rotation I presented, then I can understand why you acted as though there was no evidence. However, you never ever once even provided a simple acknowledgment of what I provided in the OP and to discuss what I provided in the OP.

You asked other questions, strawman, and you wanted evidence to your strawman questions. You tried to "debunk" this thread based on your strawmen fallacies.



Have you done anything to try to come up with new ways to talk about this? No.


I've obviously introduced you to a concept that you haven't seen before: evidence.


I've obviously introduced you to a concept that you haven't seen before: my ignore list.

It's where you go and the multiple persona go that immediately follow you, the ones that give you bash points. Auto-ups are easily detectable.

I given more than a chance to discuss the similarities themselves. You denied them outright without any evidence of why you deny them, so there is absolutely no reason for you to continue in this thread. My evidence is the OP, and there is obviously more I haven't provided for reasons. Obvious, reasons such as people like you.

Provide evidence of why you think there is no similarity otherwise it's pretty simple that you need to look in the mirror.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
If you are blind and unable to see the similarities in the images I have already provided and unable to recognize the mechanics of the rotation I presented, then I can understand why you acted as though there was no evidence.


Unless you provide evidence that the similarities between the images actually prove a connection, you have no case. Two things looking alike does not mean they are connected.


However, you never ever once even provided a simple acknowledgment of what I provided in the OP and to discuss what I provided in the OP.


This entire thread has been about the OP. I have not gone off-topic, despite what you say. You just don't have a case.


You asked other questions


Which are legitimate.


strawman


Which was a misunderstanding, and I retracted the objection.


and you wanted evidence to your strawman questions. You tried to "debunk" this thread based on your strawmen fallacies.


Bollocks.
First of all, I'm not here to debunk anything. If you have evidence, I am willing to accept what you say as true. Secondly, when I asked for evidence, it was not evidence for straw men. It was evidence that what you claim - a connection between DNA, carbon rings, the caduceus, the zodiac and the chakra nodes - exists. That isn't a straw man.


I've obviously introduced you to a concept that you haven't seen before: my ignore list.


Ooh, classy.


I given more than a chance to discuss the similarities themselves. You denied them outright without any evidence of why you deny them, so there is absolutely no reason for you to continue in this thread. My evidence is the OP, and there is obviously more I haven't provided for reasons. Obvious, reasons such as people like you.


You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever. You have simply said "ooh, they look alike! They must be connected!" You need more than that.


Provide evidence of why you think there is no similarity otherwise it's pretty simple that you need to look in the mirror.


I never said there was no similarity. You are the one strawmanning, not me. I have said that there is no connection, in the same way that I deny that there is a connection between a baseball and the sun. They look alike, but there is no reason to believe that a baseball is meant to be an image of the sun.

Maybe someone will come along that you haven't put on your ignore list yet and get through that giant wall of bull you have erected around yourself. As I'm on ignore, there really isn't any point in me hanging around. But I leave knowing that you have completely and utterly failed to make your case, and that all the newcomers to this thread will be able to see that as well.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Unless you provide evidence that the similarities between the images actually prove a connection, you have no case. Two things looking alike does not mean they are connected.


Prove takes an act of corroboration, so reason 'initial research' seems to imply a request to corroborate towards proof.

It take two things that look alike to corroborate and instance of evidence and execution of further corroboration of that instance.


This entire thread has been about the OP. I have not gone off-topic, despite what you say. You just don't have a case.


Not true.


If you have evidence, I am willing to accept what you say as true.


What is true is that corroboration is needed to execute the instance. It is very low-level organization of what has been attempted to stay narrowed down to only what was presented in the OP.


It was evidence that what you claim - a connection between DNA, carbon rings, the caduceus, the zodiac and the chakra nodes - exists.


Finally, more corroborated evidence there is this connection described as 'just fits' in the OP.

Perfect.


You need more than that.


Again, reasons such as people like you.



I never said there was no similarity.


Corroborated evidence confirmed.


Maybe someone will come along that you haven't put on your ignore list yet and get through that giant wall of bull you have erected around yourself. As I'm on ignore, there really isn't any point in me hanging around. But I leave knowing that you have completely and utterly failed to make your case, and that all the newcomers to this thread will be able to see that as well.


The way this 'matter' 'just fits' is quite a fascination. A complete case would definitely be a resource lag. It does lead towards a case of the meaning of "rib" in the bible, as DNA does look like a "ribbon." A "rib" obviously is a suggestion of a part of the whole, and "bon" means good. If we were to put the word "ribbon" into a verb based on this thread and to give it a perfect tense then we could define "ribboned" as new.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Unless you provide evidence that the similarities between the images actually prove a connection, you have no case. Two things looking alike does not mean they are connected.


Prove takes an act of corroboration, so reason 'initial research' seems to imply a request to corroborate towards proof.

It take two things that look alike to corroborate and instance of evidence and execution of further corroboration of that instance.


Okay, I think I get what you're saying here. You say that there may be a connection, and that you need to do further research. Is that correct? If so, why did you jump ahead to basing an entire system on a connection that may not exist?



This entire thread has been about the OP. I have not gone off-topic, despite what you say. You just don't have a case.


Not true.


Then prove it.



It was evidence that what you claim - a connection between DNA, carbon rings, the caduceus, the zodiac and the chakra nodes - exists.


Finally, more corroborated evidence there is this connection described as 'just fits' in the OP.

Perfect.


What? I was asking for you to present evidence. You have just quote-mined horribly. Shame, shame, shame.



You need more than that.


Again, reasons such as people like you.


No, reasons logic. You have based an entire system on a connection which you have not proven to exist. Until you can prove that such a connection does exist, you have no case.



I never said there was no similarity.


Corroborated evidence confirmed.


Again, quote mining. I never said that there was no similarity. I said that there was no connection.



Maybe someone will come along that you haven't put on your ignore list yet and get through that giant wall of bull you have erected around yourself. As I'm on ignore, there really isn't any point in me hanging around. But I leave knowing that you have completely and utterly failed to make your case, and that all the newcomers to this thread will be able to see that as well.


The way this 'matter' 'just fits' is quite a fascination.


Except that you haven't shown that it fits at all.


A complete case would definitely be a resource lag. It does lead towards a case of the meaning of "rib" in the bible, as DNA does look like a "ribbon." A "rib" obviously is a suggestion of a part of the whole, and "bon" means good. If we were to put the word "ribbon" into a verb based on this thread and to give it a perfect tense then we could define "ribboned" as new.


^-ludicrous-^



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join