New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

[Anita Meyer]

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Th...tm=1&USRI=Anita+Meyer?tabname=custreview#TABS

Thanks for the review on Barnes and Noble! I anticipated people like you even when I started writing at the very beginning of my book. This is what I wrote:

I have also written this book with the critics in mind, as well as those that are impassioned by twisting and spinning the words (interpretations and terminology) of others. In spite of this, these people all happen to be my best allies. Additionally as anticipated and intended, there are those that will blaspheme this book with any bad exposure or publicity they can muster up. Either way, ANY PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY as there is no such thing as bad publicity. As the old saying goes: Beware the trap of publicity for publicity’s sake! After all, even a bad review gives a bit of write-up in which readers might become intrigued and curious about. In effect, its alluring gravity will invite humankinds innate curiosity, which ultimately in due course, leads virtually to the undeniable reality of G-d.

Quite ironic don’t you think?

Well anyways thanks for the great review, I’m sure it will muster up some publicity!

There’s only one problem… You wrote that great review on my book, and didn’t even read my book, that’s one for the records!

To add insult to injury, she misrepresents the religious views of Einstein.

Look Spidergoat, everybody (well most everybody) on this green earth knows Einstein was a Jew! You simply cannot take that away from him even in the darkest hours of science.

 

[spidergoat]

Ethnically, but not religiously. Like me.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There’s only one problem… You wrote that great review on my book, and didn’t even read my book, that’s one for the records!

I read the first 20 pages and I've seen your "arguments" and the way you "think" in this thread.
How much of a shit sandwich is one required to eat before it can be conclusively distinguished as such?
Unless you can demonstrate that your book is any different from the lies, distortions and plain ignorance you have displayed here or in the first 20 pages I stand by the review.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

ANY PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY

Tell that to BP.

You wrote that great review on my book, and didn’t even read my book, that’s one for the records!

Hardly, you've demonstrated you're willing to misrepresent science or people like Einstein and haven't done any real reading on any subject matter relating to science.

Gypsi, I have studied religion my whole life. I went to Hebrew school and lived in Israel for approximately 1 year. Yes, I went to college for Criminology, but followed through in my passion with religion. The rest is personal.

So nothing relevant to the issue at hand, science. He asked you what qualifications or credentials you have to be able to critique science. The answer you should have just admitted clearly was 'None'.

I am what you would call a religious/science procurement specialist - if information exists, I try my best to find it.

Utter nonsense. Firstly you've demonstrated you have no special knowledge or ability in any science areas, certainly not enough to be making a viable challenge to the science community. Secondly you've demonstrated you don't try to find out all information you can. Your utter failure to grasp the scientific method and your complete ignorance of how to present a logical coherent evidence supported hypothesis demonstrates you haven't looked at much (if any) science.

Its an all too common thing, cranks get all their knowledge from Google and wikipedia and thus have no clue as to how to present a coherent formal argument or analyse experiments or other people's models. Science is more than just putting technical words together and simply asserting something, its about being able to show justification, to evaluate evidence and, above all, be able to say "I was wrong". Despite cranks always complaining about the mainstream community is close minded or afraid of new ideas almost without exception they are more close minded to their own mistakes than scientists are. And you're a prime example.

I also reveal how the Hebrew letters are involved with science and mathematics, not only through nature, but also such things like frequency and medicine.

Stuff that would numb the minds of many people.

I find it ironic how cranks like to say things like "You're not accepting it because you don't understand it!" when often the very reason they are trying to argue against science is because they failed to understand science, even at such basic levels as high school. How much science, mathematics and medicine did you actually look at? Anything which wasn't a pop science magazine, a Google'd website or a TV program? You've already said that you have no qualifications or credentials in maths, physics or medicine so to even get to the same level as some of the people in just this thread (never mind the science community as a whole) would take you the better part of a decade and that's assuming you worked full time on said learning.

Look Spidergoat, everybody (well most everybody) on this green earth knows Einstein was a Jew! You simply cannot take that away from him even in the darkest hours of science.

There's a difference between being a Jew in the religious sense and being a Jew in the ethnic group sense. The parents, grandparents etc of Einstein were ethnically Jewish so he was ethnically Jewish. Doesn't mean he believed in the religious side of it. He actually said he didn't believe in the god of the Jews.

 

[Anita Meyer]

“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
There’s only one problem… You wrote that great review on my book, and didn’t even read my book, that’s one for the records! ”

I read the first 20 pages and I've seen your "arguments" and the way you "think" in this thread.
How much of a shit sandwich is one required to eat before it can be conclusively distinguished as such?
Unless you can demonstrate that your book is any different from the lies, distortions and plain ignorance you have displayed here or in the first 20 pages I stand by the review.

Dywyddyr,

Right, you read the back cover and the first 20 pages and made your book report based on that!

My book consists of 500+ pages.

You get a Big Fat F!

 

[Anita Meyer]

Alright Alphanumeric, you say I have no credentials to be a valid writer about science. Truth is I do, I just did not list them for personal reasons as I’ve said.

I was once an evolutionists and believed all the BS that the public school system required for graduation and than some… I had weighed both scales.

How about we talk a bit about “biology”, like the Urey Miller experiment which clings so highly on creating life in a test tube and simulating the early earths atmosphere of the planet where said life originated/evolved from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

What is your basic understanding of this so that I know where you stand with it, and then I will go from there.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Right, you read the back cover and the first 20 pages and made your book report based on that!

I see you're incapable of reading even a single post, otherwise you wouldn't have missed this part:

I've seen your "arguments" and the way you "think" in this thread.

Oh yeah, for your information I haven't read the back cover.

My book consists of 500+ pages.

Judging by what you've posted here the remaining 480 pages are more than likely to be as "rigorously reasoned and evidenced" (which is to say, not at all) as those I have already seen.
You have consistently displayed a profound ignorance, a willingness to ignore facts and science and a propensity to distort what you haven't ignored. That, coupled with a predilection for inventing your own "facts" gives me grounds to write what I did.

As I previously wrote:

How much of a shit sandwich is one required to eat before it can be conclusively distinguished as such?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Alright Alphanumeric, you say I have no credentials to be a valid writer about science. Truth is I do, I just did not list them for personal reasons as I’ve said.

Ah the "I'm not lying, I'm just not going to provide any evidence I'm not lying" tactic. Do you think you'd accept such a line from one of us? I doubt it.

You're hardly going to be revealing anything more personal by saying "I have a [qualification] in [subject] from [place]". After all, you use your real name on these forums, its not like you're trying to remain anonymous.

As it stands not only have you provided no evidence you have any real knowledge or understanding of science or mathematics but you've provided plenty of evidence you don't. Your repeated demonstrations of ignorance and a failure to grasp logic and the scientific method count against you. And the subject matter of your 'work' is hardly science. I know you might think its science but the fact you're simply very very naive as to what constitutes viable credible science doesn't mean anything goes.

I was once an evolutionists and believed all the BS that the public school system required for graduation and than some… I had weighed both scales.

Clearly you haven't looked into it because its not BS, its a tested model of how life developed which has made predictions and been applied to many different areas of biology, including medicine.

You clearly think you've weighed both sides but I don't think you'll find many people here think you have anywhere near the understanding needed to even make a vaguely informed choice. High school level science is insufficient to really critique research, you're still at the stage of being told little more than simplified half truths. Only once you get towards the end of a degree do you even begin to get close to scratching into areas where there's open problems or lots of active research.

I walked my high school exams in maths and physics. Now, 8 years on and a hell of a lot of learning I can see just how little I knew then. At 18 I didn't even know things which now I take as so basic I often forget I didn't always know them. If you think anything short of an advanced degree puts you in a position to make informed critiques of science then you demonstrate just how naive you are.

How about we talk a bit about “biology”, like the Urey Miller experiment which clings so highly on creating life in a test tube and simulating the early earths atmosphere of the planet where said life originated/evolved from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment

What is your basic understanding of this so that I know where you stand with it, and then I will go from there.

I'm aware of them and their basic intent. I haven't done biology since high school and (as I just outlined) unlike you I don't suffer the delusion that getting a high A at age 18 puts me in a position to evaluate research done by professionals. There were flaws in the experiments but the basic premise, that organic molecules can be formed by processes which occur widely in the universe, is well supported. We see clouds of organic molecules (including amino acids) trillions of tons in mass in space as well as places like Titan, which are akin to what the Earth might have been like 4 billion years ago (only a bit colder).

Besides the issue isn't whether or not I know any biology, I'm not claiming to. If a passing biologist wants to run rings around you I'm more than happy to watch. Maths and physics are my thing. How are you with them?

 

[Anita Meyer]

Bla bla bla, not even worth quoting. I have skipped over most of what you wrote saying... that I don’t know, or don’t have credentials and so on and so forth, just as I’m sure most people who are reading have also done. You can say what it is that you want and doctor it up, but there is little truth to any of it about me.

At least I put the FACTS out there, while you connive around all such obstacles.

I'm aware of them and their basic intent. I haven't done biology since high school and (as I just outlined) unlike you I don't suffer the delusion that getting a high A at age 18 puts me in a position to evaluate research done by professionals. There were flaws in the experiments but the basic premise, that organic molecules can be formed by processes which occur widely in the universe, is well supported. We see clouds of organic molecules (including amino acids) trillions of tons in mass in space as well as places like Titan, which are akin to what the Earth might have been like 4 billion years ago (only a bit colder).

Well you don’t have to know much about biology or the Urey Miller experiment to make a educated guess here.

What I’m after in all this, is to prove that evolution (The Evolution Theory) is inadequate - something that you cling so highly to. For instance a basic biology grammar school book teaches us about the science of hydrology, which is the study of earth’s water system, from its distribution, circulation and the atmosphere. Hydrology involves “oxygen and water”.

Now here is the misconception… The evolutionist claim that the beginning stages of earths atmosphere did not contain oxygen because we know from observable repeatable experiments that in the presents of oxygen, “amino acids” necessary for life will NOT bond together. This is because oxygen is like a corrosive and pulls these bonds apart. But the geologists know that there WAS oxygen in the early atmosphere (much higher levels) because they find this evidence in rocks. So this brings us to a very unsettling predicament that life cannot start “with or without” oxygen in the atmosphere. So the question remains, how did it start then? This still remains unanswered for the scientists as well as the evolutionist, but the creationist knows otherwise.

Then science came up with the hypothesis that we evolved (crawled) out of the water and onto the land. But neither can this be a correct synopsis when chemistry demonstrates and teaches us about HYDROLYSIS, (this is the action of water DECOMPOSING molecules) specifically “amino acids“. We all know that water is vitally necessary for life, but it is also DISADVANTAGEOUS (unfavorable and damaging) to the ORIGINS of life. And we know this because test after test has proved it so. Like I said this information can be found in a “basic” grammar school biology/chemistry book. To deny this evidence is the surest sign that a conspiracy is working.

Now just to explain the Miller experiment with amino acids more clearly… Science knows that for life to be possible it needs to have the following consistency of atoms, which turn into molecules (amino acids and proteins). Upon which there have been scientific experiments that set out to try and recreate the building blocks of life (amino acids) in a laboratory by simulating earths natural condition. These experiments claim that they acquired amino acids to create life. And yes they did! But if we analyze just what kind of amino acids they really created, we would later learn that they were NOT the right type of amino acids for active living life! There are over 2,000 types of amino acids and only 20 are used in life. Amino acids come in two shapes, “right (D) and left (L)”, and it should be known that every single amino acid and protein that is found in “ALL“ living things is “LEFT“. Nobody seems to know why (or can answer) why there are no “right” amino acids used in proteins anywhere in life? And what they failed to tell us in these experiments is that they CANNOT create life consisting of all “left” amino acids. Consistently, test after test, they end up with a mixture of left and right amino acids. Now when the left amino acids (in a living thing) start dying something surprising begins to happens, all the left amino acids start reverting back to a mixture of left and right. In other words, the natural tendency of amino acids is to revert away from life and never progress toward it. So this leaves us with the mystery of how life got started on earth, or how life for that matter could get started anywhere else in the Universe? And of course there are always those scientists that say that we just haven’t finagled around enough to figure out how to get all “left” amino acids. However, let me repeat, that to date, they CANNOT create life consisting of ALL “left” amino acids. Furthermore, there is no known natural process that makes only left amino acids. Though they will continue trying to achieve them with only theories. Some scientist hypothesize that there had to be some natural process that separated and concentrated the left and right amino acids from each other forming chain like molecules of pure left amino acids. They hypothesize that they arrived on meteorites, and other theories suggest that it doesn’t matter whether the amino acids rained down on the earth from meteorites or not, because once they arrived and mixed with the environment, the commonplace chemical reactions would have erased the left amino acid signature. AND REMEMBER, THAT RIGHT (D) AMINO ACIDS NEVER “NATURALLY” PROGRESS TOWARD LIFE.

So we know that the experiment was grossly exaggerated, and still to this day no ongoing test of this sort has managed to scrounge up the proper ingredients of amino acids necessary for life.

Besides the issue isn't whether or not I know any biology, I'm not claiming to. If a passing biologist wants to run rings around you I'm more than happy to watch. Maths and physics are my thing. How are you with them?

Oh yes, I am quite up on math and physics as well. I can even understand something perhaps that you cant… it might be off the conventionally beaten track, but nonetheless still viable to this discussion. 1 John 1:5 - This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that G-d is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

And this should tell you something Mr. physics professor… It has even been observed that all existing things emit a constant tiny current of photons (which are tiny particles of light). In fact the field of Quantum Physics is demonstrating that all of creation is composed of vibration in the form of waves of energy or vibration. Under a microscope we can see that everything vibrates. Which include molecules moving, and as we look further we can see the protons, neutrons, and electrons vibrating, and looking even further we can see quarks bopping around down to the nitty-gritty of photons which are composed of the very essence of light itself.

This might very well be one of the most powerful weapons that exists in the whole arsenal of scripture and science - the connection between G-d and light.

 

[Dywyddyr]

At least I put the FACTS out there

No. You spread lies, distortions and ignorance.

Well you don’t have to know much about biology or the Urey Miller experiment to make a educated guess here.

Educated guess? Your next would be the first we've seen from you.

Oh yes, I am quite up on math and physics as well.

But you've consistently proven that you aren't. Your conflation of phi and pi for example.

 

[Stryder]

@Anita
Evolution is not an inadequate theory, it has both models and examples to prove it occurs. (London Underground Mosquitoe Manx Cat)

What it proves is that the very nature of life is to evolve by adapting and overcoming obstacles. This isn't done by some invisible deity making decisions about how things should be directed, it's a consequence of "trial and error" where variations are tried over and over again until one works.

Now you could perhaps argue;

How did life evolve from inert, inanimate matter?

Which might fly a "Created by design or Designer" flag in your head and a number of other Creationalists.

To me however I tend to have a "Chicken and Egg" flag fly ("Which came first? although technically it doesn't actually matter."), where I interpret that mankind will eventually be able to play a part in its own development in the past if given the opportunity. (This would mean that all religions were actually falsified, either to only fullfill causality or because the obsessed theists attempted to make their particular religion "the" only true religion. In either case, they are all bogus.)

 

[Anita Meyer]

Stryder, the Manx cat is clearly showing a “loss” of information. This is not evolution! There might be natural selection at work here, but it is not creating a new creature since it is clear that it is still by all means A CAT!

There have even been cases where humans have spinal tail bones, and many stupid people believe that this is evidence of man’s primitive evolutionary ancestry from ape/monkey. This is not any sort of primitive reclusive genes, it is a structural deformity and variant of development. It is a birth abnormality which occurred during embryologic development. We know this because this appendage is not connected to the vertebral column as are the tails of other vertebrates. Additionally, the appendage is not even in line with the vertebral column. The appendage contains no bony structures as do the tails of all other vertebrates. It is not a “true tail“, it is a deformity. The most likely diagnosis for what appears as a human tail, is a skin remnant of the outer layer of the caudal region.

 

[noodler]

Anita: can you explain the deformities in whales, and in snakes (vestigial hind legs)? Do you know why humans have an appendix and why we need it?

> 630 posts in this thread, and we still haven't seen Jesus...

WTF?

 

[Anita Meyer]

Anita: can you explain the deformities in whales, and in snakes (vestigial hind legs)? Do you know why humans have an appendix and why we need it?

Hello Noodler, yes I can explain these things. Firstly, you should know that whales give birth tail-first and upside-down. And it usually takes a long time. If they gave birth head-first the baby would die of lack of oxygen. Now how did evolution know how to do that? Did it wait until all the baby whales drowned and then realized that they needed to give breach birth?

The evolution theory says that whales developed from existing land mammal’s as they have what looks like remains of skeletal feet and bones, (but it has been recently discovered that these appendages (vestigial legs) are actually used for reproduction. Furthermore these vestigial legs are only found in the “male” and are used to anchor the muscles attached to the penis).

As far as vestigial legs in snakes, we can surely account for the disappearance of its legs to the curse. Genesis 3:14 - So the Lord G-d said to the serpent, because you have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

As for the appendix I have done some research on it. The answer for the appendix can be found in the Bible since it tells us that we were originally plant eaters, then on account of “sin” (the curse) we became meat eaters and eventually we die. I don’t think that G-d changed our intestines much as we can still see the side effects of meat. and I’m sure He left it this way as a testimony and witness to the curse. In His infinite wisdom, He knew that centuries later in the age of modern science and microscopes that we would discover that meat harbored bacteria and poisonous toxins, and that we would also rediscover that our intestines were not originally designed to digest meat. This may also explain to us why we have an appendix… Not because of evolution, but because of toxins and poisons particularly from eating meat. We know this since it has been recently discovered that the appendix plays a big part in the course of fetal development. It appears that the appendix during the growth of the human embryo has a rapid development during the critical stages of bowel growth and organization. And it is during this time that the development of the appendix helps to establish and maintain the bowel-blood barrier for bacteria in this area. We know this to be true when an appendix bursts it contains and releases these deadly toxins that can kill us.

Hope this helped answer your questions.

> 630 posts in this thread, and we still haven't seen Jesus...

Some of the most spectacular things about Jesus is that He knew the future and was able to fulfill the prophesies about Himself! Who else could know the future, but G-d Himself.

If one know the prophesies of the Bible… How is it that Jesus conspired the time and place where He was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:4-7) so that He could ride into Jerusalem at exactly the right time of Daniels prophecy (Daniel 9) concerning the coming of the Messiah?

BTW, the Old Testament prophet Micah prophesied this in 700BC. This is approximately 700 years beforehand!

Yes Jesus knew prophesy had to be fulfilled, and yes He knew He was the Messiah, but the events that fell into place is certainly something in which He had no control over. So we must come to terms that the Old Testament along with the New Testament is a solitary framework of the foretold Messiah. It was G-d’s whole agenda to make the Bible a masterpiece of “PROPHETIC KNOWLEDGE” that allows it to authenticates itself. No other religion or text (religious or non-religious) in the history of humankind is of this underlining nature. And this is what makes it a compelling piece of standing and lasting scientific evidence!

I bring to light these prophesies in my book.

 

[noodler]

Hope this helped answer your questions.

Yes, it did.
I am now certain that you are simply casting about for explanations. Since you "know" all about evolution being demonstrably incorrect, the Bible must have the only correct answers, which have survived centuries of editing and redaction by a politically motivated Catholic Church.

Do you have a Biblical version of the reason bacteria retain "redundant" genes, which are mutated (adapted) constantly to changing conditions? Why disease germs "manage" to become immune to medicines? Is the mechanism of germ immunity another curse from God, possibly?

Is human ignorance another Godly curse? Perhaps He, in his infinite wisdom, has other plans for you, in that case...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Anita, you can whine and wave your arms all you like about according to you professional biochemists are wrong but until you can provide something more than just arm waving you're wasting your time.

As I said, I'm not a biologist or a chemist. I got straight As in them in high school but I don't for a second think that's enough to make me able to evaluate research, a view you obviously don't hold about yourself. If you've got such knock down arguments then get your work published in science journals. You'd be the first creationist to manage it.

Oh yes, I am quite up on math and physics as well.

No, you aren't. Before I went to university I'd read all the pop science books on relativity and quantum mechanics I could buy in my local book store and I was the best in my school at mathematics. Looking back 8 years later, having learnt and done actual maths and physics, to a published level, I know just how naive I was back then. A medium sized fish in a very small pond. I got that naivety knocked out of me when I went to university and saw what the best, the absolute best, could do and I'm nowhere close.

You labour under the mistaken assumption that being good at high school science and having done a bit of pop science reading means you're 'quite up' on maths and physics. You aren't. My father is a professor, 30 years of high level mathematics and physics under his belt (300+ publications), and yet step outside of his area of expertise and knows very little compared to researchers in that area. High school gives some people the mistaken impression they have a firm grasp of complicated science, it doesn't. I learnt more in my 1st year of university than I had in the previous 5 years of high school.

You have absolutely no clue just how far behind the curve you are.

And this should tell you something Mr. physics professor…

And you show your true colours. You're trying to convince people you're well read in the sciences but you attempt to insult me by calling me 'Mr Physics Professor'. I'm not a professor but even if I were do you think I'd find it an insult to be called as much? Do you think I'd find it somehow embarrassing that I'd demonstrated to other scientists that I was a good researcher, competent and educated? I'm not a professor but I am a doctor, the academic kind, in physics. When a creationist or hack tries to insult me or anyone else for having formal education its a demonstration the hack has a chip on their shoulder. You couldn't get such an accolade and thus you try to cheapen it in an attempt to convince yourself you don't really want it.

As for vibrating your claim it is support for your claims is utterly flawed. You have to stretch from one analogy to another and I can't help but notice that this wasn't predicted, it wasn't something which was discovered through direct application of the Bible to science, it was something physicists examined and only in hindsight did Bible thumpers reinterpret it. And I hate to break it to you but you can do exactly the same retroactive reinterpreting with the Koran (there's tons of Islamic websites devoted to precisely that!) or any lengthy book of 'mystical' leanings. For instance, The Silmarillian tells of how Eru made the world as a physical presentation of the Music of the Valar. String theory says every particle is an oscillation on a string. Thus Tolkein predicted string theory, Eru is real!!!

 

[Anita Meyer]

Alphanumeric,

As usual, you have responded with nothing but drivel and astuteness on your behalf. I am trying to break headway here with the physics of light and G-d and you ramble right on over it.

Well your ramblings really don’t matter, all that truly matters is that I’ve said it - and its out there for all to read in my posts.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… all science ideas came out of the Bible! Even the idea for anesthesia. Genesis 2:21 - And the Lord G-d caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. Sir James Young Simpson 1847 discovered “chloroform” from the idea of G-d putting Adam into a deep sleep and taking a rib to make Eve. Therefore James Simpson thought of the idea to put people into a state of sleep (like G-d did with Adam) where they were unaware of what was happening and couldn’t feel pain. With this idea he created “Chloroform” which is a liquid that changes to a vapor that causes unconsciousness when inhaled. It was (in earlier times) used as an anesthetic for surgical operations.

it wasn't something which was discovered through direct application of the Bible to science, it was something physicists examined and only in hindsight did Bible thumpers reinterpret it.

Only in your secluded mind does the Bible not hold application to science.

And I hate to break it to you but you can do exactly the same retroactive reinterpreting with the Koran (there's tons of Islamic websites devoted to precisely that!) or any lengthy book of 'mystical' leanings. For instance, The Silmarillian tells of how Eru made the world as a physical presentation of the Music of the Valar. String theory says every particle is an oscillation on a string. Thus Tolkein predicted string theory, Eru is real!!!

I find it strange that you would rather believe Tolkein over the Bible. FYI, Tolkein got his idea from the Bible as well as George Lucas of Star Wars. Oh and BTW the Old Testament predates the Koran. In fact this is where Mohamed got most of his ideas from. String theory is nothing new, it is explained for us quite nicely in the Qabalah (oral understanding of the Torah).

Take your pick:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...tnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

 

[spidergoat]

Every time you put fingers to keyboard, you shame the scientific pursuit of knowledge. I find you among the most offensive authors living today.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I am trying to break headway here with the physics of light and G-d and you ramble right on over it.

You haven't done anything which can be viable science. You aren't doing anything with the physics of light, including or excluding God. You haven't considered any models of light or tried to some how come up with a testable quantitative framework, you have simply tried to weave God into a wordy explanation of something you don't know anything about (science).

What physics of light do you actually know or do you cover in the book? You've said you try to find out information, all you can, so I'd assume from that that you have looked at electromagnetism, electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics. Have you? Or have you actually not opened a single book which covers anything quantitative and only got your information from pop science sources?

If you were intellectually honest and bothered to look up what actual science research involves and looks like you'd realise you are not even in the same universe as it, you're off in your own little world of delusional naivety.

Well your ramblings really don’t matter, all that truly matters is that I’ve said it - and its out there for all to read in my posts.

And you can say 'it' till you're blue in the face. Doesn't make 'it' science.

all science ideas came out of the Bible

A flat out lie. Only in hind sight can you even hope to twist and turn to make the claim something was already in the Bible. No physics discoveries have been made by studying the Bible. Newton was a huge reader of the bible but he didn't get his understanding of optics from reading about the flood, he got it from doing experiments with prisms. Einstein didn't extract special relativity from the Torah, he got it by building on the work of Poincare, Lorentz and Fitzgerald. Then there's all the work which has been done by people who aren't even from a predominantly monotheistic religion, science isn't done just by people in the western world. China made huge advances in science long before they had had serious contact with the West. Then there's people like Archimedes, who lived before 0 AD.

If science has the Bible as its ultimate source why is it that the belief in God decreases as you go from the population at large to the college educated? The percentage of people having profound vocal belief in an Abrahamic religion is highest in the lowest educated parts of society. Why aren't Bible thumpers able to come up with viable science results themselves? Why do they always have to wait for someone else to do the considerable effort involved in learning vast amounts of science and doing patient and difficult experiments? Why has technological development increased over the last few centuries, despite the increasing secularisation of western culture? 500 years ago everyone went to church, now the US is the only western culture which is vocally religious and even its numbers are dropping.

Your claim science comes from the bible is historically false. In fact its the bible which kept people like Galileo back, having to argue against the catholic dogma of a geocentric universe. Science like cosmology and evolution are in direct conflict with the literal interpretation of the bible. Once again the bible doesn't help, it hinders.

You should really do some research into how various major scientific discoveries were made, through a great deal of effort, thought, experiment and analysis, because you clearly have no clue how its done.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… ! Even the idea for anesthesia. Genesis 2:21 - And the Lord G-d caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. Sir James Young Simpson 1847 discovered “chloroform” from the idea of G-d putting Adam into a deep sleep and taking a rib to make Eve. Therefore James Simpson thought of the idea to put people into a state of sleep (like G-d did with Adam) where they were unaware of what was happening and couldn’t feel pain. With this idea he created “Chloroform” which is a liquid that changes to a vapor that causes unconsciousness when inhaled. It was (in earlier times) used as an anesthetic for surgical operations.

How did that passage help him create chloroform? It doesn't. The notion of "If you knock someone out its easier to cut them open" isn't a difficult one, you don't need the bible for that. Pre-chloroform you got either a stiff drink or a blow to the skull to hopefully render you unconscious. People didn't need the bible to tell them to do something like that.

Pained as I am to link to it even the creation wiki on him says that he used that bible verse to get some people to accept the notion of anaesthetic and the very fact some people argued with him was because they were interpreting scripture!!! Your own example is actually a demonstration of how the bible held people back. The bible didn't help him do the chemistry involved in making chloroform, it didn't help him with the scientific method of doing trials, it didn't provide the initial rationale for looking for something to render a person unconscious. The only reason Simpson needed to use the bible was to argue with other people's use of the bible!!

And that just one thing in science. You claimed it ALL comes from the bible. Speaking as someone who has been published in physics journals and who firmly doesn't believe in a God I'm a counter example to your claim. As are all the other atheists in the science community. And all the theistic ones too, they don't get their work from the bible, their belief doesn't help with their research.

Only in your secluded mind does the Bible not hold application to science.

Now you've changed your claim. You said that " all science ideas came out of the Bible". That is different from the Bible perhaps making someone think "I might look into that". Yes, someone might have read some bit of the bible and be prompted into investigating something but the bible doesn't actually help that investigation, it doesn't provide any usable knowledge of the real world which wasn't already known to any other religion or culture.

So which are you claiming, that all science has the bible as its source or that at least one thing in science might have been done because of some initial motivation by the bible? Or some kind of middle ground?

I find it strange that you would rather believe Tolkein over the Bible. FYI, Tolkein got his idea from the Bible as well as George Lucas of Star Wars.

I don't believe any of them, it was a demonstration that you can interpret anything sufficiently badly to get what are obvious works of fiction to make all the same kind of 'prophecies' as in any holy book you care to name.

String theory is nothing new, it is explained for us quite nicely in the Qabalah (oral understanding of the Torah).

Please point me to the section of the Torah which provides the Polyakov action and explains path quantisation. If you can't then your claim is false. If quantum field theory were already in the Torah thousands of years ago why did it take till the 1930s to be developed by an atheist, Paul Dirac?

Its always hindsight, never does a holy book allow anyone to develop successful science. And this doesn't even need to be difficult, if god were revealing all these things of science why couldn't he do something simple and clear cut like explain the notion of 'zero' to people? Its a profoundly importance thing in mathematics, without which almost none of physics can be done, and yet God left it out. You can't explain string theory or quantum mechanics or relativity without the mathematical structure under them, which needs zero. If you were right then there'd be a positive correllation between scientific contributions and religious belief and there isn't.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...tnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

The fact you have such obscenely low standards for what constitutes 'explained' doesn't validate your argument. Saying "Things wave about" doesn't get you string theory, there's a number of very very important things which must come together, like the two I have asked you to point to in the torah, so vague analogies aren't sufficient.

I honestly despair for people when I think that there's people who are sucked in by your lies and ignorance. You're praying on people's lack of understanding (so to not expose your own lack of understanding), which is detestable.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Yes, it did.
I am now certain that you are simply casting about for explanations. Since you "know" all about evolution being demonstrably incorrect, the Bible must have the only correct answers, which have survived centuries of editing and redaction by a politically motivated Catholic Church.

Hello Noodler, the Bible didn’t just survive the Catholic Church word for word, the Dead Sea Scrolls hold testimony to this this fact. The Dead Sea Scrolls tells us exactly the same thing that our modern day Bibles do. These are 3,000 year old texts.

Do you have a Biblical version of the reason bacteria retain "redundant" genes, which are mutated (adapted) constantly to changing conditions? Why disease germs "manage" to become immune to medicines?

Disease germs do not mutate, though they may adapt to changing conditions. Either they have the functioning genes within them (switched on) or they are defective. If they are defective, there is a “loss of information” in the genes. No new information is being added here to the geno.

Is the mechanism of germ immunity another curse from God, possibly?

Yes, after the curse from G-d new mechanisms took effect. Today we live in a world where the laws of thermodynamics (2nd law) and entropy rule, but before the curse there was no death.

It was Adam and Eve which brought on all of today’s conditions, which included death. I Corinthians 15:22 - All “in Adam” die. From the curse on down throughout history things die and go extinct (and Genesis 3:14-24 fully explains this).* Genesis 3:19 - For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return (implying a physical death from which there was not any before). Nothing is mutating or evolving...* NOTHING, only dying! In fact everything is in “REVERSE” and the Bible clearly reveals this to us.

It goes like this: 1st (in the order of events) there was G-d. Then G-d made man who was in submission (served) to Him. Then G-d made the woman who was in submission to man. And lastly the animal kingdom that was in submission to mankind (which G-d gave man dominion over). Now after the curse/fall everything is in "reverse order". It’s now the animal kingdom (the serpent), and then the woman who submitted to the animal (satan), and the man who now submits to his wife, and the one who is lastly submitted to is G-d. From this point on, everything of G-d’s original plan was in reversed order and went from a sustained order into downward disorder (AKA entropy).

Now some people might be thinking that this reversal could not have actually caused physical changes in living things, but the Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve felt shame and pain (in nakedness, fear and coldness) immediately after they ate of the “tree of good and evil”. Genesis 3:7 - Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked, so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Genesis 3:10 - He answered, I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid. G-d had warned them beforehand that if they ate of this tree they would die. And dying implies a physical death (from which there was none before), maybe not at that exact moment, but an eventual death from the reverse order of things (entropy). Genesis 2:17 - But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

Here we can distinguish the actual effects that took place. Genesis 3:14-19*- So the Lord G-d said to the serpent, Because you have done this, Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel. To the woman he said, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. To Adam he said, Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, You must not eat of it, Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.

Some say that this Biblical account is just a fictional story, but it may actually be based on scientific precepts.* The earth early atmospheric pressure may have been different in which the book of Genesis also alludes to a firmament. It had twice as much oxygen in it, and this geologist know today. The earths early atmosphere was like a hyperbaric chamber. They use hyperbaric chambers today in hospitals for treatment on many things. It makes the body heal twice as fast.

Amazingly did you know that when a poisonous snake is put into a hyperbaric chamber its venom becomes nonpoisonous. This may lend hand to the change in insects and animals after the curse. Things like poisonous spiders, snakes and animals, they were originally harmless. After the curse plants changed as well becoming toxic and poisonous, and may have also changed the dispositional nature of some animals to eat each other.