New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator [Archive]

Anita Meyer

01-26-10, 10:56 AM

Hello everyone I am not really new to the forum. I used to post under a different user name sometime back, but I love this forum and AM BACK to talk about my new book!

This book is revelutionary! Because contained within is revealed one of the greatest mysteries of them all: The Primordial Language (the Mother Language - first language spoken by humankind). A mathematical language of Divine origin - linking the Hebrew letters that were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, which was recorded in Exodus 18:31 (of the Bible) to have actually been inscribed by the finger of G-d Himself. It is these letters that were recently discovered by me to be formed from "one prototype form" that incredibly bares nature’s mathematical pattern of unit growth (Phi/Pi, the Golden Spiral, and Fibonacci sequence). One might ask, what does this linkage mean? Well, when we begin to witness this connection between G-d and nature, this then reveals proof of a Divine Entity intervening (and baring witness) that He alone is the almighty G-d - that indeed "did create" EVERYTHING in existence! Hence - Divine Authorship authenticating every word of the Bible.

The book is filled with over 400 photos, diagrams and charts. The book not only reveals this greatest mystery but it goes on to talk about so much more… It talks about the Theory Of Evolution and why it is incorrect... The microcosmic relationship between nature and G-d... Egypt’s real secrets regarding the Great Pyramid and the star constellations... Sacred symbols of esoteric origins... Dimensional insights into understanding Kabala... The Bible Codes - in particular, very specific ones that declare the authenticity of the Bible itself linked to the authorship of G-d... Prophesy both past and present including end time prophesy... Biblical foreknowledge - by some means the Bible knew/knows more about science than we do today... Additionally, you may want to know how G-d's 3-part nature, the Trinity (G-d the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) is found in the very first three letters of the Hebrew Torah (Genesis 1:1 in the Bible). In addition, you will also be privy to witness how the very first paragraph of Genesis 1:1 equates to Phi/Pi (3.14). You will also see how the Great Pyramid of Egypt is linked to the Hebrew letters and a great many other things. The theory of "Time Travel" is also discussed at length and why it is abhorrent to nature, prophesy and G-d. You will also be privy to read about some of life’s secrets such as how to extend the quality and length of your life based on biblical precepts.

Anyways, I am here to talk about it - so ask away...

I cannot post the link because I signed up under a new username, (I need at least 20 posts under this user name before I can post it) but if anyone is interested they could do a google search under the name of the book: The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator by Anita Meyer

Dywyddyr

01-26-10, 11:06 AM

Quote from the page mentioned:

This book is labeled as fiction, but it is so compelling that the readers must decide for themselves if it is actually nonfiction.
I've decided.
It's fiction.
Probably poor fiction at that.

And unless you're actually going to present some of the *cough* data in the book for discussion your post is nothing more than (self-promoting) spam.

spidergoat

01-26-10, 11:10 AM

Anita Mey brain lobotomized to believe that.

Dywyddyr

01-26-10, 11:14 AM

The theory of "Time Travel" is also discussed at length and why it is abhorrent to nature, prophesy and G-d.
I must admit that I like this bit though: time travel is abhorrent to prophesy...
Isn't prophesy itself a form of time travel (for information)?
:runaway:

Enmos

01-26-10, 12:06 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTBUGSQg08A

lol!

spidergoat

01-26-10, 12:13 PM

Is that the same one?

Enmos

01-26-10, 12:16 PM

Is that the same one?

No, I just thought it was funny :p

Here: http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/anitameyer.html

quantum_wave

01-26-10, 12:29 PM

Anita, I can’t see any sequence of speculation that could take us from a departure point in observed nature to the existence of such a Primordial Language.

I suspect that the book covers logic of how you get from existing languages to some common denominator in pre recorded history, or lost history. And it may be interesting to an audience that you certainly know better than I do who seek some supernatural connection between mathematics and nature. Science depends on observing and quantifying what we observe. To make an assertion that God did it, and if we look closely enough at nature we can see it, goes against what I think is obvious. The obvious is that if we could ever detect something in nature of such divine origin, and God put it there for us to find, then proof of that primordial divine language would be proof of God. But if there is a God who lays proof out for us, why not just come to each of us in a burning bush and say, “I AM God and you WILL believe in me”?

God doesn’t do that so why hide something that we can find that would have the same impact of those who discover it. If someone believes in God they do so by faith, and if someone decides there is no God, well they don’t believe. The decision is a personal one based on individual upbringing, environmental circumstance, and personal searches.

Sometimes striking experiences that people have are interpreted as divine. But there is no irrefutable evidence for or against the existence of God that is in the hands of any individual that can be used to convince other people, IMHO.

Forceman

01-26-10, 12:38 PM

I must admit that I like this bit though: time travel is abhorrent to prophesy...
Isn't prophesy itself a form of time travel (for information)?
:runaway:

Time travel is a form of prophecy. John the Apostle and the Revelator saw the kingdom of God established on Earth and the Messianic reign of Jesus Christ for one thousand years. He also saw the Great White Throne Judgment. He couldn't do that based on the year he was currently in but had to be transported, spiritually, a thousand and so years into the future.

Dywyddyr

01-26-10, 12:43 PM

Time travel is a form of prophecy.
You mean prophesy is a form of time travel.

John the Apostle and the Revelator saw the kingdom of God established on Earth and the Messianic reign of Jesus Christ for one thousand years. He also saw the Great White Throne Judgment.
You mean he claimed (or was claimed) to have seen it.

sifreak21

01-26-10, 12:47 PM

Dywyddyr

01-26-10, 12:50 PM

im sorry i know people have there opinion but some people are just mental god created everything evolution is disproved you really need help evolution is all around us minor and major if you dont realize this then posting here is pointless
Could you put that into English?
Or at least punctuate it?
It's contradictory - evolution is disproved AND it's all around us?

spidergoat

01-26-10, 12:52 PM

$38? Holy moley.

Additionally, I am not writing this book to quote facts, or to cite scientific references.
Though I may use some in this book, they are used merely to express my opinion.

Well, at least she wrote a disclaimer.

Neither is this book written
with any perfect skillfulness such as in proper sentence structuring, or even correct usage
of grammar - as that it not its true purpose.

Well, that's a relief.

But please bear in mind that the evolution theory is only a relatively recent belief. The misconception about evolution is that it is a science, but in actuality it is not a science at all - it is only a theory and a philosophy. This is because (to date) there is no real substantial evidence of any kind WHATSOEVER of evolution ever happening in the past, or currently transpiring in the present!

Oh holy hell.

Life coming about from non-living things would require non-living things to naturally turn into living organisms all by themselves - which is scientifically impossible!

How do you know?

The scientific evolutionists tell us that evolution is widely excepted as the “only explanation” for how living things came about, and is now a fact. But if indeed this scientific estimation is correct and based on facts, where are the rigorous repeated, demonstrated and observable(ed) tests which science is based on? I bet you really believe there are such tests? In certainty there are no tests to determine or prove that evolution took place (or is taking place at present) because it was/is the unseen, and science cannot test what is not seen by our human means, (it leans on assumptions). Not even in the most sophisticated laboratories today (where test-after-tests are being performed) are we witnessing any sort of evolution taking place (however, blindingly or rather imaginably in the eyes of the evolutionists they believe we are). But it is for these “unobservable” reasons that the evolution theory lies in the realm of the mysterious and therefore it can only be believed, and under those grounds is based on faith (the substance of things not seen, but believed).

Wrong.

The Giraffe is another prime example that they claim evolved. They
assert that early Giraffes had necks of various lengths starting out small and than due to
“natural selection or mutation” they had to develop longer necks to reach higher tree
branches for food and eventually only long necked Giraffes survived. You can find
many pictures of over imaginative drawings in science books of Giraffes starting out
with small necks. But let me put forth the real evidence about Giraffes… NO fossil
evidence has ever been unearthed showing Giraffes with shorter necks. Amazingly
Giraffes also have a miraculous mechanism in their brains that allow the flow of blood
to pass through their neck on the way to the brain so they don’t pass out when they bend
their long neck down to the ground for water (this is like a regulating valve). If
evolution is true how did something like this evolve when we find no evidence of
Giraffes with shorter necks. This is contrary to what the evolutionary theory tells us -
which is that this valve mechanism was put into place by a series of natural selections
and survival of the fittest.

Actually, the giraffe is a wonderful example of evolution. There is a blood vessel that loops all the way down the neck and around it's heart before going back up. This highly inefficient routing is an artifact of evolution, since evolution does not have the power (like a designer) to go back to the drawing board and redesign it from scratch. Nice job trying to make people dumber.

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/files/The_Primordial_Language.pdf

sifreak21

01-26-10, 12:54 PM

lol sorry dyw

i know people have there opionion but some people are just mental according to op god created everything and Theory Of Evolution and why it is incorrect, op needs help if they dont realize that evolution is all around us as for god created everything, thats up in the air, i dont believe he/she did but thats my opinion

Forceman

01-26-10, 01:04 PM

Could you put that into English?
Or at least punctuate it?
It's contradictory - evolution is disproved AND it's all around us?

I would argue the other way around. Time travel can be utilized in prophecy and so time travel is a form of prophecy! Some are strict creationists and would rather not believe in evolution at all, that's why intelligent design exists so science and religion don't contradict each other. Some people just like being contradictory, though.

Dywyddyr

01-26-10, 01:11 PM

I would argue the other way around. Time travel can be utilized in prophecy and so time travel is a form of prophecy!
Since prophesy is a small subset and time travel can include prophesy (i.e. information rather than a person), then you're wrong.

Some are strict creationists and would rather not believe in evolution at all, that's why intelligent design exists so science and religion don't contradict each other.
Intelligent Design isn't science, and religion is still contradicted by science.

Forceman

01-26-10, 01:27 PM

Since prophesy is a small subset and time travel can include prophesy (i.e. information rather than a person), then you're wrong.

Intelligent Design isn't science, and religion is still contradicted by science.

"All souls belong to God."

"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

"From dust we have come and into dust we shall return."

Dywyddyr

01-26-10, 01:33 PM

"All souls belong to God."
"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
"From dust we have come and into dust we shall return."

Always watch where you are going. Otherwise, you may step on a piece of the Forest that was left out by mistake.

Did you ever stop to think, and forget to start again?

It's always useful to know where a friend-and-relation is, whether you want him or whether you don't.
See? I can quote from fiction too.

(All quotes from Winnie the Pooh (http://www.allgreatquotes.com/winnie_pooh_quotes.shtml): it has a better plot than your book).

spidergoat

01-26-10, 01:42 PM

"All souls belong to God."

"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

"From dust we have come and into dust we shall return."

I could write a book too, that said such things. Doesn't mean anything.

Crunchy Cat

01-26-10, 03:02 PM

Anita Meyer

01-26-10, 03:04 PM

All very good questions?

Well for starters its good to see that at least you are checking out my book - well only the first 20 pages which is displayed on the Publishers website anyhow, but there is so much more to it.

Concerning the Giraffe… No, there has not been any fossils found of Giraffes with shorter necks, thus how could a regulating blood valve evolve by a series of natural selections or even survival of the fittest?

No prophesy is not a form of “Time Travel”. What I am merely saying is that BECAUSE PROPESIES (to date) are coming true such as many of the prophesies concerning Jesus… like He was to be born in Bethlehem and sold for 30 pieces… these are prophesies that came true. Thus G-d would never allow Time Travel (outside His own jurisdictions) since it would render all prophesy null and void (this is a very hard concept to grasp).

quantum_wave you say: Science depends on observing and quantifying what we observe. To make an assertion that God did it, and if we look closely enough at nature we can see it, goes against what I think is obvious. The obvious is that if we could ever detect something in nature of such divine origin, and God put it there for us to find, then proof of that primordial divine language would be proof of God.

Yes, this is the whole point! G-d did indeed put it there for us to find. Not only did He put it there in nature (3.14) but He also put it in His word (the Bible). In fact 3.14 can also be equated in the very first sentence of Genesis 1:1 as if to say, if at first you don’t understand it from the very first word (or even smaller letter) it reveals it in the next bigger word… and sentence… and verse… to the next bigger part.

QM you also say: But if there is a God who lays proof out for us, why not just come to each of us in a burning bush and say, “I AM God and you WILL believe in me”?

Because G-d only has to do something once like the flood. As long as it is documented in His Word the Bible it is as good as done for all.

QM you also say: Sometimes striking experiences that people have are interpreted as divine. But there is no irrefutable evidence for or against the existence of God that is in the hands of any individual that can be used to convince other people, IMHO.

Is this the only limits you can expand your mind to. Surely if I could, so could you.

Dywyddyr

01-26-10, 03:12 PM

No prophesy is not a form of “Time Travel”.
Yes it is. It involves the transfer of information from one time to another.

Yes, this is the whole point! G-d did indeed put it there for us to find. Not only did He put it there in nature (3.14) but He also put it in His word (the Bible). In fact 3.14 can also be equated in the very first sentence of Genesis 1:1 as if to say, if at first you don’t understand it from the very first word (or even smaller letter) it reveals it in the next bigger word… and sentence… and verse… to the next bigger part.Supposition: show your "logic".

Because G-d only has to do something once like the flood.
There was no "flood".

As long as it is documented in His Word the Bible it is as good as done for all.
Why should it be believed? What evidence is there that it IS "his word"?

Is this the only limits you can expand your mind to. Surely if I could, so could you.
With respect: you don't seem to have expanded your mind at all. You state in the book that you consider the bible to be literally true and then proceed to display your massive, and, frankly, unforgivable, ignorance of science by misrepresenting it at every turn.

Anita Meyer

01-26-10, 03:21 PM

Double post

Dywyddyr

01-26-10, 03:24 PM

Exactly the same post but 17 minutes later?
How does that help your case?

Anita Meyer

01-26-10, 03:31 PM

You ask? Why should it be believed? What evidence is there that it IS "his word"?

This is what I'm trying to reveal in my book that the Hebrew Language is of Divine origin - namely that of G-d.

spidergoat

01-26-10, 03:34 PM

Concerning the Giraffe… No, there has not been any fossils found of Giraffes with shorter necks, thus how could a regulating blood valve evolve by a series of natural selections or even survival of the fittest?.

The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is one of the best proofs for evolution that exists! This nerve connects the brain and the larynx, and yet it goes all the way down the neck and around a blood vessel near the heart (and is not connected to it) and back up again. An intelligent designer could have re-routed it so that it was only a foot long, but evolution doesn't work that way.

Dywyddyr

01-26-10, 03:36 PM

You ask? Why should it be believed? What evidence is there that it IS "his word"?
This is what I'm trying to reveal in my book that the Hebrew Language is of Divine origin - namely that of G-d.
No: you're claiming that we should believe the book is telling truth because it's his word. And that we know it's his word because it should be believed.
Another circular argument.
You have to to show either
A) the bible really is factual or
B) god exists.
And proceed from there.

For example you claim that this so-called "Primordial Language" is of "divine origin", yet for that to be so you have to prove god exists for there to be a divine origin. But the only evidence of god's existence is that the bible says so. Hence: why should we believe the bible?

Anita Meyer

01-26-10, 03:48 PM

Spidergoat, G-d’s design works perfectly... when the Giraffe bends down to drink water the valve was designed in such a special way so that it doesn’t pass out from a rush of blood to its head.

How did something like this valve evolve when as I said earlier there simply has not been found any fossils of Giraffes with smaller necks. If this valve was in the process of evolution surely there must be some smaller necked fossilized Giraffes that died (when this valve didn’t work properly) in the archives of science - SOMEWHERE!

A giraffe is a Giraffe, and has always been a Giraffe. And this valve was made/designed perfectly from G-d from the very beginning.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

spidergoat

01-26-10, 03:50 PM

The giraffe fossil record is fairly good, with a wide variety of species known from the Miocene. These sported a range of weirdly shaped horns, but all had short necks rather like that of the only other living species of giraffid, the okapi. Only in the late Miocene do we see the fossils of long-necked giraffes. Like modern giraffes, they have an extra vertebra in the neck - recruited from the back - and lengthened neck vertebrae.

Until recently, there was no fossil evidence linking the long-necked giraffes to their short-necked relatives. But as my book went to press, news emerged that Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology had described a fossil giraffe from the late Miocene and early Pliocene. Its neck is a perfect intermediate between the short-neck ancestors and their long-neck descendants.
Source: www.newscientist.com

Anita Meyer

01-26-10, 04:02 PM

Dywyddyr,

Yes, it is circular argument... You either see it or you don’t that is your choice. Some people walk through the field and never see the flowers.

However, if you’re curious you will look into the matter.

Author Anita Meyer
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
anitameyer1@hotmail.com

Anita Meyer

01-26-10, 04:22 PM

Looks to me like a completely different animal species, one that would forage more on the ground. It might have the same similar vertebrae but then again so do we as humans share similarities to other things in nature even in our DNA. However and this is the key… just because we share similarity does not mean evolution of any sort took place. All it simply means is that when our Creator created us He did so using the same mechanisms that He knew worked in one thing would also work in the other just like gear mechanisms work the same in the engine of a car as well as an airplane or even an air conditioning unit. Don’t painters use the same colors to draw pictures? Man cannot create a new color in the Rainbow!

Sorry I cant post the link yet, but this animal looks more like a horse.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

spidergoat

01-26-10, 04:33 PM

So you ask for a transitional fossil, I point it out, and then you change your tune and say that similarities do not imply evolution.

Giraffes are related to horses, and they had a common ancestor.

Evolution proves that the nesting heiarchy of species we see are not just God's variations on a theme that works. It is a mechanism by which new forms appear with no designer whatsoever. Living things show variation based on random mutations, variation leads to variable survivability. Successful variations breed more variations on that successful form. That's how evolution works. Evolution is not abiogenesis, as you incorrectly claim in your book. Evolution does not explain how the first form came about, although there are several plausible scenarios.

Evolution explains why people have sex. Sex leads to greater variation, which is healthy for the species.

quantum_wave

01-26-10, 04:41 PM

...quantum_wave you say:
Science depends on observing and quantifying what we observe. To make an assertion that God did it, and if we look closely enough at nature we can see it, goes against what I think is obvious. The obvious is that if we could ever detect something in nature of such divine origin, and God put it there for us to find, then proof of that primordial divine language would be proof of God.

Yes, this is the whole point! G-d did indeed put it there for us to find. Not only did He put it there in nature (3.14) but He also put it in His word (the Bible). In fact 3.14 can also be equated in the very first sentence of Genesis 1:1 as if to say, if at first you don’t understand it from the very first word (or even smaller letter) it reveals it in the next bigger word… and sentence… and verse… to the next bigger part.
I understand. I have been watching the series, The Story of Maths ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfgy96Msq7Q&feature=related), and am enjoying it. Numbers and how they correspond to nature and how nature conveys its relationships and complexity through numbers form the origins of math. It is closely tied to religions and faith because religions and the understanding of mathematics came from the same peoples over the same time frames in various societies around the world; the earliest recorded records of the endeavors of man are filled with the origins of religion and the origins of math.

But the maths were in tune with science and enabled science to quantify nature, while religions were in tune with charismatic leaders and the growth of societies. Both math and religion emerged among us almost simultaneously but for different reasons and with different results. Math turned out to be common among people over time and religion tended to perpetuate the divisions among people. I give my appreciation more to the path of science and math through history than to the discord that has survived among religions.

I cannot say that and leave it at that though because of my respect for the good that is done in the world in the name of religion. I don’t blame the discord on religion itself, but on the failure of religions to emphasis a God-fairing common denominator among themselves. If the religious indoctrination of children perpetuates dogma of hate then it goes way beyond a righteous common denominator. The first basic thing I look for in a religion is that in the following of their beliefs they don’t do harm or advocate harm to others. Some religions fail that test and the discord is perpetuated. But the general good that is done in the name of religion cannot easily be replaced by a non religious society. But that is an entire topic in itself :).

But if there is a God who lays proof out for us, why not just come to each of us in a burning bush and say, “I AM God and you WILL believe in me”?

Because G-d only has to do something once like the flood. As long as it is documented in His Word the Bible it is as good as done for all.
That sounds like it should be right from the perspective of a believer but there is a problem in that position in reality. God is not just the God of the Bible. Every religion that has a God, has their view of God, and part of the discord that exists among religions is for that very reason. My God is better than your God. Let our warriors prove that God is on our side. And then the victories change hands over the ages and nothing is proved as to which God is the stronger. If you as a religious person don’t have as your second most important mission to merge all God’s into a common God, then you aren’t doing enough to resolve the seemingly endless discord. The answer to a common denominator among religions is not in defining what the common denominator should be, but it is in how, if there is one God, that God can be seen so differently by different religions?

Sometimes striking experiences that people have are interpreted as divine. But there is no irrefutable evidence for or against the existence of God that is in the hands of any individual that can be used to convince other people, IMHO.

Is this the only limits you can expand your mind too. Surely if I could, so could you.

I could too, it is true. But I expand my mind in a different way and in a different direction. I see what can and cannot be proved, and what I find is that God cannot be falsified and the denial of God cannot be proved while the denial of God cannot be falsified and the existence of God cannot be proved.

If there is anything that is eternal, in my view the universe must be eternal in order for God to be eternal. The logic may not be so good, but if the universe is not eternal, either God created it or it came from nothing. If it came from nothing there is no God, and if God created it then where was God for the eternity before creation (or various other arguments of logic like who created God or other logic not worth mentioning).

So the most logical explanation for the existence of the universe to my deluded brain is that it has always existed; it is eternal in the same respect that the God of religions is eternal. If the universe and God share that characteristic then maybe the universe and God are one in the same but there is no evidence one way or the other. Belief in either is an individual decision.

spidergoat

01-26-10, 04:48 PM

Anita's premise is illogical. The kind of math she ascribes only to a supernatural entity are in fact found in nature, as the result of simple rules that make the most efficient use of resources.

Crunchy Cat

01-26-10, 05:08 PM

Correct.

spidergoat

01-26-10, 06:02 PM

She reminds me of our Muslim posters who find scientific confirmation of the divinity of the Quran everywhere they look.

quantum_wave

01-26-10, 06:07 PM

...Evolution explains why people have sex. Sex leads to greater variation, which is healthy for the species.I knew I was on the right track :).

PsychoticEpisode

01-26-10, 08:30 PM

that He alone is the almighty G-d - that indeed "did create" EVERYTHING in existence!

God could not create Himself so I guess He either didn't create EVERYTHING or doesn't exist.

Check out the Creation thread, LG's fighting like Hell in there for all you theists so he needs more help than statements like the quote above.

Dywyddyr

01-26-10, 11:51 PM

Yes, it is circular argument...
Therefore it's not proof.

You either see it or you don’t that is your choice. Some people walk through the field and never see the flowers.
And some people prefer to believe they see flowers when it's wheat and chaff.

However, if you’re curious you will look into the matter.
Curious? About what?
The only possible thing I could be curious about in this particular case is the psychology of delusion and/ or self-delusion: i.e. yours.
The human mind is so wonderfully flexible, isn't it? Right down to the invention of self-sustaining rubbish.

Randwolf

01-27-10, 04:24 AM

Wasn't there another thread on this? Did it get merged, deleted, what? :confused:

Just curious...

Maybe muons? ;)

Blindman

01-27-10, 07:18 AM

Anita Meyer do you actually believe your own dribble. Well i guess religion has always thrived on the exploitation of the ignorant. How sad people like you still get to sell your snake oil.:bawl:

Anita Meyer

01-27-10, 02:32 PM

Firstly, I cant believe that this forum is not moderated better. On some forums people which such responses as you’ve responded with would have been kicked off. If I could please ask you to be more considerate instead of aggressive, loud-mouthed, quarrelsome, or spoiling for a fight.

Spidergoat you commented back saying: So you ask for a transitional fossil, I point it out, and then you change your tune and say that similarities do not imply evolution. Giraffes are related to horses, and they had a common ancestor.

I’m not changing my tune - you are changing it for me. What I am merely stating is that this animals that you’ve pointed out looks more like a horse than a Giraffe. I’m not debating that they may share some similarity, I am merely saying that they are not the same aminal - they are two completely different species.

Spidergoat you go on to say: Evolution proves that the nesting heiarchy of species we see are not just God's variations on a theme that works. It is a mechanism by which new forms appear with no designer whatsoever. Living things show variation based on random mutations, variation leads to variable survivability. Successful variations breed more variations on that successful form. That's how evolution works. Evolution is not abiogenesis, as you incorrectly claim in your book. Evolution does not explain how the first form came about, although there are several plausible scenarios.

Well first you have to prove that this is happening (evolution that is), and to date there is no more evidence for evolution occuring than to that of having faith in G-d. Evolution still remains a theory. And a theory that cannot produce “new genes” which are needed to produce an “evolved” (or mutated) creature - and this does not include tandem repeats in the genes.

Spidergoat you additionally go on to say: Evolution explains why people have sex. Sex leads to greater variation, which is healthy for the species.

I’ve heard this theory thousands of time already and its just not logical - let me tell you why… As the evolutionists theory goes, the environment plays a large role in this, as well as sex (female choice). But here is the thing Spidergoat, we don’t find the evidences for this in the fossil record either. I have found that many people don’t think this through logically concerning "natural selection". Natural selection is actually a loss of information. In fact it’s the “opposite” of evolution since living things are being segregated and then isolated moving to different parts of the Earth. What’s actually happening here is that these creatures are loosing information in their DNA (as you split up these populations and some die). You see over a period of time natural selection results in loss of information, specialization (adaptation or condition in response to environmental conditions), eventually getting to the stage where they cant interbreed anymore.

Now concerning your other response: Anita's premise is illogical. The kind of math she ascribes only to a supernatural entity are in fact found in nature, as the result of simple rules that make the most efficient use of resources.

YES this is the whole point! The FACT that this form is naturally found in nature which can be linked to a supernatural entity. Since these Hebrew letters were given to Moses by G-d we should be examining them a little closer. And when they are examined we find that they are made by the same DESIGN!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

Dywyddyr

01-27-10, 02:39 PM

Firstly, I cant believe that this forum is not moderated better. On some forums people which such responses as you’ve responded with would have been kicked off.
And on some forums anyone posting such unsupported (and insupportable) nonsense would have been kicked off.

YES this is the whole point! The FACT that this form is naturally found in nature which can be linked to a supernatural entity.
Also wrong: the "supernatural entity" is an a priori assumption ("supported" only by a circular argument).
Since there's no evidence of a supernatural entity then any claim of links to it are totally specious.

Since these Hebrew letters where given to Moses by G-d we should be examining them a little closer.
There's no evidence of that either.
As I pointed out there, is no indication at all that the Hebrew "alphabet" did not exist before the tablets (and the obvious corollary that they actually did), and Fraggle Rocker has already pointed out that the, er, scholarship is more than slightly lacking with regard to the claims about the Hebrew "alphabet".

And when they are examined we find that they are made by DESIGN!
Wrong.

Anita Meyer

01-27-10, 03:02 PM

Well how would you know this Dywyddyr, have you examined the Hebrew letters yourself? You could see this for yourself if you’d like in my book.

The Hebrew language is the Mother Language of humankind given my G-d and spoken first by Adam and Eve. Yes, it became mottled and broken into similar designs over the decades and today we can still see many of its relatedness to other languages and writings, but on the whole, it has still remained somewhat the same. My book points this out and shows the similarities in all recorded and documented writings that were ever found across the globe.

My theory of what happened was that many centuries later the Hebrew letters were revised into their proper forms by G-d and given (again) to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

Dywyddyr

01-27-10, 03:11 PM

Well how would you know this Dywyddyr, have you examined them yourself? You could see this for yourself if you’d like in my book.
A) the bible (your source) does NOT say that god gave the alphabet as an alphabet to anyone: it simply states that he wrote the tablets. Ergo if he wrote the tablets writing was already in place.
B) Fraggle has traced the Hebrew "alphabet" to earlier origins than your tablets.

The Hebrew language is the Mother Language of humankind given my G-d and spoken first by Adam and Eve.
Rubbish.

My book points this out and shows the similarities in all recorded and documented writings that were ever found across the globe.
If your book truly does show "show the similarities" I suggest that it does so only because you have
1) used your (wilful?) ignorance to not see anything that disagrees with you and
2) been as academically sloppy in finding "similarities" as you have been in the first 20 pages.

My theory of what happened was that many centuries later the Hebrew letters were revised into their proper forms by G-d and given (again) to Moses on Mount Sinai.
Your theory can be anything you want it to be: however to be taken seriously it needs to have supporting evidence, not ignorance, or a priori assumptions used as substantiation or casual dismissal of reality.

Dywyddyr

01-27-10, 03:27 PM

Wasn't there another thread on this? Did it get merged, deleted, what? :confused:
James R deleted it as spam: it was in General Science & Technology.
And included Fraggle's discourse on the origins of the Hebrew "alphabet". :bawl:

spidergoat

01-27-10, 03:39 PM

I’m not changing my tune - you are changing it for me. What I am merely stating is that this animals that you’ve pointed out looks more like a horse than a Giraffe. I’m not debating that they may share some similarity, I am merely saying that they are not the same aminal - they are two completely different species.

Of course a transitional species is a different species that does not yet look like a giraffe! If it had looked like a giraffe, you would say it's not a transitional species, just a variation on a giraffe!!!!!

I've been through this millions of times. Someone asks, 'what is a transitional species between ape and human', and I point one out. They say, 'oh, that's just a kind of ape". Then I point out one that looks less like an ape and more like a human, and they say, "oh, that's just a variation on a human".

This is a stupid game to play. The fossil record supports evolution, and not just with the giraffe, but with every creature and plant scientists have investigated.

Spidergoat you go on to say: Evolution proves that the nesting heiarchy of species we see are not just God's variations on a theme that works. It is a mechanism by which new forms appear with no designer whatsoever. Living things show variation based on random mutations, variation leads to variable survivability. Successful variations breed more variations on that successful form. That's how evolution works. Evolution is not abiogenesis, as you incorrectly claim in your book. Evolution does not explain how the first form came about, although there are several plausible scenarios.

Well first you have to prove that this is happening (evolution that is), and to date there is no more evidence for evolution occuring than to that of having faith in G-d.
Incorrect. Both genetics and the fossil record prove that evolution is happening. Since your view is unfortunately common, Richard Dawkins wrote an entire book that outlines the proof.
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787)

Evolution still remains a theory.
A rather common and boring misconception. Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the theory that explains how this happens. While some details may legitimately be debated, the major themes are quite correct and well supported by peer reviewed scientific evidence.

And a theory that cannot produce “new genes” which are needed to produce an “evolved” (or mutated) creature - and this does not include tandem repeats in the genes.
The Theory does not even need to explain genes, however it does. New genes are created when old genes are copied wrong and they can also be borrowed (in the case of bacteria) from other creatures. Most of the time, such errors are either neutral or not beneficial, but once in a while they are beneficial and they are preserved.

Spidergoat you additionally go on to say: Evolution explains why people have sex. Sex leads to greater variation, which is healthy for the species.

I’ve heard this theory thousands of time already and its just not logical - let me tell you why… As the evolutionists theory goes, the environment plays a large role in this, as well as sex (female choice). But here is the thing Spidergoat, we don’t find the evidences for this in the fossil record either. I have found that many people don’t think this through logically concerning "natural selection". Natural selection is actually a loss of information. In fact it’s the “opposite” of evolution since living things are being segregated and then isolated moving to different parts of the Earth. What’s actually happening here is that these creatures are loosing information in their DNA (as you split up these populations and some die). You see over a period of time natural selection results in loss of information, specialization (adaptation or condition in response to environmental conditions), eventually getting to the stage where they cant interbreed anymore.
You have accidently described something important. Natural selection does indeed result in the deaths (or to be more accurate, the not-passing-on of a set of genes) of living things. Although this does result in a loss to the gene pool of those genes, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE LESS WELL ADAPTED. Therefore, the more well adapted (or neutral) genes are the ones that survive. This results in creatures that are well adapted to their environment, since all their ancestors were also well adapted. Natural selection is a comb that weeds out less well adapted genes from the gene pool.

Now concerning your other response: Anita's premise is illogical. The kind of math she ascribes only to a supernatural entity are in fact found in nature, as the result of simple rules that make the most efficient use of resources.

YES this is the whole point! The FACT that this form is naturally found in nature which can be linked to a supernatural entity. Since these Hebrew letters were given to Moses by G-d we should be examining them a little closer. And when they are examined we find that they are made by the same DESIGN!

Please point out how these mathematical forms must be linked to a supernatural entity. This is an unsupported assumption. Evolution, by removing less well adapted things, leaves the well adapted ones that may have stumbled upon brilliant solutions that are inherent in the dynamics of building things. These forms are the product of simple rules, and do not imply any special intelligence. The sunflower's seeds, for instance, exhibit the famous Golden Ratio, because it is the most efficient way to pack the most seeds into a small area. A sunflower that didn't pack their seeds this way would have less of a chance to survive, and so this packing method was discovered by many species quite by accident.

For instance, you can also show that pi is an advanced mathematical formula only discovered by humans within the last 2,000 years or so (I forget the exact date). And yet the circle can be found in natural phenomenon like a soap bubble or a meteor crater, and is not evidence of any intelligent intervention.

We can even create computer programs today that can solve problems the same way, often stumbling on solutions that no other method could produce. The reason no intelligence is required is that they can go through many, many variations that don't work, and the best working ones are the parents of all subsequent variations.

Cris

01-27-10, 04:28 PM

Anita,

This book is revelutionary! Because contained within is revealed one of the greatest mysteries of them all: The Primordial Language (the Mother Language - first language spoken by humankind). A mathematical language of Divine origin - linking the Hebrew letters that were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, which was recorded in Exodus 18:31 (of the Bible) to have actually been inscribed by the finger of G-d Himself. It is these letters that were recently discovered by me to be formed from "one prototype form" that incredibly bares nature’s mathematical pattern of unit growth (Phi/Pi, the Golden Spiral, and Fibonacci sequence). One might ask, what does this linkage mean? Well, when we begin to witness this connection between G-d and nature, this then reveals proof of a Divine Entity intervening (and baring witness) that He alone is the almighty G-d - that indeed "did create" EVERYTHING in existence! Hence - Divine Authorship authenticating every word of the Bible.

The book is filled with over 400 photos, diagrams and charts. The book not only reveals this greatest mystery but it goes on to talk about so much more… It talks about the Theory Of Evolution and why it is incorrect... The microcosmic relationship between nature and G-d... Egypt’s real secrets regarding the Great Pyramid and the star constellations... Sacred symbols of esoteric origins... Dimensional insights into understanding Kabala... The Bible Codes - in particular, very specific ones that declare the authenticity of the Bible itself linked to the authorship of G-d... Prophesy both past and present including end time prophesy... Biblical foreknowledge - by some means the Bible knew/knows more about science than we do today... Additionally, you may want to know how G-d's 3-part nature, the Trinity (G-d the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) is found in the very first three letters of the Hebrew Torah (Genesis 1:1 in the Bible). In addition, you will also be privy to witness how the very first paragraph of Genesis 1:1 equates to Phi/Pi (3.14). You will also see how the Great Pyramid of Egypt is linked to the Hebrew letters and a great many other things. The theory of "Time Travel" is also discussed at length and why it is abhorrent to nature, prophesy and G-d. You will also be privy to read about some of life’s secrets such as how to extend the quality and length of your life based on biblical precepts. Very nice, but ......

This thread, like many others, is disolving into a defense of Evolution, that really has no need of defense, which anyone can understand after even a short span of objective study.

The argument here should be more about the thread subject proposal that there is a creator god, and that really does require significent defense if it is to stand up to any degree of objective scrutiny.

Let's start by looking at the quoted text. Even if all the math and related assertions are true what evidence is there that a god did any of this rather than, say, some very advanced extra-terrestrial aliens?

What evidence is there that gods are possible? What processes would they use to create things? Where does the material come from for creation? Where do gods come from? Just what is a god anyway?

Man has imagined and defined nearly some 7000 gods over the past several thousand years, or something like an average of 1 every 3 years. The fantasies come and go and even within Christianity it is said there are some 20,000 differrent cults and sects all having variations of interpretation of what their god is, what it does, and what it wants.

If you are certain a god exists please start by explaining why that proposal has more merit than say advanced aliens. Unless of course you have any actual evidence of existence beyond what appears to be fantasy speculation. At least evolution theories can show massive correlation between actual events and the proposed causal processes. Can you come even a fraction close to that for the proposal that a god exists and can create things?

It is simply not good enough to argue by default, i.e. attempt to show evolution can't be the cause of life so therefore a god did it. But rather you need to show that a god actually did it rather than some other explanation that perhaps we haven't imagined yet.

Anita Meyer

01-27-10, 08:11 PM

Hi Cris,

Cris you say: The argument here should be more about the thread subject proposal that there is a creator god, and that really does require significent defense if it is to stand up to any degree of objective scrutiny.

Yes this is true, I am really expending to much energy into trying to point out that the evolutionary principle is incorrect. But I am in all respects very knowledgeable in all fields. I am as one would say a religious procurement specialist. I hunt for G-d like a needle in a haystack and have found Him in some very inconspicuous places - namely the Hebrew letters. No one has ever thought to look here before. They just seem to look at the Hebrew letters as if they are just some insignificant squiggly lines. That is why I have examined them more thoroughly and have found that they are not just random forms created out of chaos. When one can link the form of the Hebrew letters to natures law this is telling us a very import clue. That clue spells DESIGN. These letters have a intelligence behind them and one that is mathematical. This same mathematical recursion is found in nature and of course it is because the creator uses (as His trademark) this same design to authenticate His word - which can be found in the Bible. The Hebrew letters are what G-d used to create everything in existence and this can be substantiated through Kabala (oral Torah).

Cris you go on to say: Let's start by looking at the quoted text. Even if all the math and related assertions are true what evidence is there that a god did any of this rather than, say, some very advanced extra-terrestrial aliens?

Well this is actually a very good question and I thank you for asking it. The answer to this is that with these very same Hebrew letters that the Bible (Hebrew Torah) scrupulously shows us and tells us about (in the first person), that G-d Himself had created everything and that there is NO OTHER G-D besides Him - therefore aliens or extraterrestrials become null and void.

Isaiah 45:18 - For this is what the Lord says— he who created the heavens, he is G-d; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited— he says: I am the Lord, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:21 - Declare what is to be, present it— let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no G-d apart from me, a righteous G-d and a Savior, there is none but me.

There are also other verses in Isaiah that proclaim that G-d alone created everything. Isaiah 44:24 - Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. Isaiah 45:12 - I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. Isaiah 48:13 - Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. Psalm 19:1 - The heavens declare the glory of G-d, the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Psalm 8:1-9 - O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! Psalm 148:13 - Let them praise the name of the Lord, for his name alone is exalted; his splendor is above the earth and the heavens. Psalm 113:4-5 - The Lord is exalted over all the nations, his glory above the heavens. Who is like the Lord our G-d, the One who sits enthroned on high. Isaiah 55:8-9 - For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. Psalm 115:16 - The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to man.

You also ask: What evidence is there that gods are possible? What processes would they use to create things? Where does the material come from for creation? Where do gods come from? Just what is a god anyway?

We as humans cannot fathom just what G-d is. In His highest degree of emanation we cannot see Him with our human eyes. But what I do know is that He uses the Hebrew letters to work His ways (through nature the system He created) thus creating all things. This is what Moses saw on Mount Sinai - G-d’s finger of fire.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

spidergoat

01-27-10, 08:33 PM

Letters are indeed an artifact of intelligent design- human design. This simple explanation is more parsimonious and thus far more compelling.

You have yet to show how humans could not have made such letters. How much do you want to bet that I can show similar patterns in, for instance, Aztec culture?

Blindman

01-27-10, 08:46 PM

Anita Meyer are you giving this book away or did you spend all that time and effort to make MONEY. Tell me that this is not for profit and ill will change my opinion. If it is I am disgusted that you should take advantage of ignorants by attempting to pass on rubbish that you your self know is false. Your smart enough to publish a book then your smart enough to know truth from fiction, remember your claiming to prove god while making money out of it.

spidergoat

01-27-10, 08:51 PM

$38 if you can believe that. Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" is only $30, and I bet you could find it for much less.

Anita Meyer

01-27-10, 10:16 PM

I am merely just trying to get the good word out. :)

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

Blindman

01-27-10, 10:29 PM

And make a buck at the same time :rolleyes: You know how you have misrepresented, well lied. The title is a lie in its self "Confirmation of the Divine Creator" you know its a lie. How arrogantly presumptuous that you say you have just proven god exists.

Simple pandering to the ignorant to make a quick buck..

John99

01-27-10, 11:03 PM

Blindamn, dont be so dramatic.

spidergoat

01-27-10, 11:22 PM

Yeah, my aunt wrote a book too, I couldn't get through it. I found a signed copy once at the local goodwill.

Anita will find a captive market at Christian bookstores.

Anita Meyer

01-28-10, 10:13 AM

None of you can truly make a determination about the book until you read it yourself. Money was the farthest thing from my mind when I wrote it and it also says that within the book itself. All I’m interested in as I said above is GETTING THE GOOD WORD OUT! It’s quite obvious here who the religious racist are that will do anything to suppress the truth from the public, maiming it with money, racial comments, and negativity.

I have come here to openly talk about the book and to release the light of this great discovery.

I have nothing to hide so like I had said – ask away?

Dywyddyr

01-28-10, 10:24 AM

None of you can truly make a determination about the book until you read it yourself.
Having read the first 20 pages and also read your "supporting" arguments you're incorrect.
Unless the rest of book displays a vastly more rigorous approach then it isn't worth reading.

Money was the farthest thing from my mind when I wrote it and it also says that within the book itself. All I’m interested in as I said above is GETTING THE GOOD WORD OUT! It’s quite obvious here who the religious racist are that will do anything to suppress the truth from the public, maiming it with money, racial comments, and negativity.
Except that you won't tell us what's in the book and keep claiming that we have to read it (i.e. buy it) in order to refute it...

I have come here to openly talk about the book and to release the light of this great discovery.
So tell us exactly what's in the book.
And no, it's far from a "great discovery": it's sloppy "research" and wishful thinking coupled with a gross ignorance of the facts.

I have nothing to hide so like I had said – ask away?
You have (valid) nothing to say.

Anita Meyer

01-28-10, 10:53 AM

Dyw,

I have given you an ample description of the book from the very first posting in this thread which said that The Primordial Language is the Mother Language - first language spoken by humankind. A mathematical language of Divine origin - linking the Hebrew letters that were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, which was recorded in Exodus 31:18 (of the Bible) to have actually been inscribed by the finger of G-d Himself. And I went on to say that it is these letters that were recently discovered by me to be formed from "one prototype form" that incredibly bares nature’s mathematical pattern of unit growth (Phi/Pi, the Golden Spiral, and Fibonacci sequence). One might ask, what does this linkage mean? Well, when we begin to witness this connection between G-d and nature, this then reveals proof of a Divine Entity intervening (and baring witness) that He alone is the almighty G-d - that indeed "did create" EVERYTHING in existence! Hence - Divine Authorship authenticating every word of the Bible.

One cannot get a good grasp on the whole book from just the first 20 pages, that is why I mentioned that the book not only reveals this greatest mystery but it goes on to talk about so much more… It talks about the Theory Of Evolution and why it is incorrect... The microcosmic relationship between nature and G-d... Egypt’s real secrets regarding the Great Pyramid and the star constellations... Sacred symbols of esoteric origins... Dimensional insights into understanding Kabala... The Bible Codes - in particular, very specific ones that declare the authenticity of the Bible itself linked to the authorship of G-d... Prophesy both past and present including end time prophesy... Biblical foreknowledge - by some means the Bible knew/knows more about science than we do today... Additionally, you may want to know how G-d's 3-part nature, the Trinity (G-d the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) is found in the very first three letters of the Hebrew Torah (Genesis 1:1 in the Bible). In addition, you will also be privy to witness how the very first paragraph of Genesis 1:1 equates to Phi/Pi (3.14). You will also see how the Great Pyramid of Egypt is linked to the Hebrew letters and a great many other things. The theory of "Time Travel" is also discussed at length and why it is abhorrent to nature, prophesy and G-d. You will also be privy to read about some of life’s secrets such as how to extend the quality and length of your life based on biblical precepts.

So if you have any questions please ask away? I am willing to discuss things that are in my book even without you having read it.

Now what Author would be willing to do that? :)

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confiramtion of the Divine Creator

Dywyddyr

01-28-10, 11:26 AM

I have given you an ample description of the book from the very first posting in this thread which said that The Primordial Language is the Mother Language - first language spoken by humankind. A mathematical language of Divine origin - linking the Hebrew letters that were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, which was recorded in Exodus 31:18 (of the Bible) to have actually been inscribed by the finger of G-d Himself.
And you have been shown where, and how, you were simply (and utterly) wrong.

And I went on to say that it is these letters that were recently discovered by me to be formed from "one prototype form" that incredibly bares nature’s mathematical pattern of unit growth (Phi/Pi, the Golden Spiral, and Fibonacci sequence).
Why do you keep apparently conflating Phi and Pi? They are two different numbers.

One might ask, what does this linkage mean? Well, when we begin to witness this connection between G-d and nature, this then reveals proof of a Divine Entity intervening (and baring witness) that He alone is the almighty G-d - that indeed "did create" EVERYTHING in existence! Hence - Divine Authorship authenticating every word of the Bible.
Wrong again: you have started with the premise that god exists and then used that premise to support the conclusion: that god exists.

One cannot get a good grasp on the whole book from just the first 20 pages
But one can get an excellent grasp of the *cough* scholarship that the book is likely to contain. And on the present information the scholarship isn't so much lacking as non-existent.

It talks about the Theory Of Evolution and why it is incorrect...
If that argument is at all similar to what you've given already then your conclusion of "incorrect" is false.

The microcosmic relationship between nature and G-d... Egypt’s real secrets regarding the Great Pyramid and the star constellations... Sacred symbols of esoteric origins... Dimensional insights into understanding Kabala... The Bible Codes - in particular, very specific ones that declare the authenticity of the Bible itself linked to the authorship of G-d... Prophesy both past and present including end time prophesy... Biblical foreknowledge - by some means the Bible knew/knows more about science than we do today... Additionally, you may want to know how G-d's 3-part nature, the Trinity (G-d the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) is found in the very first three letters of the Hebrew Torah (Genesis 1:1 in the Bible). In addition, you will also be privy to witness how the very first paragraph of Genesis 1:1 equates to Phi/Pi (3.14). You will also see how the Great Pyramid of Egypt is linked to the Hebrew letters and a great many other things. The theory of "Time Travel" is also discussed at length and why it is abhorrent to nature, prophesy and G-d. You will also be privy to read about some of life’s secrets such as how to extend the quality and length of your life based on biblical precepts.
All of which displays: a priori assumptions, sheer nonsense, mistaken mathematics, faulty logic, inadequate research, ignorance of the facts and general lack of any validity.

So if you have any questions please ask away?
I think the only question worth asking is: are you serious?
The last time (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Has-Hawking-Erred-Bestselling-Scientific/dp/1857560884/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264700334&sr=1-1) I came across a book that purported to be factual and displayed so little reality I was prompted to write a publicly available review and complain in writing to my local library for stocking it.

I am willing to discuss things that are in my book even without you having read it.
And I repeat: unless you're prepared to submit some of the material contained within then there's little to discuss.

spidergoat

01-28-10, 11:27 AM

So Moses was too stupid to know geometry? Isn't the fact that humans discovered these mathematical contructions proof that God was not required?

Crunchy Cat

01-28-10, 12:46 PM

...It’s quite obvious here who the religious racist are that will do anything to suppress the truth from the public, maiming it with money, racial comments, and negativity.

That's just it Anita. We all know your books assertions are simply not true. Spidergoat already demonstrated the books initial premises to be objectively incorrect (which invalidates it).

This is a religion subforum on a science site and the "truth" that your book claims isn't truth at all. We know this, we can see it, and we're letting you know.

By not correcting your assertions and instead re-iterating them as "truth", it crosses the line of ignorance to an outright intent to deceive.

Dywyddyr

01-28-10, 01:02 PM

But I am in all respects very knowledgeable in all fields.
That is your most fundamental error: either you are deluding yourself about the extent of your "knowledge" (as evidenced by your comments on evolution and carbon dating for example) or you're trying to delude us.

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot:

It’s quite obvious here who the religious racist are that will do anything to suppress the truth from the public, maiming it with money, racial comments,
Racial comments?
Really?
Such as?

Heidi

01-29-10, 09:57 AM

I had googled the book the primordial language by Anita Meyer and found her at this forum.

I have had the privilege of reading this book. Let me tell you it is fantastic! It ROCKS!

This book had put the Divinci code and the book by Richard Dawkins the God delusion to shame! If this isn’t a best seller very soon I will be really shocked.

Never mind these trolls Anita, because that is what they are. You will run across such people that are very ignorant and belligerent and serve no use in the real conversation here or anywhere.

I do have some questions for you though? Your book was so overwhelmingly powerful concerning Egypt and the Great Pyramid that I was just blown out of the water. Tell me, do you still think the Great Pyramid has that working ability?

Thanks, Heidi L.

Dywyddyr

01-29-10, 10:10 AM

More dishonesty Anita?
Creating sockpuppets to support your view?

Enmos

01-29-10, 10:12 AM

More dishonesty Anita?
Creating sockpuppets to support your view?

That's what I thought, but the IP's don't match. I think it's probably a friend sticking up for her.

Dywyddyr

01-29-10, 10:17 AM

That's what I thought, but the IP's don't match. I think it's probably a friend sticking up for her.
Funny, I just reported that post because as far as I can tell the IPs DO match...

Enmos

01-29-10, 10:29 AM

Funny, I just reported that post because as far as I can tell the IPs DO match...

Heh.. You're right.
I'll leave the honors to you ;)

spidergoat

01-29-10, 11:38 AM

And here I thought lying was a sin. Silly me.

I'm not trolling, I'm trying my best to point out the errors in reasoning and evidence in this book.

You can't just assert that evolution has no proof, and then support that with incredulity about abiogenesis. At least show why the massive body of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection is wrong.

Crunchy Cat

01-29-10, 03:14 PM

I say just ban Anita. She has demonstrated an intent to decieve... not just by peddling her work of fiction as fact but also by creating sock puppets to agree with it.

None of that belongs on a science site.

Anita Meyer

01-29-10, 08:32 PM

I’d like to set the record straight here… I have been unjustly accused! I am not this poster. Did it ever occur to you that this IP address is registered to the Kenosha Wisconsin Public Library system. This is a PUBLIC PLACE that anybody can walk into and use the internet to post. This library is a huge place and pulls in many people.

Hello guys… and my book is available there. I live in this town! So it would logically make sense that this person has my book. To accuse me of being a Sock Puppet (as you call it) is rather in lame standing as the rest of your name calling, racial comments, lame comebacks, and the mean act of deliberately attempting to sabotage me and my book.

Here’s a little wake up call… its not happening!

Good news for you guys though, I definitely will not be posting here anymore so good luck in your trolling endeavors. Anything said after this posting I will have no course of rebound. So spout away, since I know you will foolishly do so anyways.

Happy trolling, Anita Meyer

spidergoat

01-29-10, 11:42 PM

Bye, Sweet Anita!

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/sitebuilder/images/Anita_Meyer-149x229.jpg

:shh: Hey, I'm also a lapsed Jew, do you want to go out some time? (PM me). :mufc:

Dywyddyr

01-30-10, 03:03 AM

Hello guys… and my book is available there.
Not according to their catalogue.

To accuse me of being a Sock Puppet
Same IP address, same (poor) grammar and sentence construction.

racial comments
You still haven't explained "racism".

SnakeLord

01-30-10, 03:33 PM

Only one question for you:

What's with: "G-d"

Does whatever god it is you believe in kill a kitten everytime you dare include an 'o' or what?

Blindman

01-30-10, 10:56 PM

:cool:

Fraggle Rocker

02-01-10, 06:23 PM

Only one question for you: What's with: "G-d" Does whatever god it is you believe in kill a kitten everytime you dare include an 'o' or what?She did not make that up. It's a common imitation of the way Jews write YHWH in the Hebrew abjad without the diacritical marks for vowels. It is supposed to be the worst form of blasphemy to say God's name out loud. To prevent it they have never written the vowels, so no one knows how to pronounce it.

An arbitrary set of three vowels has been adopted and these days it's usually written Yah'weh. Apparently those aren't the correct ones because God has not smashed the Earth into tiny fragments in one of his Celestial Tantrums. The Romans put in different vowels and used their own consonant symbols, transliterating it as Jehovah. Today we pronounce the J and the V differently so there's no chance we're saying it right.

Anita Meyer

02-13-10, 07:43 PM

Hello Dyw...

This is Author Anita Meyer. You had commented on the forum that my book was not available at the Kenosha Public Library. You said precisely that it was not available according to their catalogue.

YES IT IS! And you (or anyone) can check it out to verify that!

It was also for sale there "PRIOR" to it being entered into the Library system.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

Dywyddyr

02-13-10, 07:57 PM

Anita, you posted this message on my Visitor's Board and sent me it TWICE as a PM.
I will now give the same reply publicly since you seem not have read any of the ones I previously gave.
***
With regard to your comment about the book being at the library: when I checked (half an hour or so before I posted my statement) the library's OWN catalogue did not list it. I was correct. If the library carries it NOW that isn't relevant.
It also doesn't alter the fact that your book is a mish mash of errors, prejudice and flawed thinking: you failed to respond to any of the posts pointing out errors and simply plowed ahead reiterating your nonsense.
***

Edit: I not also that you add one more lie to the list.

I definitely will not be posting here anymore

Anita Meyer

02-14-10, 02:12 AM

I've noticed that you have selective reading.

Note what I said: It was also for sale there "PRIOR" to it being entered into the Library system.

Which means that it was available for people to read!

You had unjustifiably banned an innocent person (Heidi) who had posted here!

And quite frankly I am tired of you disclaiming that my book is a mish mash of errors, prejudice, flawed thinking and nonsense when you haven’t even read it.

Confucius say: Man who throws dirt is loosing ground! :)

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 06:49 AM

I've noticed that you have selective reading.
The selective reading is yours: I didn't retract my statement because it happened to be true. The book was not in the library's catalogue.

Note what I said: It was also for sale there "PRIOR" to it being entered into the Library system.
And we have only your word for that.

You had unjustifiably banned an innocent person (Heidi) who had posted here!
Heidi was trolling: she added nothing whatsoever to the thread. (And had some difficulty in comparing books: Da Vinci Code is fiction, Dawkins isn't). Personally I find it to be stretching coincidence when someone from your home town (purportedly) happens to appear in this thread to support you, a "someone" using the exact same computer that you do (out of how many possible in that building?).

And quite frankly I am tired of you disclaiming that my book is a mish mash of errors, prejudice, flawed thinking and nonsense when you haven’t even read it.
I've read the first chapter and your own claims (which have been shown to wrong). Please acquire some intellectual integrity.

***MOD NOTE***
Although I'm not the mod of this sub-forum, unless you reply to the refutations already made (i.e. actually defend your case instead of making more unfounded claims), I will push for you to be banned also. You have been shown where and how you are wrong (Fraggle's exposition on the origins of Hebrew writing for example). I suggest that you pick ONE single point and stick to the defence of that: once that one is resolved (either way) then there may be some point in continuing. For example the title of the book is false: "Confirmation of the Divine Creator". How can the existence be confirmed when you have already admitted that god's existence is a circular argument with no other support?

Anita Meyer

02-14-10, 09:47 AM

This conversation is becoming null and mute… you could ban me if you want, at this point it wouldn’t matter in the least!

Bottom line here… The book is listed and available at the Kenosha Public Library. I am told that it had to go through a registration process before being entered into the system (I did not know this or how long it would take). Also I had inquired about the IP address and was told that there are at least 20 computers in that library and they ALL run off the same IP address. Now as I had previously also said, the book was for sale there prior to it even being registered into their system which enabled people to have already read it.

Now when you say that my book is fiction therefore false because the existence of G-d cannot be confirmed. I respond in telling you YES it is fiction because it talks about G-d yes, but explain to me something Dyw, you love your mother right (I would hope so?)

Well prove it?

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 10:58 AM

This conversation is becoming null and mute…
You mean "moot". Your command of English is as bad as the rest of your "academic" prowess.

Bottom line here… The book is listed and available at the Kenosha Public Library. I am told that it had to go through a registration process before being entered into the system (I did not know this or how long it would take).
Bottom Line: it wasn't listed and if it's not listed it's not in the system. It may have been in the process of being listed, but wasn't available until it was. I.e. if it isn't in the system then borrowers can't take it out because the computer won't recognise it.

Also I had inquired about the IP address and was told that there are at least 20 computers in that library and they ALL run off the same IP address.
Unlikely: an IP address is to an individual, specific, computer.

Also known as an "IP number" or simply an "IP," this is a code made up of numbers separated by three dots that identifies a particular computer on the Internet.
http://www.techterms.com/definition/ipaddress

Now as I had previously also said, the book was for sale there prior to it even being registered into their system which enabled people to have already read it.
So the library is a bookshop?
How do they sell (and record sales of) a book that's not entered into their system?

Now when you say that my book is fiction therefore false because the existence of G-d cannot be confirmed. I respond in telling you YES it is fiction because it talks about G-d yes
In other words the book is nothing more than fraud (and one based gross ignorance). The title itself claims to confirm the existence of god.
And you're mistaken as to why it's fiction: it is also fiction because it wrong about the claims made: evolution, carbon dating, the origins of the Hebrew "alphabet", etc etc. The book is a tissue of lies and ignorance, that's why it's fiction (i.e. not fact).

but explain to me something Dyw, you love your mother right (I would hope so?)
Well prove it?
And a strawman.
I "prove" it (in fact it cannot be proven, only demonstrated) through my actions regarding her (and, possibly, through measurable physiological and other effects in my body).

Author Anita Meyer The Primordial Language - [fraudulent claims of] Confirmation of the Divine Creator.

Anita Meyer

02-14-10, 12:33 PM

No I specifically meant “mute” as in voiceless (you know wordless)! I could have said "void" to make it easier on you. Either way, you couldn’t match wits with a speak and spell if you tried.

but explain to me something Dyw, you love your mother right (I would hope so?)
Well prove it? ”

And a strawman.
I "prove" it (in fact it cannot be proven, only demonstrated) through my actions regarding her (and, possibly, through measurable physiological and other effects in my body).

That’s right Dyw, and proof of G-d is demonstrated in my book through the Hebrew letters illustrated with pictorial diagrams! When one reads it and acknowledges it, one might feel the Holy Spirit.

I’ve had better conversation with inanimate objects. :rolleyes:

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator.

spidergoat

02-14-10, 12:37 PM

You would have to prove that those mathematical constructions could only be of divine origin. That's the basic assumption that is wrong.

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 01:00 PM

***MOD NOTE***
Anita, I had a reply all written and then decided it's not worth my time responding to your ad homs (amusing though it would have been).
Final warning.
Either reply to the refutations or be banned.
All you've done so far is troll.

quantum_wave

02-14-10, 01:07 PM

All very good questions?

...
quantum_wave you say: Science depends on observing and quantifying what we observe. To make an assertion that God did it, and if we look closely enough at nature we can see it, goes against what I think is obvious. The obvious is that if we could ever detect something in nature of such divine origin, and God put it there for us to find, then proof of that primordial divine language would be proof of God.

Yes, this is the whole point! G-d did indeed put it there for us to find. Not only did He put it there in nature (3.14) but He also put it in His word (the Bible). In fact 3.14 can also be equated in the very first sentence of Genesis 1:1 as if to say, if at first you don’t understand it from the very first word (or even smaller letter) it reveals it in the next bigger word… and sentence… and verse… to the next bigger part.

QM you also say: But if there is a God who lays proof out for us, why not just come to each of us in a burning bush and say, “I AM God and you WILL believe in me”?

Because G-d only has to do something once like the flood. As long as it is documented in His Word the Bible it is as good as done for all.

QM you also say: Sometimes striking experiences that people have are interpreted as divine. But there is no irrefutable evidence for or against the existence of God that is in the hands of any individual that can be used to convince other people, IMHO.

Is this the only limits you can expand your mind to. Surely if I could, so could you.

I understand. I have been watching the series, The Story of Maths ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfgy96Msq7Q&feature=related), and am enjoying it. Numbers and how they correspond to nature and how nature conveys its relationships and complexity through numbers form the origins of math. It is closely tied to religions and faith because religions and the understanding of mathematics came from the same peoples over the same time frames in various societies around the world; the earliest recorded records of the endeavors of man are filled with the origins of religion and the origins of math.

But the maths were in tune with science and enabled science to quantify nature, while religions were in tune with charismatic leaders and the growth of societies. Both math and religion emerged among us almost simultaneously but for different reasons and with different results. Math turned out to be common among people over time and religion tended to perpetuate the divisions among people. I give my appreciation more to the path of science and math through history than to the discord that has survived among religions.

I cannot say that and leave it at that though because of my respect for the good that is done in the world in the name of religion. I don’t blame the discord on religion itself, but on the failure of religions to emphasis a God-fairing common denominator among themselves. If the religious indoctrination of children perpetuates dogma of hate then it goes way beyond a righteous common denominator. The first basic thing I look for in a religion is that in the following of their beliefs they don’t do harm or advocate harm to others. Some religions fail that test and the discord is perpetuated. But the general good that is done in the name of religion cannot easily be replaced by a non religious society. But that is an entire topic in itself :).

That sounds like it should be right from the perspective of a believer but there is a problem in that position in reality. God is not just the God of the Bible. Every religion that has a God, has their view of God, and part of the discord that exists among religions is for that very reason. My God is better than your God. Let our warriors prove that God is on our side. And then the victories change hands over the ages and nothing is proved as to which God is the stronger. If you as a religious person don’t have as your second most important mission to merge all God’s into a common God, then you aren’t doing enough to resolve the seemingly endless discord. The answer to a common denominator among religions is not in defining what the common denominator should be, but it is in how, if there is one God, that God can be seen so differently by different religions?

I could too, it is true. But I expand my mind in a different way and in a different direction. I see what can and cannot be proved, and what I find is that God cannot be falsified and the denial of God cannot be proved while the denial of God cannot be falsified and the existence of God cannot be proved.

If there is anything that is eternal, in my view the universe must be eternal in order for God to be eternal. The logic may not be so good, but if the universe is not eternal, either God created it or it came from nothing. If it came from nothing there is no God, and if God created it then where was God for the eternity before creation (or various other arguments of logic like who created God or other logic not worth mentioning).

So the most logical explanation for the existence of the universe to my deluded brain is that it has always existed; it is eternal in the same respect that the God of religions is eternal. If the universe and God share that characteristic then maybe the universe and God are one in the same but there is no evidence one way or the other. Belief in either is an individual decision.
Anita, before you get banned would you address my response to the post where you responded to my first post?

Anita Meyer

02-14-10, 01:47 PM

Hello QW, I am sorry for not responding to you.

I am not quite sure what you are asking me here concerning Math and G-d, but I will give it a shot. I was in a conversation with someone else on another forum and this is how I responded to him concerning how math is linked to G-d and the Hebrew letters and to what effect it has on science today which is also discussed in great lengths within my book.

Lets for instance take Pythagoras. Pythagoras got his ideas about the “platonic solids” explicitly from the Hebrew Bible. Moreover from the kabala (Qabalah - oral Torah) which also came down with Moses from Mount Sinai. Now Kabala talks about something called the “Tree Of Life” which consists of the geometric shapes known as the Tetrahedron, Cube and Decahedron, therefore we can additional now know where Pythagoras and even later Euclid got the idea of the 5 platonic solids. Euclid is the man that created (gave rebirth) to GEOMETRY some 2000 years ago which are called the “Euclid Elements” WHOSE PRINCIPLES OF MEASURING WERE DIRECTLY TAKEN OUT OF THE HEBREW BIBLE - THE QABALAH (ORAL LAW) WHICH REFERES TO THE “TREE OF LIFE“. All along modern mathematics has failed to realize that hidden right under our noses is the obvious origin that the very basis of SCIENCE and math is none less then RELIGION.

Euclid was one of the most prominent mathematicians of antiquity. He is still known to every student who studies geometry. Though very little is known about Euclid’s life other than he studied at Plato’s Academy in Athens, he taught in Alexandria and founded the school of mathematics and wrote his prize-work, “THE ELEMENTS“. The Elements are all what is known today about points, lines, angles and simple shapes. Based on Euclid’s work of 10 axioms or postulates. From these 10 axioms he built up the geometry which is still taught today in school.

Its interesting to note that although the name “Euclid“ and the word “Geometry“ have often been used to mean the same thing for centuries. Centuries later the word geometry began to appear on the title page of a book. The first edition in English, published in 1970 had the word in its title: THE ELEMENTS OF GEOMETRY OF THE ANCIENT PHILOSOPHER EUCLID MENGARA.

These are Euclid’s “Elements” and they are also known as the 5 platonic solids:

1 - Tetrahedron - element is fire and it has 4 sides.
2 - cube - element is earth and it has 6 sides.
3 - Octahedron - element is air and it has 8 sides.
4 - Icosahedron - element is water and it has 12 sides.
5 - Dodecahedron - element is ether and it has 20 sides.

It is clear to see that Euclid carried over to science the knowledge of the Qabalistic “Tree Of Life” diagram which is the very basis of “geometry“ but often without the greater context of the spiritual understanding attributed to it. There is a lot we can learn from these shapes. In fact when we look under a microscope we discover that the very first shape (or form) of “cell life” comes from a single egg which then multiplies into 2 sections and from 2 it multiplies into 4 sections, and from 4 to 8, 16, 32 and so on… Amazingly the platonic solids multiply in in a similar way starting at the “Tetrahedron” with 4 sides, and multiplies itself into a “cube” with 6 sides. And from a “cube” with 6 sides it multiplies into a “Octahedron” with 8 sides, and then it multiplies into a “Icosahedron” with 12 sides and finally and lastly it multiplies into the “Dodecahedron” with 20 sides. There are only 5 platonic solids that exist in nature, this is because each side belongs to exactly two faces and no more. (research this for yourself). When these shapes are being formed it is also the same principle that goes into creating matter, which turns into form with the combination of atoms forming into molecules and then into cells.

Even Plato associated the Tetrahedron, Cube, Octahedron, Icosahedrons and Dodecahedron with the elements of Fire, Earth, Water, Air and Ether know as the “platonic solids”. Qabalah teaches that 3 of the Hebrew letters are assigned to the principle elemental forces - Fire with the Hebrew letter “Shin”, Water with the Hebrew letter ”Mem”, and Air with the Hebrew letter “Aleph” (and these are the exact meanings of these actual letters). This is also symbolic for the days of creation mentioned in Genesis 1... On day one light/“fire” (hydrogen) was created, day 2 Heaven and the expanses/“air” (oxygen) were created, and on day 3 dry land and water/“water” (nitrogen) were created.

So there you have it QW science and math is RELIGION! But we must not dwell on Pythagoras, Euclid or even Plato, we must look further into the recesses of time to reveal G-d behind the scenes. Man did not make this stuff up or had any part in its origin. One must realize that all “numbers” equate and relate right back to G-d!

I hope that helps. If you have any questions you are always free to email me personally at anitameyer1@hotmail.com (as one can see this forum has its deterrents).

Love and Light Author Anita Meyer
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

Dywyddyr

02-14-10, 02:52 PM

Pythagoras got his ideas about the “platonic solids” explicitly from the Hebrew Bible.
Source?
What about all the other people that knew about Platonic solids before Pythagoras? Especially the ones that didn't know about the bible?

Ornamented models of them can be found among the carved stone balls created by the late neolithic people of Scotland at least 1000 years before Plato (Atiyah and Sutcliffe 2003). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid)

In fact when we look under a microscope we discover that the very first shape (or form) of “cell life” comes from a single egg which then multiplies into 2 sections and from 2 it multiplies into 4 sections, and from 4 to 8, 16, 32 and so on… Amazingly the platonic solids multiply in in a similar way starting at the “Tetrahedron” with 4 sides, and multiplies itself into a “cube” with 6 sides. And from a “cube” with 6 sides it multiplies into a “Octahedron” with 8 sides, and then it multiplies into a “Icosahedron” with 12 sides and finally and lastly it multiplies into the “Dodecahedron” with 20 sides.
Could you please explain how the sequence 2, 4, 8, 16... (doubling) is similar to the sequence 4, 6, 8, 12, 20?

There are only 5 platonic solids that exist in nature, this is because each side belongs to exactly two faces and no more.
Wrong. That is NOT the reason, as a quick look at the 13 Archimedean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_solid) solids will show.

(research this for yourself).
Something you should have done before making that statement.

When these shapes are being formed it is also the same principle that goes into creating matter, which turns into form with the combination of atoms forming into molecules and then into cells.
No it isn't.

Even Plato associated the Tetrahedron, Cube, Octahedron, Icosahedrons and Dodecahedron with the elements of Fire, Earth, Water, Air and Ether know as the “platonic solids”.
So what? Just because the man associated them doesn't mean the association has any validity.

So there you have it QW science and math is RELIGION!
Pure unadulterated nonsense.

Man did not make this stuff up or had any part in its origin. One must realize that all “numbers” equate and relate right back to G-d!
Supposition.

*** Note QW (and anyone else interested)***
I've asked Cris to move this thread to Pseudosci, rather than ban Anita outright. That way we may (possibly) be able to get through to her rather than simply lose her altogether.

spidergoat

02-14-10, 04:21 PM

Fraggle Rocker

02-14-10, 04:57 PM

Pythagoras got his ideas about the “platonic solids” explicitly from the Hebrew Bible.We have very little reliable information about Pythagoras. Almost everything that is customarily said about him is based on information that was recorded at least 200 years after his death.

Fraggle Rocker

02-14-10, 05:41 PM

This is what I'm trying to reveal in my book that the Hebrew Language is of Divine origin - namely that of G-d.* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *

The science of linguistics has discovered mountains of quite unremarkable evidence that groups Hebrew within the Canaanite languages (which also include extinct Phoenician and Moabite), which are in the larger group of Northwest Semitic languages (which include extinct Amorite and Ugaritic), within the still larger group of the West Semitic languages (which include Aramaic), within the Semitic branch (which includes Arabic, Amharic and Tigre), of the Afro-Asiatic language family (whose other five branches are Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian and Omotic).

Hebrew has literally dozens of sister languages whose relationships are as obvious as those among English, Danish, Latin, Greek, Albanian, Irish, Russian, Lithuanian, Farsi, Bengali, Urdu, Armenian and Sanskrit--representative members of the Indo-European language family.

DNA analysis and archeological evidence show that the populations who speak these languages have been separated by migrations for more than 5,000 years. For example, the Akkadians migrated into Mesopotamia ca. 3000BCE, when Neolithic Egyptian tribes had already been well established in North Africa in 5000BCE.

The Northwest Semitic languages first appear as a distinct group around 3000BCE. Proto-Canaanite goes back to around 2000BCE, and Hebrew as a distinct language descended from Proto-Canaanite became widely spoken around 1000BCE.

If, purely for the sake of argument, we entertain the metaphorical hypothesis that language was a gift from a god, that gift was not Hebrew. It was a language at least twice as old as Hebrew which was the ancestor of Hebrew, Arabic, Ancient Egyptian, Amharic, Berber, Hausa, and an entire language family.

Any assertion that contradicts these obvious and well-established relationships is extraordinary. By the Rule of Laplace, a cornerstone of the scientific method, any extraordinary assertion must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat it with respect. So far that evidence has not been forthcoming. It appears that all of your arguments have been soundly--and rather easily--refuted.

If you persist in pursuing this argument without providing MUCH better evidence, it will qualify as trolling. This thread may then be closed, moved to the Pseudoscience board with all of the other crackpottery, or simply dumped in the Cesspool, at the discretion of this board's Moderator and the Administrators.

quantum_wave

02-14-10, 05:47 PM

Hello QW, I am sorry for not responding to you.

I am not quite sure what you are asking me here concerning Math and G-d, but I will give it a shot. Thank you for giving it a shot but you missed the mark. The first sentence in the second paragraph would have better characterized my intend and would result in the response from you that would have explained your view. That statement was, "But the maths were in tune with science and enabled science to quantify nature, while religions were in tune with charismatic leaders and the growth of societies."

What I was doing was setting up the question that I wanted you to respond to. I know I wasn't very clear but I was being too chatty. The question was the last sentence in the fourth paragraph, "... how, if there is one God, can that God be seen so differently by different religions?"

And if you have an answer to that please convey your view and in addition, explain how people who are devout in other religions with a different view of God supposed to reconcile the differences?

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 07:58 AM

Firstly let me address Dyw. Let it still be know that you banned an innocent person (Heidi).

“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Pythagoras got his ideas about the “platonic solids” explicitly from the Hebrew Bible. ”

Source?

My source is Qabalah along with the Dead Sea Scrolls! (This is a religion forum right?)

What about all the other people that knew about Platonic solids before Pythagoras? Especially the ones that didn't know about the bible?
“ Ornamented models of them can be found among the carved stone balls created by the late neolithic people of Scotland at least 1000 years before Plato (Atiyah and Sutcliffe 2003). ”

This is where you lack in knowledge. These people got the idea directly from Qabalah (again this is oral law that was brought down from Mount Sinai with Moses). For a second time… One of the things mentioned in Qabalah is called the “Tree Of Life” which can also be found and substantiated for in the Dead Sea Scrolls which “match in text” and therefore prove the validity of the Bible as well as the Qabalah. These same basic ideas can also be found in the book of Enoch who was said to live before the Great Flood of Noah (he was the 7th descendant from Adam) which can also be substantiated for in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

“ In fact when we look under a microscope we discover that the very first shape (or form) of “cell life” comes from a single egg which then multiplies into 2 sections and from 2 it multiplies into 4 sections, and from 4 to 8, 16, 32 and so on… Amazingly the platonic solids multiply in in a similar way starting at the “Tetrahedron” with 4 sides, and multiplies itself into a “cube” with 6 sides. And from a “cube” with 6 sides it multiplies into a “Octahedron” with 8 sides, and then it multiplies into a “Icosahedron” with 12 sides and finally and lastly it multiplies into the “Dodecahedron” with 20 sides. ”

Could you please explain how the sequence 2, 4, 8, 16... (doubling) is similar to the sequence 4, 6, 8, 12, 20?

You are selectively reading again! I said they multiply in a similar way. This is not saying they multiply in the “exact” way. One is referring to an egg and the other in the platonic solids. What I am saying is that they both grow by a “unit of growth” that is similar. These numbers synergistically work around each other.
“

Wrong. That is NOT the reason, as a quick look at the 13 Archimedean solids will show. “ (research this for yourself). ” Something you should have done before making that statement.

No, this is something YOU should have researched properly. There are only 5 platonic solids that exist in nature, this is because each side belongs to exactly two faces and no more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid

“ When these shapes are being formed it is also the same principle that goes into creating matter, which turns into form with the combination of atoms forming into molecules and then into cells. ”

No it isn't.

YES IT IS! And besides all cells grow in “unit growth”! Get your facts right, you are certainly not a scientist!

“ Even Plato associated the Tetrahedron, Cube, Octahedron, Icosahedrons and Dodecahedron with the elements of Fire, Earth, Water, Air and Ether know as the “platonic solids”. ”

So what? Just because the man associated them doesn't mean the association has any validity.

YES IT DOES! This shows a direct link to biblical scripture - as in Qabalah (in the “Tree Of Life” diagram like I mentioned above).

“ So there you have it QW science and math is RELIGION! ”

Pure unadulterated nonsense.
Well sure its easy for you to say that, but first you have to prove it isn’t?

“ Man did not make this stuff up or had any part in its origin. One must realize that all “numbers” equate and relate right back to G-d! ”

Supposition.

You know the Dead Sea Scrolls are showing right now in Milwaukee Wisconsin at the Milwaukee public Museum. Have you any idea how old they are? :bugeye:

*** Note QW (and anyone else interested)***
I've asked Cris to move this thread to Pseudosci, rather than ban Anita outright. That way we may (possibly) be able to get through to her rather than simply lose her altogether.

Typical! You are loosing the battle in wits, so you hand me over to the next person to have a try. :)

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 09:06 AM

Hello Fraggle Rocker, why is it that moderators always come to the rescue of their fellow moderator. Cant you let Dyw fend for himself.

Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
This is what I'm trying to reveal in my book that the Hebrew Language is of Divine origin - namely that of G-d. ”

* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *

The science of
linguistics has discovered mountains of quite unremarkable evidence that groups Hebrew within the Canaanite languages (which also include extinct Phoenician and Moabite), which are in the larger group of Northwest Semitic languages (which include extinct Amorite and Ugaritic), within the still larger group of the West Semitic languages (which include Aramaic), within the Semitic branch (which includes Arabic, Amharic and Tigre), of the Afro-Asiatic language family (whose other five branches are Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian and Omotic).

Yes this is correct to a certain extent. However, no linguistic specialist (the systematic study of language) can truly say with any firm confidence the true origin of language. Any linguist who does not study, acknowledge or understand the many books of the Bible will not have a clue. However the answer does lay within the Bible itself including the book of Enoch and the book of Jubilees which tells us that Enoch was the first scribe of written writing. Even more spectacular to Enoch’s claim is that this writing was taught to him by G-d’s appointed angel Uriel - which links this language to divine origins. No where in archeology or in the writing history of humankind does it tell us the origin of language or writing other than in the Bible and other religious books like Enoch and Jubilees.

Hebrew has literally dozens of sister languages whose relationships are as obvious as those among English, Danish, Latin, Greek, Albanian, Irish, Russian, Lithuanian, Farsi, Bengali, Urdu, Armenian and Sanskrit--representative members of the Indo-European language family.

Yes I will agree with this. Hebrew is literally connected to all languages of the world. The similarities in letter writing can also be seen in the Mayan and Chinese letters with similar correlated words (which is illustrated in my book).

DNA analysis and archeological evidence show that the populations who speak these languages have been separated by migrations for more than 5,000 years. For example, the Akkadians migrated into Mesopotamia ca. 3000BCE, when Neolithic Egyptian tribes had already been well established in North Africa in 5000BCE.

I whole heartedly agree with this as well! All people (including DNA analysis and archeological evidence) can be substantiated (and confirmed) to stem from the Middle East region of the world.

The Northwest Semitic languages first appear as a distinct group around 3000BCE. Proto-Canaanite goes back to around 2000BCE, and Hebrew as a distinct language descended from Proto-Canaanite became widely spoken around 1000BCE.

Yes but the Canaanites were ancient Jews!

If, purely for the sake of argument, we entertain the metaphorical hypothesis that language was a gift from a god, that gift was not Hebrew. It was a language at least twice as old as Hebrew which was the ancestor of Hebrew, Arabic, Ancient Egyptian, Amharic, Berber, Hausa, and an entire language family.

Alright then, but one still has to explain the “similarity” in all written writing and languages of the world? My theory is (since no true linguist knows) is that this writing (alphabetical letters) was revised back into its proper forms when G-d gave Moses the Ten Commandments and the Torah on Mount Sinai.

This is what I’m trying to put across in my book by showing that the Hebrew letters that Moses carried down from with him from Mount Sinai (which have been copied identically for centuries afterwards) has the same mathematical unit of growth that appears in all of the natural world. All of the Hebrew letters can be formed from one prototype form (illustrated in my book), and it is this one prototype form that closely matches the number sequence related to Phi/Pi, Golden Spiral and Fibonacci sequence. That’s all I’m trying to say here Fraggle Rocker that there is something very divine about it all (call it Divine Design). And since nobody can truly define what G-d is or where language came from, or even nature itself… this truly lies in the realm of the mysterious with much needed research.

Any assertion that contradicts these obvious and well-established relationships is extraordinary. By the Rule of Laplace, a cornerstone of the scientific method, any extraordinary assertion must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat it with respect. So far that evidence has not been forthcoming. It appears that all of your arguments have been soundly--and rather easily--refuted.

Firstly the verdict is out since as I’ve said… no true linguist can say for certain where language came from? All of it is just THEORY!

If you persist in pursuing this argument without providing MUCH better evidence, it will qualify as trolling. This thread may then be closed, moved to the Pseudoscience board with all of the other crackpottery, or simply dumped in the Cesspool, at the discretion of this board's Moderator and the Administrators.

This also would apply to you also Fraggle Rocker. Please cite your evidence and FACTS of the origin of writing and language.

Would trolling also include moderators that gang up on innocent posters that have opposing religious ideologies?

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

quantum_wave

02-15-10, 09:07 AM

Hello Anita, here we are in Pseudo. Don't let the crackpot comment go to your head. You don't really qualify simply because you have research and perception that goes against the mainstream grain. To be one of the crackpots you have to either be proven wrong or you have to refuse to acknowledge that you could be wrong.

I don't plan to read your book because I have twenty books on my shelf to read ahead of you, but from your posts I would say you have written it for a select audience of believers. If you also intend to recruit believes by getting them interested enough to read it and then by presenting convincing evidence to sway beliefs, time will tell how effective you have been.

But the part about admitting you could be wrong is where I come in. On science forums and this one is no different, there is general consensus that there is no irrefutable evidence of the existence of God. My impression is that to most science forum members out side of the Religion forum that general consensus goes even further, even to the extent that there is a good percentage that might say there is no God. That position cannot be irrefutably established either.

Hence I have an open mind on the subject but ...

The possible existence of God, and the existence of a particular God for each religion is where there is an obvious disconnection among the devout. I am simply asking you from your devout perspective how you address the science forum attitude that is suspicious of any God when there seems to be so many different Gods. I'll assume you believe there is one God and then ask you what evidence do you have that distinguishes your view of God from the view of all other devout believers in different religions?

And finally, do you admit that there might not be a God at all but that faith that there is one is what religion is all about?

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 09:25 AM

Firstly let me address Dyw. Let it still be know that you banned an innocent person (Heidi).
The weight of evidence was against it. And we have sufficient trolls.

My source is Qabalah along with the Dead Sea Scrolls!
Oops. Are you telling me that "Pythagoras got his ideas about the “platonic solids” explicitly from the Hebrew Bible" is actually written in the Qabala and the bible?

(This is a religion forum right?)
No, it's Pseudoscience, where we put all the crackpots.

This is where you lack in knowledge. These people got the idea directly from Qabalah (again this is oral law that was brought down from Mount Sinai with Moses).
So you're now claiming that the Qabala was known in Scotland a thousand years before Plato? What evidence do you have?

These same basic ideas can also be found in the book of Enoch who was said to live before the Great Flood of Noah
There was no flood.

You are selectively reading again! I said they multiply in a similar way. This is not saying they multiply in the “exact” way. One is referring to an egg and the other in the platonic solids. What I am saying is that they both grow by a “unit of growth” that is similar. These numbers synergistically work around each other.
And you're still wrong.
One of them (the doubling) is an open-ended sequence, the other halts at 20.

No, this is something YOU should have researched properly. There are only 5 platonic solids that exist in nature, this is because each side belongs to exactly two faces and no more.
And you should learn to read. There are other solids that also have each side belonging to two faces, but which aren't Platonic solids.

YES IT IS!
Really?
http://www.uq.edu.au/vdu/DNA%20nitrogenous%20bases.gif
please show me on the above diagram (of DNA) where "each side belongs to two faces and no more".

YES IT DOES! This shows a direct link to biblical scripture - as in Qabalah (in the “Tree Of Life” diagram like I mentioned above).
Wrong again. You're assuming that because some guy a long time ago agrees with something written in a nonsense book that there's any actual validity.

Well sure its easy for you to say that, but first you have to prove it isn’t?
Oops, wrong again. You made the claim therefore it's up to you to prove it is.

You know the Dead Sea Scrolls are showing right now in Milwaukee Wisconsin at the Milwaukee public Museum. Have you any idea how old they are?
What, exactly, does the age of a document have to do with its validity?

Typical! You are loosing the battle in wits, so you hand me over to the next person to have a try. :)
One more example of your failure to understand reality. Rather than "hand you over" I have actually come up with a way to let you stay around rather than being banned.
And any time you want a battle of wits let me know when you're equipped and we'll start.

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 09:35 AM

QW:

You don't really qualify simply because you have research and perception that goes against the mainstream grain. To be one of the crackpots you have to either be proven wrong or you have to refuse to acknowledge that you could be wrong.
Anita has been shown to be wrong and has refused to acknowledge that.
Witness her replies to Fraggle: Fraggle's wrong and she's right because the bible says want she claims it does?
She's using the bible as if it incontrovertibly true. :rolleyes:
And she still hasn't answered why she keeps conflating Phi and Pi...

Oh, and with regard to her "research", how valid is it, bearing in mind that it is blatantly obvious that she has ignored anything that contradicts her and additionally twisted (or outright invented) other data to make the facts conform to her belief?

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 09:39 AM

Hello QW,

“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Hello QW, I am sorry for not responding to you.

I am not quite sure what you are asking me here concerning Math and G-d, but I will give it a shot. ”

Thank you for giving it a shot but you missed the mark. The first sentence in the second paragraph would have better characterized my intend and would result in the response from you that would have explained your view. That statement was, "But the maths were in tune with science and enabled science to quantify nature, while religions were in tune with charismatic leaders and the growth of societies."

What I was doing was setting up the question that I wanted you to respond to. I know I wasn't very clear but I was being too chatty. The question was the last sentence in the fourth paragraph, "... how, if there is one God, can that God be seen so differently by different religions?"

And if you have an answer to that please convey your view and in addition, explain how people who are devout in other religions with a different view of God supposed to reconcile the differences?

Yes I do have an answer for you QW and I hope this one hits home. You ask, how if there is one G-d can that G-d be seen so differently by different religions?

In my book I have a whole chapter devoted to the "Proper Religion" which explains this. Basically (if one knows their Bible) humankind is in a fallen state (after sin permeated in the Garden of Eden). From this point on we read in the Bible about the tower of Babel. This was a place where after the Great Flood of Noah that all humans resided, and it was here that G-d confused language into different similar languages and those that related to each other grouped together and spread out across the globe. Many religions are very similar… and all have the basic story of the Garden of Eden in some version, even the Aborigines people of Austrialia have a modified version of this story. Through the centuries people developed certain (different) customs related to biblical scripture… but truthfully they all tell the same story in some way!

You ask, how is one supposed to reconcile the differences? I can only say that one should know their Bible and the words of it. This includes the Old Testament and the New Testament (which can be backed up by the Dead Sea Scrolls). If I am correct in my analogy concerning the mathematical aspect of the Hebrew letters, you can bet that every word of the Bible can be taken "literally" since it is of Divine Authorship!

QW, essentially, without the WORD OF G-D we are lost!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 09:48 AM

If I am correct in my analogy concerning the mathematical aspect of the Hebrew letters, you can bet that every word of the Bible can be taken "literally" since it is of Divine Authorship!
So every word in the bible is the literal (and exact) truth?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Oops.

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
Oops.

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Oops.

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Oops.

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
Oops.
Need I go on?

sifreak21

02-15-10, 09:49 AM

Hello QW,

Yes I do have an answer for you QW and I hope this one hits home. You ask, how if there is one G-d can that G-d be seen so differently by different religions?

In my book I have a whole chapter devoted to the "Proper Religion" which explains this. Basically (if one knows their Bible) humankind is in a fallen state (after sin permeated in the Garden of Eden). From this point on we read in the Bible about the tower of Babel. This was a place where after the Great Flood of Noah that all humans resided, and it was here that G-d confused language into different similar languages and those that related to each other grouped together and spread out across the globe. Many religions are very similar… and all have the basic story of the Garden of Eden in some version, even the Aborigines people of Austrialia have a modified version of this story. Through the centuries people developed certain (different) customs related to biblical scripture… but truthfully they all tell the same story in some way!

You ask, how is one supposed to reconcile the differences? I can only say that one should know their Bible and the words of it. This includes the Old Testament and the New Testament (which can be backed up by the Dead Sea Scrolls). If I am correct in my analogy concerning the mathematical aspect of the Hebrew letters, you can bet that every word of the Bible can be taken "literally" since it is of Divine Authorship!

QW, essentially, without the WORD OF G-D we are lost!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

wrong. I dont believe the word of god "unless someone can come up with hard evidance of the existance of god" and im completely fine with it not lost at all living life to the fullest, you your life revolves around a imaginary friend then you need to re evaluate things, in otherwords if you would be lost without your faith then you have problems that you may need looked at.

sifreak21

02-15-10, 09:50 AM

So every word in the bible is the literal (and exact) truth?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Oops.

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
Oops.

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Oops.

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Oops.

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
Oops.
Need I go on?

if every word in the bible can be taken literally what does "heaven" literally mean in the bible? WOOPS sorry dyw meant to quote anita

quantum_wave

02-15-10, 10:05 AM

QW:

Anita has been shown to be wrong and has refused to acknowledge that.
Witness her replies to Fraggle: Fraggle's wrong and she's right because the bible says want she claims it does?
She's using the bible as if it incontrovertibly true. :rolleyes:
And she still hasn't answered why she keeps conflating Phi and Pi...

Oh, and with regard to her "research", how valid is it, bearing in mind that it is blatantly obvious that she has ignored anything that contradicts her and additionally twisted (or outright invented) other data to make the facts conform to her belief?

I know and wanted to be persistent with Anita to have her response below. I would conclude that she is devout but not by faith if you can see the distinction. Faith is a decision and for a decision to be made there has to be two choices. This God or that God, God or No God, you see? If there is no decision then there is no acknowledgment that the decision could be wrong, hence dogma. Nothing wrong with believing in dogma, and nothing wrong with saying it. Just admit that is what you are doing instead of insisting there is no truth outside of your favorite dogma.

I am tolerant of people who believe anything they want if they acknowledge contrary evidence and acknowledge that they could be wrong. Anita crosses the line of tolerance and represents what I see as the cause of self perpetuating religious conflict, intolerance. But that isn't really my thing.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 10:07 AM

Dyw, your defeat over me is like being savaged by dead sheep. :)

You are a laugh in the face of science itself! How so you may ask? Well for starters you outright disclaim the Bible.

Have you any idea that the most every idea in SCIENCE originated from RELIGION (the Bible)! Including most everything that pertains to the modern world. Some of our most brilliant scientists were not only JEWS, but had harnessed their ideas from the Bible. Not only science, but common sayings and phrases including NAMES. The Bible is also the leading source of everything from military plots to the very issues of morality that to this day shape our politics, law and justice system.

Its you who is living in a fantasy world - WAKE UP you have been dumbed down!

Ignorance is a willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge. As Confucius says: Ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon and star.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

quantum_wave

02-15-10, 10:13 AM

Hello QW,

Yes I do have an answer for you QW and I hope this one hits home. You ask, how if there is one G-d can that G-d be seen so differently by different religions?

In my book I have a whole chapter devoted to the "Proper Religion" which explains this. Basically (if one knows their Bible) humankind is in a fallen state (after sin permeated in the Garden of Eden). From this point on we read in the Bible about the tower of Babel. This was a place where after the Great Flood of Noah that all humans resided, and it was here that G-d confused language into different similar languages and those that related to each other grouped together and spread out across the globe. Many religions are very similar… and all have the basic story of the Garden of Eden in some version, even the Aborigines people of Austrialia have a modified version of this story. Through the centuries people developed certain (different) customs related to biblical scripture… but truthfully they all tell the same story in some way!

You ask, how is one supposed to reconcile the differences? I can only say that one should know their Bible and the words of it. This includes the Old Testament and the New Testament (which can be backed up by the Dead Sea Scrolls). If I am correct in my analogy concerning the mathematical aspect of the Hebrew letters, you can bet that every word of the Bible can be taken "literally" since it is of Divine Authorship!

QW, essentially, without the WORD OF G-D we are lost!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.htmlWell, not necessarily lost, just on a different page from you. I consider your response to be saying that in your view you could not be wrong because of what the Bible says. That means that it is dogma to you, the invariant word of God, and any inconsistencies can be accepted or explained by deeper understanding. We don't agree but I respect your right to accept dogma although I think we risk being deluded when we insist we cannot be wrong.

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 10:16 AM

You are a laugh in the face of science itself! How so you may ask? Well for starters you outright disclaim the Bible.
Anita, you are now displaying how utterly and totally ignorant you really are.
The bible is not science, nor is it scientific.

Have you any idea that the most every idea in SCIENCE originated from RELIGION (the Bible)!
Wrong.

Including most everything that pertains to the modern world.
Sheer unadulterated nonsense.

Some of our most brilliant scientists were not only JEWS, but had harnessed their ideas from the Bible.
The first point is largely irrelevant, the second is wrong.

The Bible is also the leading source of everything from military plots to the very issues of morality that to this day shape our politics, law and justice system.
Wrong.

Its you who is living in a fantasy world - WAKE UP you have been dumbed down!
And you are either deluded or a liar.

I think if you're planning on posting any further this is going to have your first pint of call: show that bible is science or scientific*. Otherwise you're spouting hot air from the very start.

* To QW et al., yes I know she can't, (except in her own mind) but I'm foolishly holding out hope that she can at least gain a little bit of education in reality.

spidergoat

02-15-10, 10:23 AM

sifreak21

02-15-10, 10:31 AM

Anita, you are now displaying how utterly and totally ignorant you really are.
The bible is not science, nor is it scientific.

Wrong.

Sheer unadulterated nonsense.

The first point is largely irrelevant, the second is wrong.

Wrong.

And you are either deluded or a liar.

I think if you're planning on posting any further this is going to have your first pint of call: show that bible is science or scientific*. Otherwise you're spouting hot air from the very start.

* To QW et al., yes I know she can't, (except in her own mind) but I'm foolishly holding out hope that she can at least gain a little bit of education in reality.

give her a break dyw, we all know how religion makes people mental sometimes lol, some people are so ignoran/mental that that fiction book becomes there world. may want to just argue with your front door might actually get somewhere lol

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 10:32 AM

http://www.uq.edu.au/vdu/DNA%20nitrogenous%20bases.gif

Wrong Dyw, this shows how abstract your brain is!

The “Tetrahedron” is the first from which all others emanate.

Each face must have the same number of edges, each edge is shared by exactly two faces, and every vertex has the same number of edges emanating from it.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 10:44 AM

Wrong Dyw, this shows how abstract your brain is!
In other words you can't prove (or even demonstrate) what you claimed so you're resorting to insults...

The “Tetrahedron” is the first from which all others emanate.
They do not "emanate" from the tetrahedron.

Each face must have the same number of edges, each edge is shared by exactly two faces, and every vertex has the same number of edges emanating from it.
I see, so now you're expanding your description, once the original one was shown to be incorrect. And there are shapes that are not Platonic solids that also fit that description...
Plus, of course, the diagram shows you're wrong.
"every vertex has the same number of edges emanating from it"
Um, take another look, let's pick Adenine and start at the very top: NH2.
First vertex: one "edge"
2nd vertex: 3 "edges"
3rd (going clockwise): 3 "edges"
4th vertex: 3 "edges"
5th: 3 "edges"
6th: 3 "edges"
7th (continuing to NH): 2 "edges"

Slight failure, methinks.
In addition to which those molecules are more or less flat, so they don't actually have "faces".

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 10:44 AM

All of you can continue to spout nonsense as well, and in fact I’m quite sure you will continue to do so and we will all witness the “hostility” factor moving more and more into place by the ignorant. Oh I could get nasty too, but I wont lower myself.

I think this is clearly seen by others who may be reading!

Only he who sees takes off his shoes!*:)

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 10:45 AM

give her a break dyw, we all know how religion makes people mental sometimes lol, some people are so ignoran/mental that that fiction book becomes there world. may want to just argue with your front door might actually get somewhere lol
Nah, the point is: if she isn't going to actually try and put up supporting arguments then all she's doing is trolling.
And we already have a surfeit of those.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 10:54 AM

Dyw,

You are still not grasping it!

Find me a polygon or an Archimedean solid that started out that way... wow just popped into existence one day looking like a polygon hu!?

I think not! All who can see know that that this form grew in unit growth from a simple tetrahedron shape since it consists of many tetrahedrons. :o

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 11:00 AM

Find me a polygon or an Archimedean solid that started out that way... wow just popped into existence one day looking like a polygon hu!?
Er, show me where these solids occur in nature and I'll tell you how they got that way...

I think not!
That's probably the first honest and (and certainly the most accurate) thing you've written.

all who can see know that that this form grew in unit growth from a simply tetrahedron shape since it consists of many tetrahedrons
Nonsense. Again.
You're claiming belief as knowledge. Not very scientific of you, is it?
You're supposed to show evidence.
Tut tut, naughty Anita.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 11:23 AM

“ Originally Posted by sifreak21
give her a break dyw, we all know how religion makes people mental sometimes lol, some people are so ignoran/mental that that fiction book becomes there world. may want to just argue with your front door might actually get somewhere lol ”

Nah, the point is: if she isn't going to actually try and put up supporting arguments then all she's doing is trolling.
And we already have a surfeit of those.

Dyw, And you being one of them yourself - A TROLL!

“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Find me a polygon or an Archimedean solid that started out that way... wow just popped into existence one day looking like a polygon hu!? ”

Er, show me where these solids occur in nature and I'll tell you how they got that way...

Alright, lets start out with a simple crystal.

http://www.mainsgate.com/spacebio/images/crystal_microgravity.jpg

How about cell division in a human egg:

http://nte-serveur.univ-lyon1.fr/nte/EMBRYON/www.uoguelph.ca/zoology/devobio/miller/mitosis1.gif

Please get a grip on this!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

spidergoat

02-15-10, 11:25 AM

A crystal is of natural, not divine origin.

sifreak21

02-15-10, 11:43 AM

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 11:53 AM

Alright, lets start out with a simple crystal.
And you're unfamiliar (or ignorant) of how a crystal grows?
It doesn't "pop up" from anywhere, it gets built. (And that isn't a Platonic solid, either: notice that the apices are also flat surfaces).

How about cell division in a human egg:
What makes you think a human egg is a Platonic solid?

Please get a grip on this!
Quite...

Trippy

02-15-10, 12:20 PM

Wrong Dyw, this shows how abstract your brain is!

The “Tetrahedron” is the first from which all others emanate.

No it isn't.

The Tetrahedon is far from being fundamental in chemistry.

The Sphere has more relevance.

Trippy

02-15-10, 12:38 PM

Naturally occuring non-platonic solids:
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/16/2616-004-9A68D25F.gif

Look closely, Gypsum and Wulfenite are NON platonic.

Q.E.D.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 12:51 PM

You know for one thing, I cant believe that they actually made you a moderator! Well maybe the almost 4,000 posts says it. Sheesh, what do you do, sit on your computer all day and play? You would think by now you would have learned something (if anything)? As soon as I post, your right on it immediately. Probably trying to save face.

“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Alright, lets start out with a simple crystal. ”

And you're unfamiliar (or ignorant) of how a crystal grows?
It doesn't "pop up" from anywhere, it gets built. (And that isn't a Platonic solid, either: notice that the apices are also flat surfaces).

Well this response is nothing new, it shows again your trolling expertise’s at spinning words around to your own advantage. You actually think this helps your case? :confused:

Well in any event, yes as I’ve shown in the picture above a crystal grows by units starting out with the first basic visibly recognizable shape of a Tetrahedron. You were the one who originally threw the Archimedean solid at me without explaining how it derived at such. Now you are changing your tune and acknowledging that I was correct when saying that it doesn’t just pop up out of nowhere, it gets built by Tetrahedrons.

“ How about cell division in a human egg: ”

What makes you think a human egg is a Platonic solid?

Well I never said it was, but actually it does turn into a platonic solid structure at around the 2nd day - the 6th day of fertilization and looks like a Star of David:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Seed-of-Life_Stages.jpg

Stick around (add nausea) you might actually learn something in all of the nearly 4,000 posts you’ve posted here. :)

Unfortunately I'll be waiting for the next spun and twisted posting from you. You know I think you should change your name to "spinster" it fits your persona more accurately ...

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

spidergoat

02-15-10, 12:53 PM

These forms are simply the result of packing spheres into the smallest possible area (such as within an elastic membrane).

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 01:01 PM

Thank you Trippy,

Those pictures you supplied show precisely that the Tetrahedron is the first platonic solid in all those structures…

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/TetrahedralGraph_600.gif

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/TetrahedralCirculantGraph_500.gif

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/TetrahedronCube_1000.gif

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Enmos

02-15-10, 01:03 PM

Anita, maybe you should consider promoting your book elsewhere.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 01:09 PM

Is that why I’m getting so much hatred here? Because I’m promoting a book? Do you think they are jealous because of that?

I don’t see why they should be because I’m only sharing truth and looking to spread the good word.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Enmos

02-15-10, 01:10 PM

Is that why I’m getting so much hatred here? Because I’m promoting a book?

Well, are you?

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 01:17 PM

Well in any event, yes as I’ve shown in the picture above a crystal grows by units starting out with the first basic visibly recognizable shape of a Tetrahedron.
No it doesn't. Read and learn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_growth).

You were the one who originally threw the Archimedean solid at me without explaining how it derived at such.
So what? I gave a link. And you haven't explained how Platonics are derived... Er, correction, you think you've given an explanation of some, but it doesn't hold true.

Now you are changing your tune and acknowledging that I was correct when saying that it doesn’t just pop up out of nowhere
Wrong again.
I said that I'd tell you how they got their shape: your comment was "Find me a polygon or an Archimedean solid that started out that way", to which I replied - show me one and I'll tell how it got that way. :rolleyes:

it gets built by Tetrahedrons.
No it doesn't.

Well I never said it was, but actually it does turn into a platonic solid structure at around the 2nd day
No it doesn't, that's a two-dimensional geometrical construct that is nonsense as far as biology is concerned.

Stick around (add nausea) you might actually learn something in all of the nearly 4,000 posts you’ve posted here. :)
Not from you, that's for sure.

Anita, you have so far failed to validate (or even demonstrate) a single one of your claims. But you have shown yourself to be ignorant, deceitful and unwilling to actually learn.
You're a worse troll than I thought you were, and far more pernicious.
Most of our trolls here are simply misguided, but you have the gall to also charge money for your lies...

Is that why I’m getting so much hatred here? Because I’m promoting a book? Do you think they are jealous because of that?
Nope, it's because your book is a tissue of lies and ignorance.

I don’t see why they should be because I’m only sharing truth and looking to spread the good word.
There is no truth contained the book, unless it's accidental.

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 01:19 PM

Those pictures you supplied show precisely that the Tetrahedron is the first platonic solid in all those structures…
Also wrong: it shows how a cube may be constructed using tetrahedra, but it doesn't show anything at all about the other solids.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 01:21 PM

Enmos,

Well if you read a couple pages back you would know that I said that money was not the object. I also said that I was willing to talk to people and discuss subjects that are in my book without people actually reading my book (now what author would do that)? I also explained that I was only attempting to spread the Good Word and get this revolutionary idea out that shows some incredible evidence of G-ds existence. That’s all!

Truthfully I don’t even know why I’m hanging around here since I’ve been royally racially decimated against, called a liar and threatened more than once that I was to be banned. On top of all this an innocent person was banned because she happened to post from the same IP address as me from a local library in town that I frequent.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Enmos

02-15-10, 01:24 PM

Trippy

02-15-10, 01:32 PM

Thank you Trippy,

Those pictures you supplied show precisely that the Tetrahedron is the first platonic solid in all those structures…

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/TetrahedralGraph_600.gif

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/TetrahedralCirculantGraph_500.gif

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/TetrahedronCube_1000.gif

No they don't you great nonce.

To the best of my knowledge, you can't construct a non-platonic solid from a platonic one.

It's like... Trying to add even numbers together to get an odd number.

The only platonic crystal in that image I posted was Halite.

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 01:37 PM

Well if you read a couple pages back you would know that I said that money was not the object.
But it still costs nearly $40 for a copy...

Truthfully I don’t even know why I’m hanging around here since I’ve been royally racially decimated against
That is (at least) the third time you have claimed racial discrimination. Please either retract the accusation or show where it occurred: this is yet another claim you have been asked to prove and have so far failed to do.

called a liar
You are a liar. Most simply because the claim of the book is confirmation of god when you have already admitted that you have assumed his existence from the start.

On top of all this an innocent person was banned because she happened to post from the same IP address as me from a local library in town that I frequent.
And who was trolling.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 01:40 PM

Dyw,

No it doesn't, that's a two-dimensional geometrical construct that is nonsense as far as biology is concerned.

Oh so now you switch your story to “biology”?

Fine if you want to go down that route!

Atomic structure of a crystal:

http://www.interhomeopathy.org/images/gallery/353-Crystal-structure-wNO3.jpg

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 01:49 PM

Oh so now you switch your story to “biology”?
Excuse me: it's not me that's switching to biology:
You: How about cell division in a human egg Post #114
Me: What makes you think a human egg is a Platonic solid? Post #116
You: Well I never said it was, but actually it does turn into a platonic solid structure at around the 2nd day Post #120
You could at least try to keep track of your own arguments.
Oh wait, I understand now. You don't think that human eggs are anything to do with biology. God made them as crystals.

Fine if you want to go down that route!
Atomic structure of a crystal:
You talk about biology and then proceed to crystals?
From a homoeopathy site, no less! :eek:
(And you'll also note that that diagram does nothing for your case on Platonic solids).

Trippy

02-15-10, 02:03 PM

You still haven't shown us how it's possible to construct a C1 symmetry from a Td symmetry.

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 02:07 PM

Oh, and where does the tetrahedron come from?
Don't tell me...

just popped into existence one day looking like a polygon hu!?

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 02:14 PM

There is even some evidence that suggests the “atom” itself may actually be tetrahedron in form which would explain why all living things start out with this simply shape.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Eigenstate_n7.l4.m0.jpg

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

spidergoat

02-15-10, 02:17 PM

There is even some evidence that suggests the “atom” itself may actually be tetrahedron in form which would explain why all living things start out with this simply shape.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

There are approximately 100 trillion atoms in a cell, not, like one or two. Just so you know.

Trippy

02-15-10, 02:24 PM

There is even some evidence that suggests the “atom” itself may actually be tetrahedron in form which would explain why all living things start out with this simply shape.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

No there isn't, and stop dodging questions. There aren't even atomic orbitals with tetrahedral symmetry, that requires hybridization.

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 02:27 PM

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 02:40 PM

No there isn't, and stop dodging questions. There aren't even atomic orbitals with tetrahedral symmetry, that requires hybridization.

Oh really, whats this then:

http://academic.enmu.edu/longro/www/orbitals/sp3.jpg

Sure looks tetrahedral to me!

Additionally how about this:

http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~itl/2045/react/1005.jpg

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 03:13 PM

***MOD NOTE***
I repeat my previous question:
That is (at least) the third time you have claimed racial discrimination. Please either retract the accusation or show where it occurred: this is yet another claim you have been asked to prove and have so far failed to do.

You have made serious accusations and have still not backed them up (in fact the first accusation was made in post #57, 01-28-10).
You WILL be banned for making the (so far as I can see, false) accusation (which was repeated in posts #71 and #128) unless you can show where this discrimination occurred (and the offender will be banned).

Off the bat I see one, post #72
Hey, I'm also a lapsed Jew, do you want to go out some time? (PM me).

She was referring to me as a lapsed Jew (maybe not directly, but in an innuendo type of way). I never said that I was a lapsed Jew, she did. And for the record I am not a lapsed Jew, I prefer the term complete Jew!

I went through the thread and it looks like for the most part it has been cleaned up (miraculously). I know in one of the post I was called an idiot and I reported that and it was cleaned up. There were also others and it appears they were also cleaned up. But the fact still remains for those reading and keeping track that these things (racial comments) were indeed said. I also sense a extreme hostility and hatred towards me talking about religion. All these knocking down remarks such as stupid and ignorant are also a type of innuendo referral to mocking religious beliefs. Oh and unjustifiably calling me a liar on numerous occasions.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Trippy

02-15-10, 03:20 PM

Oh really, what this then:
http://academic.enmu.edu/longro/www/orbitals/sp3.jpg
Sure looks tetrahedral to me!

Additionally how about this:
http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~itl/2045/react/1005.jpg

And now you're lying.

Here's what I said:

No there isn't, and stop dodging questions. There aren't even atomic orbitals with tetrahedral symmetry, that requires hybridization.

What does your image show?

http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~itl/2045/react/1005.jpg

The three cases of spn hybridization, and two cases of spndm hybridization.

The fact that these orbitals are hybridized means they're compounds of something and something else, namely they're what happens when you add the s-orbital:
http://homepage.svendborg-gym.dk/rk/kemi/noter/bindingstyper/molekyler/sorbital.gif
the p orbitals:
http://img.sparknotes.com/figures/5/5578bdf1aec90e46e14325a580fdbf6a/porbital.gif
And the d orbitals:
http://x3f.xanga.com/721c904073133207432985/q161436131.gif
together in varying combinations.

None of which have tetrahedral symmetry.

noodler

02-15-10, 03:20 PM

Oh really, what this then:

It's called a fallacy, specifically the one that shows up when you assume that a consequence of predicate logic is also a predicate, or you assume that the result of an argument is the same as a condition of the argument that gives the result... (but I bet you knew that).

As pointed out, the hybridization of atomic orbitals requires something -- atomic orbitals aren't hybridized if this isn't present.

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 03:26 PM

Off the bat I see one, post #72
For the record that came AFTER you made the accusation twice, and refers to information that you yourself have made publicly available (and currently linked to in all of your posts).
How can it be considered a racist remark if the writer also claims what you are (supposedly) being accused of?
In addition you have made the accusation again, within the last two hours. Which post do you claim was racist?

I went through the thread and it looks like for the most part it has been cleaned up (miraculously). I know in one of the post I was called an idiot and I reported that and it was cleaned up. There were also others and it appears they were also cleaned up. But the fact still remains for those reading and keeping track that these things (racial comments) were indeed said.
For the record, as far as I'm aware, no posts have had racist remarks removed (because they weren't there in the first place). Each post does indicate whether it has been edited or not. And prior to your first accusation the edited posts are: two of yours, one from QW and two from Spidergoat - one of which states that it was to remove an insult: presumably the "idiot" comment.
Substantiate the claims or withdraw them.

I also sense a extreme hostility and hatred towards me talking about religion.
The hostility is because you assume automatically that the bible is factual (which it isn't) and work from there.

Oh and unjustifiable calling me a liar on numerous occasions.
Please point out where you have unjustifiably been called a liar.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 03:44 PM

Trippy, it all depends on how one looks at it! Either way the Tetrahedron form is there whether you wish to conceive of it or not.

It is there for all to see!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

spidergoat

02-15-10, 03:49 PM

One could also disprove her assumptions by showing similar forms in other languages.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 03:49 PM

Please stop trying to make exceptions! Racial prejudice comes in many forms.

“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
Off the bat I see one, post #72 ”
For the record that came AFTER your made the accusation twice, and refers to information that you yourself have made publicly available (and currently linked to in all of your posts).
How can it be considered a racist remark if the writer also claims what you are (supposedly) being accused of?

I NEVER CALLED MYSELF A “LAPSED” JEW, EVER!

“ I went through the thread and it looks like for the most part it has been cleaned up (miraculously). I know in one of the post I was called an idiot and I reported that and it was cleaned up. There were also others and it appears they were also cleaned up. But the fact still remains for those reading and keeping track that these things (racial comments) were indeed said. ”
For the record as far as I'm aware no posts have had racist remarks removed (because they weren't there in the first place). Each post does indicate whether it has been edited or not. And prior to your first accusation the edited posts are: two of yours, one from QW and two from Spidergoat - and one of those states that it was to remove an insult: presumably the "idiot" comment.
Substantiate the claims or withdraw them.

Well obviously some altering was done here for specific reasons.

“ I also sense a extreme hostility and hatred towards me talking about religion. ”
The hostility is because you assume automatically that the bible is factual and work from there.

Yes, so whats so wrong about that? This is what I believe and have found to be correct! I’m truly sorry if you havent.

Like I had stated earlier… prove you love your mother?

“ Oh and unjustifiable calling me a liar on numerous occasions. ”
Please point out where you have unjustifiably been called a liar.

Come on now Dyw! I think you know the answer to this. Please stop spinning!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Trippy

02-15-10, 03:49 PM

Trippy, it all depends on how one looks at it! Either way the Tetrahedron form is there whether you wish to conceive of it or not.

It is there for all to see!

No it isn't.

How is a Sphere, on it's own.
Which is what a free hyrdogen atom 'looks' like.
A Tetrahedron?

Answer? It isn't.

All you've done is show that you A) have no clue what you're blathering on about, and B) misrepresent what others have said.

noodler

02-15-10, 03:52 PM

If you're saying tetrahedral symmetry is an ideal form, that may be true, but noone has managed to prove it is.
Not since Plato and Aristotle at least. There is apparently some indication that spacetime looks like a big lattice of the faces of a tetrahedron, and spacetime has 4 "faces", all equivalent (according to a more recent interpretation of ideals)...

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 03:58 PM

I NEVER CALLED MYSELF A “LAPSED” JEW, EVER!
Please learn to read.
According to the information on the page that you link to you decided to study Christianity: the inference is that you lapsed...

Well obviously some altering was done here for specific reasons.
Obviously it was never there in the first place.

Yes, so whats so wrong about that? This is what I believe and have found to be correct!
No you haven't been found to be correct. (One more lie).
Because the bible is NOT factual. It doesn't matter how hard you believe, it is not and will not become factual.

Come on now Dyw! I think you know the answer to this. Please stop spinning!
No spin involved: you claim you have unjustifiably been accused of lying. That is not not true, you actually have lied (or are so deluded that you believe the blatant untruths that you come out with are true). Either way you have made demonstrably false claims: repeatedly.

Stryder

02-15-10, 04:11 PM

The worst thing about the Bible is what it's overall done to people of the years. It's been used as a way for people to abuse others, or to accuse them of things or worse still just turn them into a complete nut that spouts the drivel existant within it's many binded volumes as complete fact.

Please take note the bible was and is a compilation of many different books, The old testiment contains books dating back before Christianity and Christianity is actually written in via the new testiment. In fact you could suggest those books prior were used to generate merit for Christianity, a bit like binding your own book to a book by someone famous so as to get coverage by using someone noteworthy.

In essence the Bible itself is just a bunch of drivel created by obsessed cultists. This can be seen mirrored in many other religions. You probably won't believe me now, or ever but lets just look at a scenario:

Let's say tomorrow a new form of equipment is created that allows us to observe a different point in time and the religion community be all into their god and full of holey holy spirits wants to see their messiah as was.

So they setup this equipment to cut in and generate a connection a past point in time with their messiah.

Now this is where it gets a bit tricky, firstly "What if they observe there never was a messiah?", "What would it do to their religions credibility?", "What would it cause worldwide as it's found out it's all a lie?".

The answer to these questions would likely cause the creation of deception, perhaps they would hack the worldwide transmittion of "Observation of a deity" and take it offline, perhaps they would start manipulating events prior so that people play particular roles or parts to the point where they put some poor sod on a crucifix (Would explain "why he died for all your sins")

But the factor remains if historically it's not bullshit created by obsessed cultists, it's likely our very own future would have obsessed cultists creating bullshit. Kind of QED to me.

This is why to me anyone that wants to take an argument of a god existing or not, should take into consideration that humankind will always be filled full of those people that do or do not agree there was one and will likely boil down to a future "grandfather paradox" where either a poor guy is sacrificed for their claims or their entire religion is proved a falsehood.

Either way, while scientifically it's not possible to venture back to observe, religion is a moot point with no substantial evidence other than a group bias.

Incidentally... Evolution exists period and if there was to be a creator, he would of obviously added it because it would be a pain in the arse to have a bunch of dullard colours in a paint palette. You need a little bit of "spontenuity" to add some spice to life.

sifreak21

02-15-10, 04:21 PM

why would anyone be jelous of a book that has nothing but false information in it?

spidergoat

02-15-10, 04:25 PM

I could call it pseudoscientific Christian apologetics. I think it's sad this book actually made it into a public library.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 04:27 PM

Watch out Noodler that’s some pretty radial thinking you got going on there. I wouldn’t be surprised if you get ridiculed for it. No not from me because I know you are correct, but by these numbskulls here. If they don’t attack you, then I sense there is some conspiracy here precisely against me.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

sifreak21

02-15-10, 04:28 PM

BIT OT but i think its cool that moderators on this forum actually are active and chime in

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 04:29 PM

Please learn to read.
According to the information on the page that you link to you decided to study Christianity: the inference is that you lapsed...

Dyw, where is it that I said that I was a lapsed Jew. Nowhere is that word used in any of my book. No that is your own “inference” about me, which is incorrect! And again, a inference is ALSO an innuendo which I perceive to be racial discrimination.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

noodler

02-15-10, 04:32 PM

No not from me because I know you are correct...

Please don't turn my argument around and claim "you know I am correct", if you know I am (and honestly, I don't really know that this is the case), then why are you claiming that the tetrahedron is some kind of fundamental building block?
How do you know the sphere isn't the building block, or that a sphere doesn't morph into some other shape--a tetrahedron is one of these--or a shape with an odd number of faces?

Nobody knows this, how come you are saying it's "obvious"?

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 04:40 PM

Dyw, where is it that I said that I was a lapsed Jew. Nowhere is that word used in any of my book.
Keep trying. I didn't say in your book, I said, clearly, on the page that you link to you.
All quotes from Anita's OWN link at the foot of each post.

Anita’s younger years can be characterize by the desire to study her Jewish heritage
I.e. you're Jewish.

While in Israel she learned all about Christianity
Since Christianity only began as a Jewish religion (sect) and is no longer, then the inference is that you lapsed.
Get it yet?

How is posting something you yourself have claimed (i.e. you're Jewish) to be taken as a racist comment? It's publicly available information!

And again, a inference is ALSO an innuendo
An inference is NOT an innuendo, it's a conclusion drawn using reason, one that is based on available information.

which I perceive to be racial discrimination.
So you claim that, although you have stated you are Jewish, Spider's comment was racist? A comment he made about himself, and happened to include you?

And you still haven't pointed out where the accusations are that were (supposedly) made prior to your two previous claims.

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 04:44 PM

BIT OT but i think its cool that moderators on this forum actually are active and chime in
Shouldn't we?
I'm posting here (mostly) as a forum member. I try (as do the other mods) to keep the "Mod Hat" only for when it's really needed.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 04:52 PM

Noodler, the Tetrahedron its evident in all of nature! You ask where is the evidence? ITS EVERYWHERE!!! Yes it is a sphere (a ball of information) that then organizes itself into a Tetrahedron (the first platonic solid structure).

You should stop being afraid of these secular peddlers and stand up for yourself. Your thoughts are certainly worth merit as are anyone else’s and should not be suppressed
simply because you are on a forum that rears away from science in ways that illuminate religion.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 05:01 PM

“ Anita’s younger years can be characterize by the desire to study her Jewish heritage ”

I.e. you're Jewish.

“ While in Israel she learned all about Christianity ”

Since Christianity only began as a Jewish religion (sect) and is no longer, then the inference is that you lapsed.
Get it yet?

WRONG!!! Again this is your own interpretation. Becoming a Christian is not being lapsed! Only in your mind is it. I never said I was lapsed! Yes I am a Judeo-Christian, I am a “complete Jew”, not a lapsed Jew as you and spidergoat would make me out to be.

Now please stop calling me a LAPSED Jew as this is racial discrimination!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 05:10 PM

WRONG!!! Again this is your own interpretation. Becoming a Christian is not being lapsed! Only in your mind is it. I never said I was lapsed! Yes I am a Judeo-Christian, I am a “complete Jew”, not a lapsed Jew as you and spidergoat would make me out to be.
And you are STILL not listening. As I stated, it was an inference. Since you saw fit to mention (on your publicity page) that you had studied Christianity there was a logical (though incorrect as it turns out) conclusion.

Now please stop calling me a LAPSED Jew
Spider made one comment about himself that included you: you have not been called a lapsed Jew before or since that comment.

as this is racial discrimination!
How is it racial discrimination? Spider made an error over your religion please explain how that becomes a racial slur.

And where are the previous racial comments?

On second thought, it doesn't matter. If you claim that an error about your religion (despite being a logical one and understandable) is a racial slur then the previous ones were probably in reality something to do with the quality of your writing or your thinking processes.

spidergoat

02-15-10, 05:15 PM

I was just teasing her. As a Jew myself, I think I'm allowed.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 05:17 PM

No it isn't.

How is a Sphere, on it's own.
Which is what a free hyrdogen atom 'looks' like.
A Tetrahedron?

Answer? It isn't.

All you've done is show that you A) have no clue what you're blathering on about, and B) misrepresent what others have said.

Trippy, yes but doesn’t this sphere eventually progress into a Tetrahedron?!

I think the pictures speak for themselves. Obviously you must think you are the sole authority around here that dictates truth.

http://academic.enmu.edu/longro/www/orbitals/sp3.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Eigenstate_n7.l4.m0.jpg

A gentleman can see a question from all sides without bias. The small man is biased and can see a question only from one side. - Confucius, Analects, c.400 b.c.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

spidergoat

02-15-10, 05:32 PM

WRONG!!! Again this is your own interpretation. Becoming a Christian is not being lapsed! Only in your mind is it. I never said I was lapsed! Yes I am a Judeo-Christian, I am a “complete Jew”, not a lapsed Jew as you and spidergoat would make me out to be.

Now please stop calling me a LAPSED Jew as this is racial discrimination!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Jews generally don't accept Jesus as a messiah. But you are correct in that in the early days, there was no difference between them. As I said (if you don't have me on ignore), I was just teasing you, since I have "lapsed" into atheism, and I was equating the two.

Trippy

02-15-10, 05:50 PM

Trippy, yes but doesn’t this sphere eventually progress into a Tetrahedron?!

I think the pictures speak for themselves. Obviously you must think you are the sole authority around here that dictates truth.

http://academic.enmu.edu/longro/www/orbitals/sp3.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Eigenstate_n7.l4.m0.jpg

Now go back, re-read what I said, and try some honesty.

The tetrahedron in atomic orbitals is not fundamental.

It is a HYBRID. Those pictures you keep posting are HYBRIDS, they're what happens when you mix two more fundamental objects.

Look the word up: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hybrid

And no, I don't think I'm "the sole authority around here that dictates the truth".

I am however posting on this thread as someone who derives his income from his knowledge of chemistry (and statistics).

Tell me, have you ever studied anything other than theology?

James R

02-15-10, 05:51 PM

Anita Meyer:

Well I never said it was, but actually [a human egg] does turn into a platonic solid structure at around the 2nd day - the 6th day of fertilization and looks like a Star of David:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Seed-of-Life_Stages.jpg

The image you have posted is something apparently referred to as the "Flower of life". It's an idea from Kabbala. The diagram shows overlapping circles - nothing to do with tetrahedra. Also, the diagram has nothing to do with the development of a human embryo, or a human egg. The diagram is supposed to represent the 7 days of Creation of the universe by God.

Is your entire book as poorly researched as your silly claim about the human egg?

(P.S. I love the idea of a "spherical octahedron". That's funny stuff!)

noodler

02-15-10, 05:52 PM

Dywyddyr

02-15-10, 05:54 PM

James: first 20 pages.
And yes it is all as poorly researched.
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/files/The_Primordial_Language.pdf

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 09:13 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Seed-of-Life_Stages.jpg
The image you have posted is something apparently referred to as the "Flower of life". It's an idea from Kabbala. The diagram shows overlapping circles - nothing to do with tetrahedra. Also, the diagram has nothing to do with the development of a human embryo, or a human egg. The diagram is supposed to represent the 7 days of Creation of the universe by God.

Hello James, I can assure you my book is highly researched.

A 1 day old (24 hour) embryo contains 2 cells. A 3 day embryo contains 4 cells, and a 4 day old embryo contains 8 cells. On the 5th day the embryo turns into an “blastocyst”. And on the 6th day the embryo implants itself into the uterine wall. Its on the 3rd day that we begin to see the cell division that forms the Tetrahedron shape (seen in the picture above) and it is on the 6th and 7th day which can be seen in the cell division the form of the “Star of David” (also seen in the picture above).

(P.S. I love the idea of a "spherical octahedron". That's funny stuff!)

Uh James, I never mentioned anything about “spherical octahedron”??? (Your reading ability is in question?)

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 09:15 PM

DYW,

James: first 20 pages.
And yes it is all as poorly researched.
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltru...l_Language.pdf

That is a bias opinion based on your religious lack of knowledge.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 09:33 PM

Anita: if you are sure that the tetrahedral shape is everywhere, what happens in water or other fluids, to this tetrahedral shape?
(Last time I looked at some water, it looked sort of, well, fluid or something, definitely not tetrahedral, and ice is pretty much any shape except for snowflakes).

Why isn't water a triangle or a square, for instance..??

Noodler,

The water molecule itself consists of two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to a single oxygen atom. It is also a tetrahedron!

http://xnet.rrc.mb.ca/rcharney/The%20water%20molecule_files/molecul2.jpg

http://xnet.rrc.mb.ca/rcharney/The%20water%20molecule_files/molecul1.gif

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Lawson's Criterion

02-15-10, 10:02 PM

Dear Anita Meyer:

It is very important that you understand that the people you address are science oriented and therefore quantitative. Qualitative understandings are nice, but in science you need numbers: when, where, how much, etc. That means you need math. What matters most in science is not how you explain something, but how accurately you can forecast the outcome of a hypothesis. (E.g., ''God did it'' has no predictive power, and thus is not an explanation, but only a consolation. Science requires facts. You need proof (logical or mathematical) or evidence (experimental). Hearsay doesn't count. Ultimately it is the real world that determines the worth of a theory, not human tastes or beliefs. I wish you the very best with your book.

LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Los Alamos, New Mexico.

Anita Meyer

02-15-10, 10:43 PM

Thank you Lawson for your kind words of understanding. Yes I understand where you are coming from. But it seems that no matter how I respond to such people, the same result always ensues which is hostility. The hostility issue is there because people are closed off to religion due to the trend of today’s programming. But there have been some very prominent people in America that are religious such as Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and all the US presidents that have been sworn in have all done so on a Bible.

I know that you are very science orientated but I would like to make it known that everything we are being told, taught and led to believe as “fact” is simply not fact at all. It is only the “current theory” and “thought of the day”, which historically is/has often shown not to be true. And as such, there are no such things as facts, everything is simply an opinion based on the information we have at the current time. It was the Greek philosopher Democritus who said: Nothing exists except atoms and empty space, everything else is opinion. Additionally, it should be noted that we are lead to believe that if something is labeled as “scientific fact” that it is true, and this is not the case either.

There have also been some very prominent and religious people who have commented in this arena such as
Vannevar Bush who stated that a belief may be larger than a fact. Even Albert Einstein himself (one of the greatest minds in science and philosophy) broke the jurisdictions regarding “facts” when he quoted: If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.

But what I’m truly trying to get at here, is that all the information we have today is nothing more than being based off of the “current theory of the day“ which is also subject to change. Additionally, I’d also like to make it known that science does not really tell us the “origin” of ANYTHING other than the origin of science stemming from the Bible since some of our most prominent scientists like Newton held it dear! So there you have it.

But I do like to talk math, which has evaded everyone on this forum thus far! I wrote a revolutionary book that shows unambiguously the linkage of the Hebrew letters to that of the mathematical sequence pattern in nature. I show a direct link with very strong evidence that Hebrew is a divine language since it shows DESIGN! I use some pretty elaborate math in the book. (If you read the opening post of this thread you may understand this).

People are hostile here over this idea because they cannot (or do not want to) fathom G-d. Anyhow I see that you only have 19 posts. I hope you stick around and don’t get the cold shoulder if you side with religion in any way.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Trippy

02-15-10, 11:10 PM

Noodler,

The water molecule itself consists of two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to a single oxygen atom. It is also a tetrahedron!

http://xnet.rrc.mb.ca/rcharney/The%20water%20molecule_files/molecul2.jpg

http://xnet.rrc.mb.ca/rcharney/The%20water%20molecule_files/molecul1.gif

Right.
Because it's sp3 hybridized, which is what happens when you take an s orbital, and mix it with the 3 p orbitals (however, the s and p orbitals are not themselves tetrahedral).

I can even explain to you why the angle deviate sfrom that of a perfect tetrahedron.

James R

02-15-10, 11:48 PM

It's worth emphasising Trippy's point that the water molecule is not tetrahedral. For a start, it consists of only 3 atoms ("missing" two), and secondly its bond angle is not what it would be if it were tetrahedral. Methane is tetrahedral.

If this error appears in your book, Anita, I'd correct it in the next printing (if there is one).

AlphaNumeric

02-16-10, 01:45 AM

No, this is something YOU should have researched properly. There are only 5 platonic solids that exist in nature, this is because each side belongs to exactly two faces and no more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid
No, there are only 5 because when you tessellate a sphere using triangles you obtain triangles with internal angles summing to greater than pi. This, as your Wikipedia link, provides an upper bound for the angles of the triangles and you find there are only 5 possible ways to cover a sphere with triangles such that the sum of angles at any vertex is pi radians.

I would also point out that the geometry of spheres is non-Euclidean for precisely the reason the sum of internal angles of a triangle on a sphere is larger than pi radians, so your mentioning of Euclid's geometry isn't particularly relevant. In the other form of non-Euclidean geometry, developed by Gauss, known as hyperbolic geometry has infinitely many kinds of tessellation because the angles of a hyperbolic triangle add up to less than pi radians. In fact you can have triangles which have 3 angles of 0. Hence you can construct infinitely many distinct tessellations of the hyperbolic plane. You still have each edge/side touching only two faces but you have infinitely many Platonic solids.

In fact, your "Its because there's one side touching two faces" is irrelevant. Where two faces meet you obtain an edge, by definition in planar constructions. So regardless of the geometry you always have one edge touching two and only two faces in a tessellation. Hence your reason is completely and utterly wrong.

And the fact you're been telling other people to do research into this when you are obviously mind blowingly ignorant makes you all the more laughable.

phlogistician

02-16-10, 03:33 AM

I have only three things to say. Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks)!

sifreak21

02-16-10, 10:22 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee_KVA9x-GM&feature=sub

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmjFVP6qkiI&feature=video_response

what do you think about that anita? dyw u might like it to the guy is very well spoken

Anita Meyer

02-16-10, 10:58 AM

You still haven't shown us how it's possible to construct a C1 symmetry from a Td symmetry.

AlphaNumeric, Trippy and to who ever else that might be lurking,

Yes but, but, but as you all say - speaking from the horses rear in technicalities!

Yes, yes, yes I understand where all of you are coming from and what you are saying, but the fact still remains that the Tetrahedron is at the very basis of original form. We also witness this throughout all the natural world. Your average day person does not understand your technicalities Trippy… that is why it is always better to simplify things for the conceptual understanding of the masses, which are best demonstrated through pictures.

Here you can see below that the “atom” also has the tell tail signs of the Tetrahedron form:

Have a look at what I am saying here by these pictures:

http://gabrielbcn.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/atom-nucleus-quarks_300.jpg

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/2004/oct01/Images/quirky2.jpg

Three quarks make up each proton and each neutron. Protons and neutrons form the nucleus of an atom.

So as one can clearly see that the further one piers into the atom this 3-part nature (Tetrahedron) is evident.

And again, yes the tetrahedron form (3-part nature) is also in the water molecule - and obviously also very visible in the fractal geometry of a snow flake. These are obvious clues that any layman can see!

Now taking this conversation to an even higher level - If one can analyze it properly into their fractal mind… linking this tetrahedron (3-part nature) to G-d. The first place to witness this linkage in directly in the Bible itself. Right smack in the faces of all of us in Genesis 1:1 where it says that G-d created the Heaven and the Earth. If we take the very first HEBREW word of that sentence (which is the Hebrew word Barashith - meaning in the beginning) and break the word down in half we get two words (Bara & shith) which means Bara (created) and shith (six). This means “created six“! Now if one is familiar with this it is symbolizing two interlinking tetrahedrons forming a Star of David pattern. Additionally the Hebrew word Barashith is comprised of 6 Hebrew letters (בראשית). Now if one really wants to get technical about this they can analyze the first word again, but this time by just the first 3 Hebrew letters which are B,R,A (and no, not a female bra :)). The B stands for the word Ben (which means Son), the R stands for the word Ruach (which means Spirit), and the A stands for the word Abah (which means Father). So we now have the 3-part nature of the Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) within the first 3 letters of the Hebrew Bible which was given (translated) to Moses from G-d Himself. Now what becomes even more spectacular is when the entire verse of Genesis 1:1 is mathematically added up (in Gamatria) it equates to 3.14 (Pi).

But I don’t think any of this can be absorbed by the close minded person. No I expect that several people here in particular (they know who they are) will surmount to racially discriminate against the Hebrew language by making fun of the words I’ve used, which let me remind you is still racial and religious discrimination against the Jewish race, the language, the writing and its people! And since I've now said this they will probably resort to mocking in some other way.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

spidergoat

02-16-10, 11:11 AM

So, should we take the Bible literally, as the orthodox say, or should we look at it as encoded geometry? If you cannot convince a skeptic, perhaps you should consider that your reasoning is far-fetched to say the least. At most, you are inventing connections where none exist. Even if the original authors meant for someone to figure out that taking the words apart will reveal geometry, there is nothing about geometry itself that proves a God. I have a word for you: שפיות

Dywyddyr

02-16-10, 11:13 AM

Yes but, but, but as you all say - speaking from the horses rear in technicalities!
Whereas you simply speak from the horse's rear without understanding the technicalities.

but the fact still remains that the Tetrahedron is at the very basis of original form.
It is not a fact, it's merely your supposition.

Here you can see below that the “atom” also has the tell tail signs of the Tetrahedron form:
That is not a tetrahedron. :rolleyes:

So as one can clearly see that the further one piers into the atom this 3-part nature (Tetrahedron) is evident.
You need FOUR points to define a tetrahedron.

linking this tetrahedron (3-part nature) to G-d.
There's two suppositions in that sentence: you're assuming a tetrahedron and you're assuming god exists.

No I expect that several people here in particular (they know who they are) will surmount to racially discriminate against the Hebrew language by making fun of the words I’ve used, which let me remind you is still racial and religious discrimination against the Jewish race, the language, the writing and its people!
And you remain clueless. It is not racial discrimination to point out that your nonsensical assertions are, in fact, nonsensical.
If your claim that making comments about a language is racial discrimination then you are guilty of discriminating against everyone other than Jews for the claim that their language isn't actually theirs but merely a "knock-off" of Hebrew.

Anita Meyer

02-16-10, 11:24 AM

Dyw,

Your condition is worse than blindness!

Dywyddyr

02-16-10, 11:29 AM

Dyw,
Your condition is worse than blindness!
Yet one more (false) assumption on your part.
You started with the unprovable assumption that god exists and ignored everything that disagreed with that assumption (or misrepresented it) and took only what would support your pre-formed conclusion (even to the extent of twisting facts to make them fit).
And you seem not to realise that's what you've done, yet you have gall (and unmitigated ignorance) to accuse me of blindness. :rolleyes:

There's an old saying from some fairly famous book or other: it's about eyes, motes and beams. I think it's more than apt in this case.

quantum_wave

02-16-10, 11:35 AM

... I have a word for you: שפיותSpidergoat, I don't even know how to look that up :shrug:, so I hope you will provide the translation.

Dyw,

Your condition is worse than blindness!Anita, I have to say I'm not reading any of the posts very carefully but it is hard not to notice that this is a hot thread. I see that talk about geometric forms, especially the tetrahedron. Take a minute and give me an idea of how you employ those very basic forms to the primordial language. How do the forms come into play in the path to understanding the divine intention in the letters?

AlphaNumeric

02-16-10, 11:39 AM

AlphaNumeric, Trippy and to who ever else that might be lurking,

Yes but, but, but as you all say - speaking from the horses rear in technicalities!
No, I am not 'talking from the horses rear', what I have said is correct. An edge, in any surface formed of polygons, is defined as the line where two different polygons meet (I am willing to make this more specific if you wish). You claimed that it follows that because two faces meet at an edge then there are 5 Platonic solids. This is not true. You cannot derive from that statement alone that only 5 such solids exist. Yes, it is required in order to do the work required to prove 5 such solids but you need other things, not least a basic understanding of spherical geometry. The fact different geometries, which include the definition of an edge being where two faces meet, do not result in only 5 regular tessellations of the kind seen in Platonic solids demonstrates your claim is wrong.

Correcting you on something which you have incorrectly stated isn't 'speaking from the horses rear in technicalities'. You've gotten all upset with people for stating you're a lapsed jew. You correct someone on a statement of fact. I'm doing the same to you, correcting something you incorrectly claimed. I picked geometry because I know a bit of it, just as Trippy corrects you on chemistry because he knows a bit of it.

And by 'a bit' I mean I make my living doing it.

Yes, yes, yes I understand where all of you are coming from and what you are saying, but the fact still remains that the Tetrahedron is at the very basis of original form. We also witness this throughout all the natural world.
This isn't true. The natural world is examined in the sciences of chemistry, biology and physics. Trippy is a chemist and disagrees with you. I'm a physicist and I disagree with you. You are telling us things about our areas of (bordering on) expert knowledge when you know nothing of said areas other than what Google finds for you. I don't deny that the geometry of tetrahedral structures does come up a lot in nature and is used a lot in mathematical modelling of nature but that doesn't make them somehow 'the very basis of original form'.

Your average day person does not understand your technicalities Trippy… that is why it is always better to simplify things for the conceptual understanding of the masses, which are best demonstrated through pictures.
So you think that because people who haven't studied science might not understand the details its okay for you to essentially lie and to then continue lying when faced with people who know more than 'your average day person'. I understand that sometimes its easier to skim the details of something when talking to someone who doesn't know much about a topic but you're arguing about science with scientists. I am certain Trippy (and plenty of others, including myself) has simplified things for you because you obviously do not have a beyond layperson's understanding of science. In fact you're worse, you are wilfully ignoring science in order to avoid a clash with your acceptance of a particular holy book. If you know more science than you've thus far displayed demonstrate it, don't hold back. You're talking to people with beyond high school education in science and if you know the technical details you should not need to gloss over them on our account. If you continue to post as you do you will only continue to affirm people's view that you don't know even high school science.

As a side note and more of a personal comment I have no problem with faith. I don't believe in a deity but I don't mind people who do provided they don't then use it as an excuse to be deliberately ignorant. An evolutionary biologist can believe in a god but it doesn't have to clash with his work. Its when he says "The Bible says evolution doesn't exist therefore I refuse to read anything which contradicts that" that I get peeved. Deliberately keeping yourself ignorant of the world around you is one of the most intellectually despicable things a person can do. Not everyone has time to read plenty of books but that's different to going out of your way to avoid information about the universe simply because it might clash with your beliefs. After all, if God/Jehovah/Allah/Santa/Elvis created all of the universe and you in his image, endowing you with self awareness and intelligence, surely to avoid learning about all his Creation using the tools (your mind) He has provided you is a horrific dishonour to Him?

Anita Meyer

02-16-10, 11:39 AM

And you remain clueless. It is not racial discrimination to point out that your nonsensical assertions are, in fact, nonsensical.
If your claim that making comments about about a language is racial discrimination then you are guilty of discriminating against everyone other than Jews for the claim that their language isn't actually theirs but merely a "knock-off" of Hebrew.

You’ve done it again, by saying their language isn't actually theirs but merely a "knock-off" of Hebrew. A “knock off” hu? This again is cutting me down being you are assuming I don’t know the language. I could also surmise out of your hatred for me derived from the many posts here that you are referring to a literal Nazi mentality “knock off” (as in killing)!

You are even more arrogant than I previously though. Either arrogant or just plain stupid!

Either way, please stop responding to my posts!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

spidergoat

02-16-10, 11:40 AM

I don't speak Hebrew, but שפיות is supposed to be a translation of "insane".

Trippy

02-16-10, 11:48 AM

AlphaNumeric, Trippy and to who ever else that might be lurking,

Yes but, but, but as you all say - speaking from the horses rear in technicalities!

Yes, yes, yes I understand where all of you are coming from and what you are saying, but the fact still remains that the Tetrahedron is at the very basis of original form. We also witness this throughout all the natural world. Your average day person does not understand your technicalities Trippy… that is why it is always better to simplify things for the conceptual understanding of the masses, which are best demonstrated through pictures.

Here you can see below that the “atom” also has the tell tail signs of the Tetrahedron form:

Have a look at what I am saying here by these pictures:

http://gabrielbcn.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/atom-nucleus-quarks_300.jpg

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/2004/oct01/Images/quirky2.jpg

Three quarks make up each proton and each neutron. Protons and neutrons form the nucleus of an atom.

Still ignoring counter points then?
Quarks are not atoms.
Protons are not atoms.
Neutrons are not atoms.

They are subatomic particles.

They don't even 'look' like what's in that picture, it's just a stylized representation to make understanding them a little easier.

Dywyddyr

02-16-10, 11:50 AM

You’ve done it again, by saying their language isn't actually theirs but merely a "knock-off" of Hebrew. A “knock off” hu?
Was your claim not that all languages are derived from this "divine" original?

This again is cutting me down being you are assuming I don’t know the language.
Wrong again. Your knowledge of that language (as a speaker) is not in doubt (so far), but your "knowledge" of its origins and relationship to other languages is not only in doubt but has already been shown to be erroneous.

I could also surmise out of your hatred for me derived from the many posts here that you are referring to a literal Nazi mentality “knock off” (as in killing)!
Oops, you assume I hate. Not true.
And no, how does one "kill a language"? Especially as it is self-evident that the languages you referred to are not dead.
Knock-off - cheap copy, derivative of the original.

6. Informal To copy or imitate, especially without permission: knocking off someone else's ideas.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/knock+off

You are even more arrogant than I previously though. Either arrogant or just plain stupid!
Since I'm far from stupid I'll accept arrogant. However it's an earned arrogance, especially when I come up against such as you: I know what I'm talking about, you simply make things up to support your belief.

Either way, please stop responding to my posts!
I'll stop responding to your posts once (if ever) you stop posting arrant and specious nonsense.

Anita Meyer

02-16-10, 12:48 PM

Dyw,

No please stop responding permanently to me since there is a fine line between what is hatred/racial in your posts to which is then dwindled down into mocking with stupidity remarks against the Judeo-Christian religion. Additionally moving this thread from the “Religion” thread to the pseudoscience thread. How much more can you degrade religion?

Remember I asked you to prove you love your Mother?

If you don’t agree with me or like my religious beliefs, simply stop posting to me!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Stryder

02-16-10, 12:49 PM

You’ve done it again, by saying their language isn't actually theirs but merely a "knock-off" of Hebrew. A “knock off” hu? This again is cutting me down being you are assuming I don’t know the language. I could also surmise out of your hatred for me derived from the many posts here that you are referring to a literal Nazi mentality “knock off” (as in killing)!

You are even more arrogant than I previously though. Either arrogant or just plain stupid!

Either way, please stop responding to my posts!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Usually I let the threads go their course in Pseudoscience with little interaction. I suppose you could say that the scientific course here is based on Darwins "Survival of the Fittest". If a subject can survive and not be ridiculed for it's ridiculous nature, then it has the opportunity to be revived as being a potentially scientific topic.

For the most part however threads rarely achieve this level of sophistication and they either die a death through being an exhausted discourse or they find thereway to the murky depths of the Cesspool.

However obviously this whole "someone said JEW" crap really has to stop. Okay a persons Jewish fair enough, end of discourse, it's off topic (albeit pseudoscience is more about Fringe sciences than reworks of Religious mumbo-jumbo)

Incidentally in the English language, "To knock-off" something doesn't just mean to kill, it also means to steal. In fact this is proven with the "Are you a Knock-Off Nigel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TbqBPmInjQ)" commercials.

Incidentally there is also the term "Knock it off", which means quit with the slanging matches and innuendo's before somebody has to put a lockdown.

spidergoat

02-16-10, 12:50 PM

You can love things that don't exist. Love of the idea of God doesn't prove that there is a God.

Dywyddyr

02-16-10, 12:59 PM

No please stop responding permanently
As said: not until you stop posting nonsense. It's a public forum, anyone is as free to post as anyone else.

me since there is a fine line between what is hatred/racial in your posts
Please learn the difference between pointing out that you are (grossly) in error and actually hating you. For the record I don't hate you (or even your "ideas": it simply saddens me that someone, anyone, could be so far of the track and not realise it).

to which is then dwindled down into mocking with stupidity remarks against the Judeo-Christian religion.
List one unfounded "stupidity remark" against the religion that I have made. (Or is this going to be yet one more false claim?)

Additionally moving this thread from the “Religion” thread to the pseudoscience thread. How much more can you degrade religion?
Mainly because you called upon science, and claim to be using science, to "prove" the bible.

If you don’t agree with me or like my religious beliefs, simply stop posting to me!
Wrong again: when you invoke science (incorrectly at every turn as you do) then it deserves to be pointed out that you actually are incorrect.

Anita Meyer

02-16-10, 12:59 PM

AlphaNumeric,

Yes I can understand your viewpoint about science and being technical. Its not that I don’t understand what you are saying, because I do. I am literally burnt out in this area. I don’t have time to talk technicalities or to cite (from other scientists) their thesis‘s. I have moved from the technicality era to seeing the whole picture - try that one, and then try explaining it. You know this is one of the reasons why the Bible (especially Jesus) speaks in parables… because it was meant to be understood “conceptually” by all people, not just a certain sect of technically (upper echelon so to speak) scientific people. For me the simplest terms usually work the best.

http://gabrielbcn.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/atom-nucleus-quarks_300.jpg

Still ignoring counter points then?
Quarks are not atoms.
Protons are not atoms.
Neutrons are not atoms.

They are subatomic particles.

They don't even 'look' like what's in that picture, it's just a stylized representation to make understanding them a little easier.

Yes, but did you read what I posted directly underneath the picture?

It said:
Three quarks make up each proton and each neutron. Protons and neutrons form the nucleus of an atom. Its obvious from the picture above I was referring to the 1st atom picture before its broken down into the smaller parts of the 3 quarks.

Look AN, all I’m trying to show here is that there is a 3-part nature that is tied into the Tetrahedron form. Yes you are technically correct on all the things that you had said, but you really do not need to complicate things just to point out that you are opinionated correctly.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Dywyddyr

02-16-10, 01:02 PM

Look AN, all I’m trying to show here is that there is a 3-part nature that is tied into the Tetrahedron form.
One more time:
You need FOUR points to define a tetrahedron.

Yes you are technically correct on all the things that you had said, but you really do not need to complicate things just to point out that you are opinionated correctly.
It's to point out that YOU are "opinionated" incorrectly.

AlphaNumeric

02-16-10, 01:40 PM

Remember I asked you to prove you love your Mother?
But unlike God there's evidence his mother exists.

If you don’t agree with me or like my religious beliefs, simply stop posting to me!
That's the spirit! When you don't like what people say, don't listen! I guess that's why the person who started the crack pot right wing bigoted ignorance that is Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page) is also responsible for a recent surge in home schooling in the US. Don't like evolution? Prefer creationism? Can't justify your point of view via scientific methodology? Then home school your kids! That way you get to pass on your ignorance!

Its not that I don’t understand what you are saying, because I do. I am literally burnt out in this area.
I do not for one nanosecond believe what you just said. I don't think you know any science or mathematics. Do you think you know enough to pass final year undergraduate exams in any area you've talked about, like chemistry, physics or mathematics?

I don’t have time to talk technicalities or to cite (from other scientists) their thesis‘sBullshit. Talking technicalities is easier and quicker as you can convey precise meanings to people who understand the details in a quick manner. This is obvious given the fact experts use technical jargon as its the most efficient and clear way to convey ideas to one another. For instance, if I say "M is Calabi-Yau" to a string theorist they know that M is 2n dimensional complex manifold which has a closed Kahler form, is Ricci flat and has SU(n) holonomy. Much quicker! If I had to explain it to a lay person I'd have to give that longer definition and then define all the other terminology I used, like 'closed', 'Kahler form', 'Ricci flat', 'SU(n)', 'holonomy'. Before you know it what was 4 words is a page. Then 10 pages, then 50 pages, then an entire mathematics degree and masters. That is how much longer correctly conveying information to laypeople takes than to other well educated specialists.

The very fact technical terminology is used by people working in a particular field means its the fastest method of communicating science. To say "I don't have time to use technical terms" is nonsense. I take 10 times longer to explain my work to a lay person than a physicist.

Plus you have written a book, which takes a long time. To claim you didn't have time to talk technical is nonsense. If you were to write a book aimed at convincing scientists you're right you should learn the correct terminology, use it and also cite previous work properly. If you have time to write a book you have time to do that. To claim otherwise is to be dishonest and implies you neither know the terminology nor the mainstream view.

I have moved from the technicality era to seeing the whole picture - try that one, and then try explaining it
You're deluding yourself. You haven't shown any understanding even expected of high school students. Why should anyone believe you can see 'the whole picture' when you can't grasp the details?

Look AN, all I’m trying to show here is that there is a 3-part nature that is tied into the Tetrahedron form. Except a tetrahedron has 4 vertices, not 3, so quarks can't form such a shape. You have taken a dumbed down simplified picture of an area of physics you don't know anything about and made a very tenuous analogy which isn't even correct in your simplified case!

Trippy

02-16-10, 01:43 PM

Look AN, all I’m trying to show here is that there is a 3-part nature that is tied into the Tetrahedron form. Yes you are technically correct on all the things that you had said, but you really do not need to complicate things just to point out that you are opinionated correctly.

Firstly, you're quoting my post, not Alphanumerics.
Secondly "I don't have time to talk technicalities" is a dodge, plan and simple. If you want your ideas accepted, you're going to have to make time.
Finally, pointing out facts is not complicating things.

If you don't want to talk facts, then I suggest you shouldn't be on a science forum.

Anita Meyer

02-16-10, 02:07 PM

Anita, I have to say I'm not reading any of the posts very carefully but it is hard not to notice that this is a hot thread. I see that talk about geometric forms, especially the tetrahedron. Take a minute and give me an idea of how you employ those very basic forms to the primordial language. How do the forms come into play in the path to understanding the divine intention in the letters?

Yes QW now you will get a good idea about this, and I hope that everyone else reading will also.

The Tetrahedron form is Pi (3.14) and as I’ve shown it appears in all of the natural world such as in crystals (as shown in pictures above), and even down to the atom and its particles (also shown in the pictures above). Pi can also be mathematically calculated in Genesis 1:1 (as I’ve also revealed in a previous recent posting) Now Pi (some say Phi) works around the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Mean Spiral. These units of measure are different mathematical units of growth, but they are in cahoots and conspire with each other. They are in a state of relationship and association with each other. One can see these sequences in nature that instructs all living things when deciding how many units to grow next such as in a trees branches and a plants leaves. This series (of adding some quantity) can be seen everywhere in nature. This series is what has come to be called by several names, the numbers of the Fibonacci sequence also (regarded in conjunction with Phi/Pi), increase at a rate equal to oscillating around the Golden Mean Spiral. The Fibonacci sequence goes like this: 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,… (add the last two numbers together to get the next number 233. The Golden Section numbers are 0.61803 and 1.61803. The Golden String is 1011010110110101101... A sequence of 0’s and 1’s that is closely related to the Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Section.

Now QW, when we analyze the very first Hebrew letter of the Bible which is the letter B (from the first word - Barashith). Which looks like this:

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/stickyj/HebrewBet.jpg

Now when we take this Hebrew letter and spiral a wire around it (pictures are in my book) in such a way that exhibits a similar unit of growth (where it starts out with a small hoop and then gradually grows into a bigger hoop and than again a third hoop (which is a mathematical unit of growth similar to the ones mentioned in the paragraph above). When we remove this wire form and turn it around in different angles we can begin to see that all the other 22 Hebrew letters become visible depending on the angle one looks at it. For instance if we take this spiral form of the Hebrew letter B and turn it upside down we now have the Hebrew letter T. Another words this “one prototype form“, forms all the 22 Hebrew letters. No other writing in the world does this!

Which to my understanding shows valuable evidence of an intelligence behind the design. Apparently the same synergizing design found in all of the natural world (as explained above). Another words QW, we have Divine Design thus authenticating every word of the Hebrew Bible.

What G-d is in theory, man must learn through practice (therefore study Torah/Bible).

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

spidergoat

02-16-10, 02:22 PM

The more parsimonious explanation, that the Hebrews invented the letters, is the better theory. There is no reason they could not have manupulated letters in that way. You said yourself that the mathematical diagrams were not present in the letters, but were traced on top of them by the author. So, the person who already knew about this kind of math applied that geometry to forms that don't represent them in the first place.

Dywyddyr

02-16-10, 02:23 PM

The Tetrahedron form is Pi (3.14)
What do you mean by "the form (a solid shape) is pi (a number)"?

and as I’ve shown it appears in all of the natural world such as in crystals (as shown in pictures above), and even down to the atom and its particles (also shown in the pictures above).
No you haven't.

Pi can also be mathematically calculated in Genesis 1:1 (as I’ve also revealed in a previous recent posting)
But not proven.

Now Pi (some say Phi) works around the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Mean Spiral.
One more time: pi is NOT Phi. They are different numbers.

These units of measure are different mathematical units of growth
No they aren't.

the numbers of the Fibonacci sequence also (regarded in conjunction with Phi/Pi)
Wrong.

Now when we take this Hebrew letter and spiral a wire around it (pictures are in my book) in such a way that exhibits a similar unit of growth (where it starts out with a small hoop and then gradually grows into a bigger hoop and than again a third hoop (which is a mathematical unit of growth similar to the ones mentioned in the paragraph above). When we remove this wire form and turn it around in different angles we can begin to see that all the other 22 Hebrew letters become visible depending on the angle one looks at it. For instance if we take this spiral form of the Hebrew letter B and turn it upside down we now have the Hebrew letter T. Another words this “one prototype form“, forms all the 22 Hebrew letters. No other writing in the world does this!
Total bunk.

Which to my understanding shows valuable evidence of an intelligence behind the design.
Which simply demonstrates how poor your "understanding" really is.

Another words QW, we have Divine Design thus authenticating every word of the Hebrew Bible.
More bunk.

AlphaNumeric

02-16-10, 02:31 PM

The Tetrahedron form is Pi (3.14)Wrong. Firstly, pi isn't 3.14, secondly Kings 7:23 says pi=3 (and if they were rounding off to the nearest cubit it should have been 31 cubits, not 30) and thirdly a tetrahedron is formed by the same vertices which are the opposite corners in a square.

Please explain precisely how pi comes into it.

and as I’ve shown it appears in all of the natural world such as in crystals (as shown in pictures above), and even down to the atom and its particles (also shown in the pictures above).No, circles and tetrahedra appear in some places in the natural world, not all of them. Giving a few (dubious) examples doesn't prove your claim. You're logic is akin to "Paul is black. Paul is a man. Therefore all men are black".

Pi can also be mathematically calculated in Genesis 1:1And yet Kings 7:23 says pi=3, which is wrong. You are simply extracting whatever you want from the Bible by using flawed methods. The results you claim are only worth listening to if they work only for the Bible. This was seen with the Bible code, which magically works with any sufficiently lengthy book.

Now Pi (some say Phi) works around the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Mean Spiral.Well done, you just proved I was right to say 'Bullshit' about your 'burning out' on this stuff. Phi and Pi are NOT THE SAME NUMBER. Phi is the golden ratio. More technically, \tan \frac{\pi}{4} = 1 and \phi^{2} - \phi - 1 =0. If you'd bothered to do ANY reading you're know they are different.

One can see these sequences in nature that instructs all living things when deciding how many units to grow next such as in a trees branches and a plants leaves. This series (of adding some quantity) can be seen everywhere in natureYou keep talking about 'nature' yet you've made it clear you're not actually familiar with nature, as several scientists in this thread keep telling you. Appearing in some places in nature doesn't mean they appear everywhere.

Another words QW, we have Divine Design thus authenticating every word of the Hebrew Bible.
Do you believe that the Earth and everything else in the universe is less than 10,000 years old? After all, if you take the Bible literally it is. Do you believe humans can live to more than 900 years old? Why not now? Do you believe slavery is right? Do you believe everyone is descended from the people on the Ark? Do you believe we're made by an intelligent designer (who is all knowing and all powerful) in 'his own image'?

If so, do you believe God buried dinosaur bones to 'trick' us? Do you believe he set up radioactive elements in the Earth to appear exactly as if its billions of years old? Do you believe he set the DNA of all animals to show descent from a common ancestor? Do you believe he, an all knowing all powerful being, created our bodies in such a way to be easily broken and with poorly 'designed' mechanisms like our knees and, yes, eyes*. Why doesn't all human DNA show a common set of ancestors (ie those on the Ark) some time in the last 10,000 years, but instead more than 180,000 years ago.

*By which I mean we have a blind spot in each eye due to the retinal nerve and which can easily detach. Unlike say the octopus which doesn't have a blind spot and can't suffer from detached retinas due to having a better constructed eye ball.

You play numerology, are wilfully ignorant of basic science and delude yourself into drinking your own kool aid. Perhaps I've been watching too many Youtube videos on atheism vs creationism latelly but its people like you which make me glad I live in the UK. People here are, on average, a little more rational and a little less Bible thumping than in the US. Seeing people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and any other wilfully ignorant loud mouth jackass talk BS and lie again and again, while being clapped by a bunch of ignorant mid-westers makes me despair for the US.

Anita Meyer

02-16-10, 04:12 PM

I'm trying to understand our world. I don't deal well with petty materialists like some of you here! I deal with people who value spiritual and intellectual things.

Here is a simple solution to this whole conversation… If we're built from Spirals while living in a giant Spiral, then its quite obvious that everything that is within including everything we put our hands on is also infused with the Spiral.

http://www.adishakti.org/images/universe_image.jpg

This Spiral pattern also pertains to forming the Hebrew letters (as I pointed out in my previous posting here). A written writing that was said to have been inscribed by the finger of G-d in Exodus 31:18 - When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of G-d.

It's fair to say I'm stepping out on a limb here while trying to explain this, but I am on the edge and that's where it happens. :)

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Dywyddyr

02-16-10, 04:24 PM

I'm trying to understand our world.
And failing. Making things up will not help you understand anything.

I don't deal well with petty materialists like some of you here! I deal with people who value spiritual and intellectual things. And there is another another false assumption. We are intellectuals, you merely think you are. What "spiritual" things require dealing with?

Here is a simple solution to this whole conversion… If we're built from Spirals while living in a giant Spiral, then its quite obvious that everything that is within including everything we put our hands on is also infused with the Spiral.
How is that a "simple solution"?
We are no more "built from spirals" than we are built from cornflakes.

This Spiral pattern also pertains to forming the Hebrew letters (as I pointed out in my previous posting here).
As you incorrectly pointed out.

A written writing that was said to have been inscribed by the finger of G-d in Exodus 31:18 - When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of G-d.
So what?
Just because the bible says it does not make it true.

It's fair to say I'm stepping out on a limb here while trying to explain this, but I am on the edge and that's where it happens. :)
No, you're way over the edge and nearly out of sight. It's more drivel.

Trippy

02-16-10, 04:26 PM

noodler

02-16-10, 04:27 PM

Maybe you could explain this spiral, in that case
http://www.stefanides.gr/Html/why_logarithm_files/why_logorithm.gif

Dywyddyr

02-16-10, 04:42 PM

Because I'm seeing a different pattern emerging involving spheres as being fundamental.
I can certainly see a great similarity between Anita's argument and a profusion of spheres.

noodler

02-16-10, 04:46 PM

Right, the message here is: "Never buy a suit from off a rack"

And that's direct from the FOG hisself.

Trippy

02-16-10, 04:49 PM

Maybe you could explain this spiral, in that case
http://www.stefanides.gr/Html/why_logarithm_files/why_logorithm.gif

I'm not interested in getting into trivial technicalities with you, you're just trying to complicate the issue and make it inaccessable to lay people. The truth is right there in front of you, you're just too closed minded to see it.

:3

Besides which, a spiral is just the shape that's observed if you follow a point on the surface of a sphere as it grows and rotates (so the sphere is fundamental, because you need a sphere to decribe a sprial.

noodler

02-16-10, 04:52 PM

Um, I wasn't directing that at you, it was at Anita's post of a spiral galaxy. The idea there was her "we just have to look at an image of a spiral galaxy", compared with "we just have to look at a plot of a logarithmic function...

But not to worry, I'm sure Stefan has it well sorted.

Trippy

02-16-10, 04:54 PM

Um, I wasn't directing that at you, it was at Anita's post of a spiral galaxy.

Heh, sorry :)

James R

02-16-10, 07:59 PM

Anita Meyer:

Here you can see below that the “atom” also has the tell tail signs of the Tetrahedron form ...

Three quarks make up each proton and each neutron. Protons and neutrons form the nucleus of an atom.

A tetrahedron has FOUR vertices and FOUR faces. How does that relate to THREE quarks? Please explain.

And again, yes the tetrahedron form (3-part nature) is also in the water molecule - and obviously also very visible in the fractal geometry of a snow flake.

Where does the tetrahedron appear in snowflakes?

The Tetrahedron form is Pi (3.14) and as I’ve shown it appears in all of the natural world such as in crystals (as shown in pictures above), and even down to the atom and its particles (also shown in the pictures above). Pi can also be mathematically calculated in Genesis 1:1 (as I’ve also revealed in a previous recent posting) Now Pi (some say Phi) works around the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Mean Spiral.

You seem to have a basic confusion over the DIFFERENT numbers that mathematicians call PI and PHI.

PI (\pi) and PHI (\phi) are two letters of the Greek alphabet. In science they denote two different numbers.

PI is approximately 3.14159265...
PHI is approximately 1.61803...

The Golden Mean and the Fibonacci spiral are both related to the number that mathematicians call PHI. They have nothing to do with PI.

All I can say is I'm glad I didn't waste my time reading the first 20 pages of your book. I won't be reading ANY of it, since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to scientific matters. Chances are that your religious writings are no better.

Based on what you've posted here, I strongly advise ALL readers of sciforums NOT to buy or bother reading your book.

Let me know if you ever publish a revised edition that corrects your many errors. Hint: next time do some research before writing, or you'll end up making yourself look as uneducated and silly as you do here.

One other piece of advice: to continue to insist that your erroneous interpretation of things is correct when others have clearly and helpfully explained to you how you are in error is stupid dogmatism. I'd try to avoid that in future if I was you. It's a character trait that prevents you from learning anything.

Anita Meyer

02-16-10, 11:58 PM

Hi James, hope this helps...

In geometry, a tetrahedron (plural: tetrahedra) is a polyhedron (a geometric solid with flat faces and straight edges) composed of four triangular faces, three of which meet at each vertex.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Tetrahedron_vertfig.png/120px-

One side of it looks like this, and it is the basic shape that the other four sides take on. In other words it is an emulation of "one" original face which has three points:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:sGcIUy2qbSL5vM:http://www.indstate.edu/cirt

Thus anything that has 3 points in this manner can be called a Tetrahedron (otherwise known as a Triangle).

Where does the tetrahedron appear in snowflakes?

Look here and notice the triangle shapes within the snowflake (one can also see a Star of David shape). The reason the snowflake is shaped like this has to do with the water molecule itself, which as I’ve also shown in a previous posting here has three constituents to it.

http://questgarden.com/47/13/9/070516135658/images/snowflake1.jpg

You seem to have a basic confusion over the DIFFERENT numbers that mathematicians call PI and PHI.

PI () and PHI () are two letters of the Greek alphabet. In science they denote two different numbers.

PI is approximately 3.14159265...
PHI is approximately 1.61803...

The Golden Mean and the Fibonacci spiral are both related to the number that mathematicians call PHI. They have nothing to do with PI.

What I am merely saying (and please read very carefully here), I do not say that Pi, Phi, Golden Mean Spiral or Fibonacci sequence are the same (and there are also units of growth in nature as well with different names…) I am only saying that these numbers work synergistically with each other in nature (as I pointed out in an earlier post here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2479897&postcount=199

All I can say is I'm glad I didn't waste my time reading the first 20 pages of your book. I won't be reading ANY of it, since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to scientific matters. Chances are that your religious writings are no better.

I am truly sorry you feel that way James. Well if you don’t read it at least I corrected your blunders here. I am not trying to mislead anyone, I am merely trying to shed light. I wish you all the best James, I really do!

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

prometheus

02-17-10, 12:47 AM

I have to say I find it deeply offensive that Anita Meyer includes a link to a commercial website at the bottom of every post. That's spam in my book (which I'm not selling incidentally...)

Trippy

02-17-10, 01:05 AM

I have to say I find it deeply offensive that Anita Meyer includes a link to a commercial website at the bottom of every post. That's spam in my book (which I'm not selling incidentally...)

I had had very similar thoughts actually - I see little difference between what she's doing, and what a commercial spam-bot does.

Hence deliberately removing that section any time I quote her.

Dywyddyr

02-17-10, 01:56 AM

In geometry, a tetrahedron (plural: tetrahedra) is a polyhedron (a geometric solid with flat faces and straight edges) composed of four triangular faces, three of which meet at each vertex.
Which doesn't get away from the fact that four points are required to define a tetrahedron.

Thus anything that has 3 points in this manner can be called a Tetrahedron (otherwise known as a Triangle).
Also incorrect. A tetrahedron is a 3 dimensional construct (defined by four points), a triangle is a 2 dimensional construct (defined by three points).

I do not say that Pi, Phi, Golden Mean Spiral or Fibonacci sequence are the same
Lie:

Now Pi (some say Phi)
You have persistently conflated Pi and Phi.

I am truly sorry you feel that way James. Well if you don’t read it at least I corrected your blunders here.
No, you ignored James pointing out your blunders, and then compounded them.

I am not trying to mislead anyone
Either you are deliberately trying to mislead people or you truly are as uninformed as you appear to be.

I am merely trying to shed light.
No, to continue your metaphor: you have locked yourself in the basement during a power cut and you're claiming to be the only that can see the sun while the rest of us are outside actually looking at it.

phlogistician

02-17-10, 03:16 AM

Anita, Dywyddyr has been too much of a gentleman, but I have to say a big 'FUCK YOU' for accusing him of being a racist, when he is simply correcting your bad science. That accusation really is the last bastion of the scoundrel, as is your constant spamming of this forum with links to the work of fiction you are hawking.

Now, please stop twisting facts to fit you pet theory. Accept you are wrong on many counts. Learn from your mistakes, and go and have a think.

AlphaNumeric

02-17-10, 09:17 AM

I'm trying to understand our world. I don't deal well with petty materialists like some of you here! I deal with people who value spiritual and intellectual things.I have a PhD in theoretical physics, a degree in mathematics and I've helped teach physics undergraduates. You're going to struggle to find someone else on the forum with more relevant knowledge to the issue of geometry and its application to physics. Hell, I have a published paper with 'Geometry' in the title. All you're spouting is bullshit.

Then there's someone like Trippy, who has both academic knowledge in chemistry and makes his living by applying his knowledge and understanding of chemicals. He too thinks you're talking bullshit.

Every single person here who in some way works with the natural world, whose job it is to look at nature and understand it, says you're full of shit.

You didn't answer my questions. Do you think God deliberately set the universe such that every single observation says its billions of years old and we evolved from earlier life via natural selection? If we're made in Gods image why is our body made so badly? Why is 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the universe lethal to us? Why does nature seem to contradict the old testament/Torah? Why would God write 'the truth' down in the Torah yet make the universe seem like the Torah is false? It seems silly for God to make the universe 6000 years ago but in such a state as to appear 13.7 billion years old. Either the Torah is wrong or Gods a jackass.

Enmos

02-17-10, 09:20 AM

I had had very similar thoughts actually - I see little difference between what she's doing, and what a commercial spam-bot does.
Same here. She is advertising for and promoting her book.

Anita Meyer

02-17-10, 11:49 AM

AlphaNumeric,

You didn't answer my questions. Do you think God deliberately set the universe such that every single observation says its billions of years old and we evolved from earlier life via natural selection? If we're made in Gods image why is our body made so badly? Why is 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the universe lethal to us? Why does nature seem to contradict the old testament/Torah? Why would God write 'the truth' down in the Torah yet make the universe seem like the Torah is false? It seems silly for God to make the universe 6000 years ago but in such a state as to appear 13.7 billion years old. Either the Torah is wrong or Gods a jackass.

If I try and tackle any of these questions, I’m sure to get chastised in the eyes of religious infidels here. Which by the way, I do have answers for, but in your technical mind set I doubt you would understand them.

How about we just start here talking about the four fundamental forces that come into play both in the vastness of the cosmos and in the infinite smallness of atomic structures. Yes, everything we see around us is involved and we can see intelligent design. These four elemental forces are: Gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force.

For instance… Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe. One force being gravity and another the electromagnetic force. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. That would be very serious since atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms - meaning no life! Even from this standpoint, it is clear that our existence and life depend on the fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force.

BTW, I cite this from my book which is my thesis.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

spidergoat

02-17-10, 11:58 AM

The fine-tuning argument is bogus. I quote the Physicist Victor Stenger:

I have made a modest attempt to obtain some feeling for what a universe with different
constants would be like. Press and Lightman (1983) have shown that the physical properties of
matter, from the dimensions of atoms to the order of magnitude of the lengths of the day and
year, can be estimated from the values of just four fundamental constants (this analysis is slightly
different from Carr and Rees [1979 ]). Two of these constants are the strengths of the
electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions. The other two are the masses of the electron and
proton. Although the neutron mass does not enter into these calculations, it would still have a
limited range for there to be neutrons in stars, as discussed earlier.
I find that long-lived stars that could make life more likely will occur over a wide range of
these parameters. For example, if we take the electron and proton masses to be equal to their
values in our universe, an electromagnetic force strength having any value greater than its value in
our universe will give a stellar lifetime of more than 680 million years. The strong interaction
strength does not enter into this calculation. If we had an electron mass 100,000 times lower, the
proton mass could be as much as 1,000 times lower to achieve the same minimum stellar lifetime.
This is hardly fine-tuning.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

Dywyddyr

02-17-10, 12:08 PM

Which by the way, I do have answers for, but in your technical mind set I doubt you would understand them.
Two small point here:
You may have answers, but they are nowhere near being correct answers. You're doing the equivalent of answering "Tuesday" to the question "what is 2 plus 2?".
And no, you're also wrong on why we wouldn't understand them. The real reason is because they are specious contra-factual superstitious nonsense assertions with no foundation in, or connection to, the real world.

How about we just start here talking about the four fundamental forces
How about you actually answer questions that have been put to you instead of rabbiting of on yet one more subject in which you are largely clueless?
For example: why do persist in conflating Phi and Pi?

we can see intelligent design.
Only if you don't actually know anything.

BTW, I cite this from my book which is my thesis.
More evidence that your book isn't worth the paper it's written on.

AlphaNumeric

02-17-10, 01:08 PM

Which by the way, I do have answers for, but in your technical mind set I doubt you would understand them.
Absolutely pathetic cop out. If I said "I've proof God doesn't exist but if I told you I'd have to kill you" you'd say it was obvious I was lying and didn't have the proof. If you have answers you shouldn't have to tap dance around them, you should be able to just give them. You claimed you're 'burnt out' on mathematics and science but you haven't displayed that. If you're well versed in technical things then surely you can talk to me in a way which my 'technical mind set' would grasp?

You claim to have proof that the Hebrew holy book is the word of God yet if you can't provide it is it proof?

How about we just start here talking about the four fundamental forces that come into play both in the vastness of the cosmos and in the infinite smallness of atomic structures. Yes, everything we see around us is involved and we can see intelligent design. These four elemental forces are: Gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force.Atoms aren't infinitely small. And we don't see intelligent design everywhere in the four forces and in science. If that were the case don't you think there'd be a higher percentage of physicists believing in intelligent design than in the rest of the population? Instead very very few physicists believe in intelligent design. I work in a theoretical physics group in a university and no one in the group believes in intelligent design. Few even believe in God. So your claims about how the universe is clear evidence of intelligent design is patently false.

For instance… Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe. One force being gravity and another the electromagnetic force. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. That would be very serious since atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms - meaning no life! Even from this standpoint, it is clear that our existence and life depend on the fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force.
Do you really think such arguments hold water? Its the job of physicists to work out the range in which such things as the strength of forces can be in order to match experimental data! Do you think we don't know about such things? And yet it doesn't sway physicists. In fact, such arguments tend to only way those who are most ignorant of physics. Firstly, you assume the current configuration of forces is the only one which can support our form of life. I could go into the whole notion of dualities in physics but I imagine it'd be lost on you. Secondly, you assume our form of life is the only one which can be possible. Thirdly you assume that the strength of forces are determined in a random manner, not some dynamical process. Then of course you ignore the anthropic principle, that if they were different we'd not be around to ask why they are what they are. Then there's also the flawed logic of looking at quantities whose properties you don't fully understand and asking about probabilities. How can you ask about probabilities when you don't know the underlying mechanisms?

As it happens string theory demonstrates its possible to have huge numbers of different configurations of force strengths and still have the same physics. It also determines all force strengths via dynamical processes, not random assignment.

And to give you another example, consider picking a number between 0 and 1. The probability of picking an particular number is actually 0, as you have infinitely many choices yet the probability you pick some number is 1. I pick..... 0.3. No what's the odds of that? 0. Yet I picked it. Mathematics can be counter intuitive, the fact you don't grasp it doesn't mean we all have your short comings.

BTW, I cite this from my book which is my thesis.
As someone who defended his thesis a fortnight ago you are insulting myself and everyone with a PhD from a reputable university to call your joke 'a thesis'. My thesis was on the dualities in string theory I just mentioned. Yours is a farce.

Trippy

02-17-10, 02:19 PM

If I try and tackle any of these questions, I’m sure to get chastised in the eyes of religious infidels here.
http://weblog.sinteur.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/rofl128420417966490000.jpg

Which by the way, I do have answers for, but in your technical mind set I doubt you would understand them.
Cop-out.

How about we just start here talking about the four fundamental forces that come into play both in the vastness of the cosmos and in the infinite smallness of atomic structures. Yes, everything we see around us is involved and we can see intelligent design. These four elemental forces are: Gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force.

For instance… Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe. One force being gravity and another the electromagnetic force. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. That would be very serious since atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms - meaning no life! Even from this standpoint, it is clear that our existence and life depend on the fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force.
[Sales SPAM removed - better watch out for those vikings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE)]

I laugh at your intelligent design, and counter with my Anthropic Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle).
http://allthatismanfred.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/evil-laugh.jpg

Anita Meyer

02-17-10, 02:20 PM

Dywyddyr

02-17-10, 02:23 PM

Could you display your ignorance in any better fashion?
You do know what "theory" means in science don't you?
Let me guess... no you don't.

Trippy

02-17-10, 02:28 PM

Trippy

02-17-10, 02:36 PM

http://ouroboros.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/venn.jpg

Anita Meyer

02-17-10, 03:08 PM

Typical (from the pictures posted above). When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

Trippy

02-17-10, 03:15 PM

Typical (from the pictures posted above). When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

The only person that's lost anything here is you.
You've been given ample opportunities to expound further on your ideas, you haven't, and you've also avoided answering direct questions.

More to the point, How are A Lamb, An Elephant, and Doctor Horrible's Singalong Blog even remotel slanderous?

Jesus was the lamb of God, are you saying that Jesus was slanderous?

Trippy

02-17-10, 03:24 PM

Quite aside from the fact that the Internet isn't slanderous it's libelous.

Dywyddyr

02-17-10, 03:30 PM

Typical (from the pictures posted above). When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
So you regard posting nonsense, avoiding questions and lying as "winning"?
When did this turn into a "debate"?
You have managed to squirm away from even the semblance of refuting our points and you thinks it's a debate? :rolleyes:

AlphaNumeric

02-17-10, 04:26 PM

All farts in the wind alphanumeric!

String theory is still only a theory!
To this day, its still only a theory of what a black hole is?
Evolution still remains a theory which cannot be proven!
The origins of all life is still in question?
The Universe is still in question?
All scientific experiments have failed at creating life consisting of all “left” amino acids.

Science has never told us the origin of anything!

The jury is out on your case!And you've demonstrated you don't even understand science by saying "only a theory". Evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact. What the 'theory' is the method by which evolution occurs, ie via natural selection, just as the 'theory of gravity' is not the idea gravity exists but the mechanism by which gravity acts. To trot out the 'its only a theory' ignorant crap is to demonstrate you haven't read a single book on science.

Even the retardedly stupid Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use) are not so stupid as to try the "its only a theory" nonsense. Well done, you're thicker than them, which is akin to saying you're thicker than dog muck.

The origins of all life is still in question?
The Universe is still in question?
All scientific experiments have failed at creating life consisting of all “left” amino acids.

Science has never told us the origin of anything!
So because science has the intellectual honesty to say "We don't know" we should default to people who are intellectually dishonest, like yourself, and who make up an answer to questions they don't know the answer to?

And I notice you couldn't answer any of my questions about you actually providing the proof you claim or showing your understand science. You delude yourself when you claim you're 'burnt out' on science. You couldn't pass a high school exam on it and yet you have the delusional ignorant arrogance to think you have any understanding of it. Its people like you who tar the image of so many millions of Americans by being the extremely vocal minority of ignorant anti-science, anti-rationality right wing morons. America produces so much of the cutting edge scientific research in the world yet the stereotypical view of Americans, in the eyes of us Europeans, is all too often the Bible thumping gun toting Fox news watching idiots which Sarah Palin was (and, unfortunately, is) the poster girl for. You are an insult to your country (as well as your species).

Trippy

02-17-10, 05:01 PM

Here's a question for you Anita.

Do you believe that Influenza is caused by a virus?

Trippy

02-17-10, 05:13 PM

Evolution compared to Gravity on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Evolution_compared_wi th_gravity)

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and probability of Abiogenesis calulations (http://visionperspective.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/lies-damned-lies-statistics-and-probability-of-abiogenesis-calculations-ian-musgrave/)

James R

02-17-10, 06:40 PM

Hi Anita:

In geometry, a tetrahedron (plural: tetrahedra) is a polyhedron (a geometric solid with flat faces and straight edges) composed of four triangular faces, three of which meet at each vertex.

...

One side of it looks like this, and it is the basic shape that the other four sides take on.

Yes, its faces are triangles.

So, why does your book go on about the tetrahedron as the fundamental shape, when really you mean the triangle?

The important difference, by the way, is that a tetrahedron is a solid, 3-dimensional shape, while a triangle is a flat, 2-dimensional one. It will help you if you bear this difference in mind in future corrected editions of your book.

Thus anything that has 3 points in this manner can be called a Tetrahedron (otherwise known as a Triangle).

A tetrahedron and a triangle are no more the same than pi and phi are the same.

Is this now clear to you in light on my explanations?

What I am merely saying (and please read very carefully here), I do not say that Pi, Phi, Golden Mean Spiral or Fibonacci sequence are the same (and there are also units of growth in nature as well with different names…)

Well I'm glad you no longer say that, but you'll still need to correct your book where you say things like "Pi (which some call phi)".

It's good you came to a science forum, though, because now you're learning some real science.

String theory is still only a theory!

Before you put out the next edition of your book, it would be worth you finding out how scientists define the term "theory".

Evolution still remains a theory which cannot be proven!

Wrong. Evolution is given the scientific status of "theory" precisely because it has so much confirming evidence.

The origins of all life is still in question?
The Universe is still in question?

Nobody knows everything, Anita.

Science has never told us the origin of anything!

There's the big bang theory, but that's "just a theory", just like the theory of gravity. If you don't believe in gravity, Anita, I strongly advise that you don't try jumping off a cliff.

Jack_

02-17-10, 06:46 PM

And you've demonstrated you don't even understand science by saying "only a theory". Evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact. What the 'theory' is the method by which evolution occurs, ie via natural selection, just as the 'theory of gravity' is not the idea gravity exists but the mechanism by which gravity acts. To trot out the 'its only a theory' ignorant crap is to demonstrate you haven't read a single book on science.

Even the retardedly stupid Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use) are not so stupid as to try the "its only a theory" nonsense. Well done, you're thicker than them, which is akin to saying you're thicker than dog muck.

So because science has the intellectual honesty to say "We don't know" we should default to people who are intellectually dishonest, like yourself, and who make up an answer to questions they don't know the answer to?

And I notice you couldn't answer any of my questions about you actually providing the proof you claim or showing your understand science. You delude yourself when you claim you're 'burnt out' on science. You couldn't pass a high school exam on it and yet you have the delusional ignorant arrogance to think you have any understanding of it. Its people like you who tar the image of so many millions of Americans by being the extremely vocal minority of ignorant anti-science, anti-rationality right wing morons. America produces so much of the cutting edge scientific research in the world yet the stereotypical view of Americans, in the eyes of us Europeans, is all too often the Bible thumping gun toting Fox news watching idiots which Sarah Palin was (and, unfortunately, is) the poster girl for. You are an insult to your country (as well as your species).

Evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact.

So, please specify the exact recursive procedure to pass from chemicals to life.

If you cannot do this, then evolution is not a fact.

Let me head you off from illogic from the start.

Assume some DNA is constructed. Some claim this is constructing life.

However, any DNA needs a cell to operate. So, you will need to simultaneously create a cell while at the same time create the dna.

Trippy

02-17-10, 06:55 PM

Evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact.

So, please specify the exact recursive procedure to pass from chemicals to life.

If you cannot do this, then evolution is not a fact.

Let me head you off from illogic from the start.

Assume some DNA is constructed. Some claim this is constructing life.

However, any DNA needs a cell to operate. So, you will need to simultaneously create a cell while at the same time create the dna.

Oh, BS.
Evolution compared to Gravity on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Evolution_compared_wi th_gravity)

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and probability of Abiogenesis calulations (http://visionperspective.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/lies-damned-lies-statistics-and-probability-of-abiogenesis-calculations-ian-musgrave/)

Dywyddyr

02-17-10, 06:58 PM

Evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact.
Evolution takes place: that is a fact.
The exact mechanism by which it occurs is yet to be fully defined.

So, please specify the exact recursive procedure to pass from chemicals to life.
If you cannot do this, then evolution is not a fact.
Let me head you off from illogic from the start.
Yes, illogic...
Evolution takes place once life is already going.
Evolution is nothing to do with how life started.

Jack_

02-17-10, 07:15 PM

Evolution takes place: that is a fact.
The exact mechanism by which it occurs is yet to be fully defined.

Yes, illogic...
Evolution takes place once life is already going.
Evolution is nothing to do with how life started.

Typical.
Evolution is change yes.

But, it is a claimed recursive procedure from "big bang" to life.

So, show me the math otherwise, you do not have a fact.

Welcome to the "real" world.

Dywyddyr

02-17-10, 07:17 PM

Typical.
Evolution is change yes.
But, it is a claimed recursive procedure from "big bang" to life.
Nope. Evolution only occurs once life has started.

So, show me the math otherwise, you do not have a fact.
Welcome to the "real" world.
Riiight. :rolleyes:

Trippy

02-17-10, 07:21 PM

Typical.
Evolution is change yes.

But, it is a claimed recursive procedure from "big bang" to life.

So, show me the math otherwise, you do not have a fact.

Welcome to the "real" world.

Here you go:

Oh, BS.
Evolution compared to Gravity on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Evolution_compared_wi th_gravity)

Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and probability of Abiogenesis calulations (http://visionperspective.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/lies-damned-lies-statistics-and-probability-of-abiogenesis-calculations-ian-musgrave/)

Afraid of a little light reading?

James R

02-17-10, 07:28 PM

Jack_:

So, please specify the exact recursive procedure to pass from chemicals to life.

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

So, let me get this right. You think the theory of relativity is wrong AND you don't believe in evolution.

How many other well-established scientific theories do you not believe in?

Crunchy Cat

02-17-10, 07:29 PM

...
But, it is a claimed recursive procedure from "big bang" to life.
...

Big ol' strawman and not a new one at that. In all cases I have seen to date, a "believer" invents your position... that some nebuluous representative of science is issuing that claim. The theory of evolution only covers the adaptation of biological life. It does not cover the processes that resulted in initial life nor plantary formation, nor solar system formnation, nor galaxy formation, nor universe formation, ... etc.

Jack_

02-17-10, 07:44 PM

Jack_:

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

So, let me get this right. You think the theory of relativity is wrong AND you don't believe in evolution.

How many other well-established scientific theories do you not believe in?

I will train you on relativity.

On evolution, change is a fact.

But, that is not all of the theory of evolution.

So, for that part, why don't you give me a recursive function to develop life?

Jack_

02-17-10, 07:45 PM

Nope. Evolution only occurs once life has started.

Riiight. :rolleyes:

Nope. Evolution only occurs once life has started.

I am not going to educate you on this.

TOE contends life evolves from chemicals.

So, you are wrong.

Jack_

02-17-10, 07:48 PM

Big ol' strawman and not a new one at that. In all cases I have seen to date, a "believer" invents your position... that some nebuluous representative of science is issuing that claim. The theory of evolution only covers the adaptation of biological life. It does not cover the processes that resulted in initial life nor plantary formation, nor solar system formnation, nor galaxy formation, nor universe formation, ... etc.

OK, if you are willing to confess science does not believe that the BB occured and then galaxies and then life evolved from that, then fine.

State that.

Oh, once you state that, then you will need to explain instinct mathematically.

Jack_

02-17-10, 07:48 PM

Here you go:

Afraid of a little light reading?

what is your point here?

Jack_

02-17-10, 07:50 PM

Anita Meyer

02-17-10, 07:54 PM

Alphanumeric,

Its people like you who tar the image of so many millions of Americans by being the extremely vocal minority of ignorant anti-science, anti-rationality right wing morons. America produces so much of the cutting edge scientific research in the world yet the stereotypical view of Americans, in the eyes of us Europeans, is all too often the Bible thumping gun toting Fox news watching idiots which Sarah Palin was (and, unfortunately, is) the poster girl for. You are an insult to your country (as well as your species).

Well for one thing Sarah Palin and Fox news is a lot more heard (and apparently more informed) than you. And why do you think that is Alphanumeric? Could it possibly be that they are the only ones worth listening to, the only ones making sense and the only ones who truly tell it like it is. This is telling you something… that your ideologies and idiosyncrasies are outnumbered and short lived. The world is looking for answers, and your kind are not delivering them.

By the way if you haven’t noticed the world revolves around religion! Every day on the news and in the newspaper Israel is the center of attention. Always was and always will be. Despite what you believe, the reason for this is because it has always been about G-d and always will be! It has never been about science or you or me personally. Everything that we will ever need to know about our planet and the universe has already been answered for us in the Bible (this includes the stars, the planets, where we came from and where we are going). Science discovers the origin of nothing… and true science will always illuminate G-d‘s word! In the end I firmly believe that science will conduct us, step by step, through the whole range of history until we finally arrive back at G-d. Here is a famous quote by King Solomon found in Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 - What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, Look! This is something new? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html