Proof we were Created - Yes, I said Proof!

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by boncho

"Submitted for peer review"

Submitted does not = accepted. Like I said you have no understanding of even the most basic methods of scientific discovery.

It was submitted oct-12 by the way, and it has not been published. In other words, it has not been peer reviewed.

As I showed you, you state the obvious. What is speaking here? Your bias or the fact that I have understood that you noticed what I did not? This does not change the fact that the same bias will be used to deny his opportunity for review. This is the sad state of affairs when it comes to bias in the academic community against God.

I am going to quote you since you seem to forget. You tried to say the article you posted was proof, and it was peer reviewed. However, it was merely submitted to peer review but was not accepted, nor published. The arXix database at Cornell is not a peer review journal and it was simply published on their depository. I am also a member of that site, and I could just as easily submit an article entitled "How EnoughWasWrong can't admit he is full of dog feces."

Just admit either A) You lied. or B) You are entirely ignorant to what peer review is.

When people face you with cold hard facts that you are wrong you simply ignore them or pretend it didn't happen. Take some responsibility for your posts for once in your life.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by boncho

 

You are holding to an old paradigm of truth. The Bible is way ahead of the curve and leads us to the actual truth. This is proof. No rational argument of human knowledge can deny this. It's a proof the Creator was here all along showing us the higher truth. PROOF.

Cornell University: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Design Peer Reviewed.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by dragonridr

 

... What is my proof that we are created?

The Hebrew word for Father is Aleph Bet. Alphabet represents the letters for DNA. Christ is the Word. Word is information in a form. Son in Hebrew is Bet Nun (house of seed). Mother is the catalyst of water (Aleph Mem). Mem is water. Aleph means strength. Where is my proof? I just sowed you. There is no statistical explanation for how God could have show the true answer apart from the fact that He is what he claims. The fact that e is in John 1 is icing on the cake.

I just gave you observable evidence that information in DNA was created...

edit on 29-8-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

There is no proof in that statement at all. Here's mine.

From the Hebrew for father you have got the word alphabet. From that 22-letter (Hebrew) alphabet you are picking and choosing 4 of those Hebrew pictograms and inferring that these represent modern alphabetic descriptors used to label base pairs? The Hebrew alphabet didn't have any letters, it had words described by icons.

Now, imagine this. What if the world didn't pan out like it did? What if it was dominated by the Turks or Egyptians or anyone else for that matter? What I'm saying is, what if English was remained a local language used only by tribesmen on a tiny island off the coast of the mainland. Where is your proof now? Your proof ONLY works in English – which seems to me that you're saying the only people worthy of God's attention are the English-speaking world.

Bet Nun. This actually means 'seed of the house' not 'house of seed' – that doesn't make any sense. I can't fathom what you're inferring with the mother example.

There were no personal attacks in my post so I await your response with eagerness.
Good luck.

reply to post by TerraLiga


Nevermind how the OP is able to translate ancient Hebrew. I am curious to see his original biblical text. As there is no way simply translating from English should be sufficient, because those were not the original words. (You and I know this, it might be lost on them.)

But of course, if he is translating ancient Hebrew all by himself, (We know he is not) that is so impressive considering the people who make it their life's work are constantly debating what these ancient writings even say:

The Gabriel Stone made a splash in 2008 when Israeli Bible scholar Israel Knohl offered a daring theory that the stone's faded writing would revolutionize the understanding of early Christianity, claiming it included a concept of messianic resurrection that predated Jesus. He based his theory on one hazy line, translating it as "in three days you shall live."
His interpretation caused a storm in the world of Bible studies, with scholars convening at an international conference the following year to debate readings of the text, and a National Geographic documentary crew featuring his theory. An American team of experts using high resolution scanning technologies tried -- but failed -- to detect more of the faded writing.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Not being learned on this subject, and always wishing to gain in knowledge, I would like to learn the answer to a question which has bothered me for many years.
When I was much younger, because of my rampant thirst, I sipped the water from "questionable source". A few hours later I learned why this is not wise. I contracted amebic dysentery because I had injested an amoeba.
The water source in question was a wide depression in an outcrop of rock. The rock was in an open location, fairly desert like.The water could have only gotten there from rain. Rain comes from clouds of water vapor which has been evaporated from the ground.

My question is:
Where did the amoeba come from and how did it get into the pool of water?
Was it "created" and placed there in order to teach me a lesson?
Or, did it come about because chemistry became biology and the results was a living creature?

Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Not being learned on this subject, and always wishing to gain in knowledge, I would like to learn the answer to a question which has bothered me for many years.
When I was much younger, because of my rampant thirst, I sipped the water from "questionable source". A few hours later I learned why this is not wise. I contracted amebic dysentery because I had injested an amoeba.
The water source in question was a wide depression in an outcrop of rock. The rock was in an open location, fairly desert like.The water could have only gotten there from rain. Rain comes from clouds of water vapor which has been evaporated from the ground.

My question is:
Where did the amoeba come from and how did it get into the pool of water?
Was it "created" and placed there in order to teach me a lesson?
Or, did it come about because chemistry became biology and the results was a living creature?

Amoeba can live in soil they are not restricted to just water they can infect digestive tracks of animals and get transferred through feces. Some have shells some will use sand to protect themselves just depends. In fact good chance you have one living in you now its just harmless.Odds are pretty good it was through animal feces that it was transferred. But the most basic part of your question where do they come from well themselves there a sexual and reproduce by splitting or copying themselves.

reply to post by dragonridr


On a rock, in the middle of an African desert is kind of an odd place to find a microbe from animal crap using sand to hide. I'm not saying your wrong. It is just more like an answer you can read out of a book than something which has ben learned and carries a bit of insite with it.

Because of this,I just don't think this was an acceptible answer.

Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by dragonridr

 

On a rock, in the middle of an African desert is kind of an odd place to find a microbe from animal crap using sand to hide. I'm not saying your wrong. It is just more like an answer you can read out of a book than something which has ben learned and carries a bit of insite with it.

Because of this,I just don't think this was an acceptible answer.

No not at all anywhere there is water especially in the desert is going to attract animals. I bet there was a lot of animals that got a drink before you did.But as i said they can live in soil as well a drop of water and off they go.
What answer do you want he spontaneously was created in the water by some supernatural means. id say a bird beat you yo the punch so to speak.

reply to post by dragonridr


O K. Then you are saying that there have been a long line of amoeba which have lived on earth for many years.

Then it is not necessary for them to be "created" each and every time one is to be found somewhere.

If this been be the case, you are speaking of them being "created" one time many years ago and you must allow that not all decendents of that first one have all been "exact copies" of the original. If they have not all
been "exactlly" the same as the first, there have been "mutations" which have lived and also reproduced. Since I have never heard of anyone's firsthand account from being present, nor have I seen a picture or video of these events, I must accept the idea of there being some chance of changes being present in the amoebas which are living today. Other wise there could be no variations in their adaptations to different habitates.

Unless you can show some definant evidence of error in what I am saying, you also believe in "EVOLUTION" even if you will not admit it.
You may also believe in a "Creator God" but you can not deny that things change over time through generations of life.

Originally posted by boncho

I am going to quote you since you seem to forget. You tried to say the article you posted was proof, and it was peer reviewed. However, it was merely submitted to peer review but was not accepted, nor published. The arXix database at Cornell is not a peer review journal and it was simply published on their depository. I am also a member of that site, and I could just as easily submit an article entitled "How EnoughWasWrong can't admit he is full of dog feces."

Proof of what? No one in the right mind would conclude that the presence of Pi and e the way it was shown is a proof of human creation or a complete destruction of the evolution theory.

On the other hand, the existence of Pi and e in the translated text (into Hebrew) of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 has been verified. You can do it by yourself. If I say that the arrangement is not a coincidence, there is no way that someone would prove otherwise. The implication has an unpleasant flavor of whoever was playing God over the long millennia is real and has unimaginable capabilities. But that option could be supported only as a theory at the most with evidence being left out to preserve the sanity of human species.

No wonder that Enoch... threw the straw man into his scribble to take the attention away from the real issue. And he succeeded - with the help of "God."

Seems ironic to begin a thread with a preemptive claim all who might (potentially) disagree for any reason at all are delusional, ipso facto, then issue vague threats on behalf of an entirely imaginary (yet "long suffering") friend along the way, then complain of ad hom. There seems no small amount of religious fanaticism in that.

Having convinced us we are all delusional regarding "creation" based on the contrived validity of the sky fairys magnum opus, can we look forward to other mathematical contrivances regarding ritual sacrifice of turtle doves, stoning people, slavery etc? Or perhaps exodus, of which Israeli academics and even some Rabbis now agree is a work of fiction.

What might help show that there could be such a god to begin with would be experiments demonstrating that prayer works, beyond a placebo. No doubt the sick and the lame would like that and it could possibly free up the time of the medical profession somewhat (ie. leave them nothing to do) . The easiest one should be to move a mountain with faith alone. It doesn't have to be a big mountain or move very far. Surely we have the faith of a paltry mustard seed, no?

If you take out all of the letters in the bible except for g-o-d-i-s-i-m-a-g-i-n-a-r-y you are left with.....

If you assign numerical values to all the letters and add them up, then divide by 2 and take away half the original value, you are left with.....

Surely this cannot be a coincidence! The very clever biblical scribes no doubt left this to show how much truth is in the sky fairys book!

Originally posted by teamcommander
reply to post by dragonridr

 

O K. Then you are saying that there have been a long line of amoeba which have lived on earth for many years.

Then it is not necessary for them to be "created" each and every time one is to be found somewhere.

If this been be the case, you are speaking of them being "created" one time many years ago and you must allow that not all decendents of that first one have all been "exact copies" of the original. If they have not all
been "exactlly" the same as the first, there have been "mutations" which have lived and also reproduced. Since I have never heard of anyone's firsthand account from being present, nor have I seen a picture or video of these events, I must accept the idea of there being some chance of changes being present in the amoebas which are living today. Other wise there could be no variations in their adaptations to different habitates.

Unless you can show some definant evidence of error in what I am saying, you also believe in "EVOLUTION" even if you will not admit it.
You may also believe in a "Creator God" but you can not deny that things change over time through generations of life.

edit on 30-8-2013 by teamcommander because: (no reason given)

Of course i do ive been arguing all along evolution exists re read my posts i think your confused.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Hey free healthcare thats something we can use. you know what my favorite thing is though something good happens and people thank god. So you just won the super bowl? Yeah the other team played tough and id like to thank my mom dad oh and raymond and of course god for allowing us the strength. When something bad happens killing thousand in a flood or hurricane. Well god has his reasons after all he works in mysterious ways. So god is basically a mass murderer killing thousands of people every year id say yeah thats kinda mysterious wouldnt you? Then if there is a god and hes all powerful but say he doesnt really control the weather but just sort of lets it do its own thing. But of course being god and knowing all he knows a tornado is going to rip through the mid west and kill hundreds. Yet he does nothing so basically god has knowledge that could prevent needless deaths and withholds it and has the power to stop it but doesnt. He must not like us very much he definitely doesnt treat his children very well. And if a father here on earth could prevent his sons death knowing it was going to happen and choose not to my god hes a monster isnt he.

So then we move on if he didnt know these things were going to occur this excuses him from all liability but then how can he be the creator of everything and not make sure he could find out how things were running?So now hes incompetent. No matter what excuses you make for god destroying people and why he would do this makes no sense unless of course god doesnt exist.Either way no matter which way you break it down whatever your belief how can you follow a god knowing he could kill off thousands of people? Im not sure i would want to meet this person if you think about it knowing they are willing to kill people on a whim.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

If you take out all of the letters in the bible except for g-o-d-i-s-i-m-a-g-i-n-a-r-y you are left with.....

An imaginary number is a number that can be written as a real number multiplied by the imaginary unit i, which is defined by its property i2 = −1. An imaginary number has a negative or zero square. For example, 5i is an imaginary number, and its square is −25.

An imaginary number bi can be added to a real number a to form a complex number of the form a + bi, where a and b are called, respectively, the real part and the imaginary part of the complex number. Imaginary numbers can therefore be thought of as complex numbers whose real part is zero. The name "imaginary number" was coined in the 17th century as a derogatory term, as such numbers were regarded by some as fictitious or useless, but today they have a variety of essential, concrete applications in science and engineering.

en.wikipedia.org...

Your ancestry has been laughing at something imaginary the same way as you do due to unsurpassed ignorance.

reply to post by tremex


there are still people that argue imaginary numbers dont exist in fact mathematicians have used this argument to tear apart theories in physics, The problem becomes if there is no number that fits the equation then is the equation wrong. The argument is based well will use something im familiar with since im not a mathematician. and thats spacial geometry like a black hole for example. In physics the math totally breaks down at a singularity and negative imaginary numbers start popping up all over the place. Mostly due to infinite density and infinite mass this makes physicists freak out since the math leads no where after that. Its useful in the fact of a place holder we know something is there we just dont know what. Same in computers they have nons in c plus for example they handle errors if an equation gives you a negative number its a place holder basically to prevent program from crashing. It really isnt a derogatory term even the greeks when they first discovered it argued the point of negative numbers and does everything have to have an opposite.

So in a way your wiki page is wrong no surprise there huh? But It really comes down to belief these numbers must exist. Now i see this from both sides in physics i want to say yes they do because i do believe in parity. But i could be wrong as well and are physics is just so off base and thats why we get imaginary numbers in the first place. But as i was saying this is a poor example as you were using it because well there is a possibility they dont exist after all logic would tell us if no number fits the equation then the equation is wrong. Main reason i hate computer science was imaginary numbers sends poor computers into loops unless you program for them.

Originally posted by tremex

Your ancestry has been laughing at something imaginary the same way as you do due to unsurpassed ignorance.

I haven't really claimed that any numbers are imaginary (as much as what some claim they can represent) so it's a strawman, intentionally or otherwise.....

I also doubt you know anything of my ancestry or why it would be relevant.

It is god himself, in particular the simplistic, primitive concept of the insane and petty nutter god of christianity that is imaginary. Obviously pointed out by parody, using similar logic (or lack of). No numbers are necessary nor were they used for this by myself. He certainly exists as a concept in imaginations of the afflicted, but has never been found anywhere else.

As to numbers, if you want to see 0 as an imaginary number or otherwise, go for it. I don't see this number so much as imaginary (nor did I imply it), more indicative of the sum total of wisdom found in the primitive book of tall tales. Though I agree that the word "imaginary" could be very apt in this instance also and at least commend you on this much.

It is also quite true as you most graciously point out that I am ignorant, yet at least I am aware of this, rather than mistaking it for god and reveling in it. Some would say this realization is a first necessary step to knowledge, as it at least allows for the possibility to search for the truth. Few religious zealots grasp it because it requires humility to realize we don't know, which can be remarkably absent among those filled with religion.

I don't know how it all started, I don't fool myself that I do. Yet it isn't necessary to know the truth of existence, to smell bovine excrement (that some peddle).

I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do.

(attributed to) Socrates

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Enough, Enoch.

You started this conversation for nothing more than a flame war. This site is not YouTube. Take your polemic cock-fight elsewhere, please.

It offends me that someone who has been here for less than two years feels comfortable creating a contentious thread not for discussion, but solely to aggressively push your slanted agenda. You aren't discussing anything with anyone, you just crawl into your bag of Christian-quotes to piece together dishonest post after dishonest post.

Believe what you want, but if you cant discuss your beliefs openly and honestly, please go elsewhere. This site is not every other forum on the internet. There are many places you can take this, if all you want to do is preach and condemn.

This thread is an example of what ATS is NOT.

Originally posted by Leonidas
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Enough, Enoch.

You started this conversation for nothing more than a flame war. This site is not YouTube. Take your polemic cock-fight elsewhere, please.

It offends me that someone who has been here for less than two years feels comfortable creating a contentious thread not for discussion, but solely to aggressively push your slanted agenda. You aren't discussing anything with anyone, you just crawl into your bag of Christian-quotes to piece together dishonest post after dishonest post.

Believe what you want, but if you cant discuss your beliefs openly and honestly, please go elsewhere. This site is not every other forum on the internet. There are many places you can take this, if all you want to do is preach and condemn.

This thread is an example of what ATS is NOT.

I have answered every post with context. The only fight comes from those replying. They can stand on a subject if they wish. I have not noticed evidence yet presented favoring an origin other than creation. Do you have a view, or just ad hominem?

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by Leonidas
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Enough, Enoch.

You started this conversation for nothing more than a flame war. This site is not YouTube. Take your polemic cock-fight elsewhere, please.

It offends me that someone who has been here for less than two years feels comfortable creating a contentious thread not for discussion, but solely to aggressively push your slanted agenda. You aren't discussing anything with anyone, you just crawl into your bag of Christian-quotes to piece together dishonest post after dishonest post.

Believe what you want, but if you cant discuss your beliefs openly and honestly, please go elsewhere. This site is not every other forum on the internet. There are many places you can take this, if all you want to do is preach and condemn.

This thread is an example of what ATS is NOT.

I have answered every post with context. The only fight comes from those replying. They can stand on a subject if they wish. I have not noticed evidence yet presented favoring an origin other than creation. Do you have a view, or just ad hominem?

Once again might i point out you are the op you made a claim its not the people that respond that proves anything to you.You said you have proof and you need to start proving it without using the bible as a source since thats what your trying to prove is real. This is called a circular argument (insert thing here will call it A) must be true because (something will call B) says its true. So whenever you need proof A is real refer to B,And when needed for proof B is real refer to A. This means you actually have no evidence otherwise this tactic becomes unnecessary.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by Leonidas
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Enough, Enoch.

You started this conversation for nothing more than a flame war. This site is not YouTube. Take your polemic cock-fight elsewhere, please.

It offends me that someone who has been here for less than two years feels comfortable creating a contentious thread not for discussion, but solely to aggressively push your slanted agenda. You aren't discussing anything with anyone, you just crawl into your bag of Christian-quotes to piece together dishonest post after dishonest post.

Believe what you want, but if you cant discuss your beliefs openly and honestly, please go elsewhere. This site is not every other forum on the internet. There are many places you can take this, if all you want to do is preach and condemn.

This thread is an example of what ATS is NOT.

I have answered every post with context. The only fight comes from those replying. They can stand on a subject if they wish. I have not noticed evidence yet presented favoring an origin other than creation. Do you have a view, or just ad hominem?

Once again might i point out you are the op you made a claim its not the people that respond that proves anything to you.You said you have proof and you need to start proving it without using the bible as a source since thats what your trying to prove is real. This is called a circular argument (insert thing here will call it A) must be true because (something will call B) says its true. So whenever you need proof A is real refer to B,And when needed for proof B is real refer to A. This means you actually have no evidence otherwise this tactic becomes unnecessary.

I never implied you needed to agree. By all means, feel free to give your view. I hold a proof that I understand. You are free to choose your own view.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Maybe your unclear what proof is it isnt your belief. Here lets look at the difinition and then you can show your proof like you said when starting the thred ok.

Proof- noun
1.
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.
anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3.
the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4.
the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.
Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

So far nothing you posted matches any of this does it?