Open Letter To Atheist-scientists And Their Followers Options

[Fremen Bryan]

Open letter to atheist-scientists and their followers
Filed under:

• Science and Technology

February 5, 2009 - 07:58
Created 4th February 2008, updated 7th February 2008

I recently read some of Richard Dawkin's rants against religion and belief in God. He's a relatively well-known scientist, so-called, that is convinced of his own theories being fit enough to explain the existence of life, which is incredibly arrogant to begin with.

He refers to belief in God as being mind-shrinking.

The idea of any sophisticated machinery, which is what life on this planet is, as Dawkins also well knows, having studied it at the gene-level, combining out of nothing by itself, is such a mind-boggling concept that it cannot be categorised as anything else than an extreme religion, based on theories alone and requiring blind belief - the very same substance that he himself mistakingly tries to use as a critique against believing [in] God.

He criticizes people who are not ready to debate a matter without being able to base it on facts. Yet, the idea of the planets in our solar system being on their stable course, providing us with stable days and nights, with clockwork accuracy, and the existence of a balanced system of life with a perpetual life-cycle, disturbed only by man, being formed out of nothingness and just based on a story, a theory, without any facts, makes him the target of his own critique.

Furthermore the study of genetics and biological machines, which is what life here is, shows that they were obviously designed and it is complete lunacy to believe they have randomly formed by themselves, with there being absolutely no proof available to back up the idea, whereas there is ample documented proof of God and His revelations, which is blindly ignored by people like Dawkins, who admits that he hasn't even bothered to study it.

Science itself dictates that entropy increases, and therefore that without a creative force, everything continuously tends to chaos and disorder, without exception. Out of nothingness, a perfectly interoperating system forming by itself without guidance is a stupefying concept and a religious one at that. Have you seen stones organising themselves together by chance, to build houses? It may sound like a simplistic question, but it is exactly, what these so-called scientists would like you to believe, but rather about the system of the universe, which is countless times more complex.

The so-called scientists refer to billions and zillions of years as if that explains designed patterns having formed out of nothing, but even basic combinations or structures having formed out of themselves, without the help of processes already set in motion such as nature and growth, remain to be proven (because they can not).

In science, facts are supposed to be provable. When one starts weaving up stories and fantasies about millions and zillions of years, and enters the realm of thought where "everything is possible, given enough time", even when it goes against conventional science itself, it is NOT science, but tales.

Think about robots forming out of nothingness by themselves. Consider the fact that humans are provably very sophisticated biological computers and robots, both at the macroscopic and microscopic cellular level, containing zillions of small machines that do certain tasks at each level, every one of them working in harmony to maintain a stable system. Consider that many organs and parts of the whole are critical, and without them the rest wouldn't function, thus they all need to be installed and formed at the very same time.

Richard Dawkins draws a comparison of the setting and studying life on this planet to a "detective entering the crime-scene after the act has already been committed", and simply because he thinks ill of the concept of an external Creator, he admits he dismisses it on that grounds alone, because he thinks he has got the better theory about it - what amazing arrogance.

Bible prophecy is FULL of facts to show that people have been given insight directly from God, and The Bible history also reveals a wealth of proof of The Creator.

Jesus said 2,000 years ago, that if any man doubts His words, they can be proven by living by them, and then one will KNOW whether they are true or whether He "came up with them Himself". The same is true today. Dawkins has admitted that he has not studied the subject.

People like Dawkins need to realize just how important it is for them to study and experiment what Jesus has told us, especially when they hold a stubbornly arrogant opinion that the matter is not even worth studying (and yet call themselves a "scientist" - hypocrites).

A good starting-point could be, to look at what kind of people we have running this planet, because they are the people who have the power to mess up our lives here.

Robert Muller, assistant secretary general with a 40-year career in the United Nations, is an openly declared Lucifer-worshipper. He believes that Lucifer is a positive principle and made a great act of sacrifice by descending to our planet. A total reversal of what we are taught in what Jesus told us to study, which is the Scriptures (Old Covenant), and what is in His Revelation about Lucifer having been a rebellious angel, drawing a whole group of stars with him in defiance to God and having been cast down on earth as a punishment.

Muller is not alone, and one can judge trees by their fruits. Besides from his openly professed faith in the evil side, others with him are more or less "in the closet", but their deeds speak more than words. George W. Bush, like his father, belong to a secret-society called Skull and Bones, which glorifies death, and their family has been proven to have been associated with the nazis that practise(d) the same, before, during and after World War II. To have a look at what goes on at the top levels of U.S. political elite, look up "Conspiracy of silence" and "Franklin coverup", to begin with.

There is volumenous documentation of the rottenness and evil going on at top levels everywhere, if one bothers to look.

They have stated their goals of population-reduction in manifestations such as the Georgia Guidestones, and also recorded in a number of books and papers from their so-called think-tanks.

It is said that we are currently using over 140% of the world's annual renewable natural resources, and these people are going to get rid of the human-cancer, or, useless eaters as they call the populace, and have it to themselves and then maintain power using vast technological superiority and all-pervasive surveillance and control grid, openly revealed by Zbigniew Brzezinski's Technotronic Era and built before your very eyes daily at increasing speed along with totalitarian police-state legislation in the name of fraudulent "War on Terror".

All this is documented and discoverable, and going into the details here would be a waste of space. An interested reader will find the facts, and failing that, I would be more than willing to share everything I know if somebody would ask, but, as is usually the case, the interest to study matters is not genuine, and the "scientific" approach is just a facade, and those who call themselves "scientific" appear to be very religious about their beliefs themselves.

But if one is to study exactly what is going on in our world, there should be an immediate realization that we are facing such monsters in power who hold the reins of power and wealth, that ONLY God can deliver us from what they are about to unleash on us, which is already picking up speed as they are shutting down the economies and initiating the greatest social cataclysm and worst times to ever happen on this planet.

The Bible, when one truly without preconceived ideas studies it, will reveal that God has told us already thousands of years ago that this would happen. Or would you say it was a pretty "good" guess to give the prophecy that an army of 200 million men will go into action in the end? I am referring to the available manpower of China, and 2,000 years ago when the Book of Revelation was written, an army of that size would obviously have been unthinkable. The prophecies are fitting in exact and in minute detail.

Once again, the ONLY way is to LIVE the teachings of Jesus, to find-out whether they are true or not.

Something to note is that God is the source of Love, Justice and all things Good. If one is drawn to the values of God, one will instantly find out that the state of affairs on our planet is far from His values. If one hungers for Justice, one will find out about an immense inequality, and should want to find out who it is that could set things straight with their power and resources, but chooses not to. And studying that path leads one to discover that there is a satanic cabal that has been at it for life-times, and will lead one to find-out again that only with God can any remedy be found.

If one doesn't feel the pull towards God's values, one will no doubt reject Him and His revelations and teachings off-hand just like Dawkins does, and not even bother to study who holds the power and resources, and find-out about the evil associations at the root of the power.

If one honestly wants to make a change for the better, it is impossible not to find out that at the highest level the power and money is held by Luciferian people, who insanely believe that evil is good, which should be a fairly disturbing idea, and lead one to find out what to do about it, discovering that the Lucifer-posse's power is simply so strong that only with God's help can it and will it be defeated.

To somebody who doesn't have a clue of the facts of the world, this may possibly seem like a rant out of another dimension, but I would like to emphasize that all this is hard reality, which is discoverable by truly scientific approach and study into RELEVANT matters in the world, at the core.

The Truth is out there.

http://jahtruth.net/

P.S. Comparison of DNA code/machinery to computer-programming:- http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

P.P.S. The Truth is certainly NOT with organized religion, "Christianity" (falsely so called), or priests. They have obscured the truth, the true history, for many millennia, and given The Bible and God a horrible reputation, undeservedly so.

P.P.P.S. Trying to make evolution and creation mutually exclusive is insane as well. We design programmes and machines with as great automation as possible. One must have really shrunk one's mind to think that an external, universal, creator of this universe wouldn't use a concept such as evolution to automate processes, after creating the basic models.

• blitzer's blog
• 1034 reads
• Printer-friendly version

[Sarielite]

This article has numerous misunderstandings of natural theory and knowledge. I'll address the overarching principles and then get into direct refutation.

Dawkins' position, and one of many other atheists (or disbelievers in the Big God hypothesis, like myself), is that if a divine creator doesn't need to exist for anything to take place, it's very likely that no such creator exists. In other words, if something can come about by accident, by natural arrangement, or intelligent action by beings within the constraints of the universe, then no god is needed, and by the simplicity principle (Occam's Razor), no god exists.

The scientific process, by its nature, is hostile to the existence of an all-powerful all-controlling creator. The scientific method requires falsifiability--there has to be an experiment that one could carry out that could potentially disprove the existence of god. For example, if I were to test Newton's theory of gravity, I could drop a series of differently-weighted balls from a great height and measure with a stopwatch their descent. I could reasonably disprove Newton's observations of gravity by performing that experiment. No analogous test exists for the existence or nonexistence of a creator-god.

Furthermore, attributing natural events to a divine creator doesn't provide any knowledge of, or predictive power over those natural events. 150 years ago, people believed that aurora borealis was a sign of god's pleasure. Without scientific inquiry beyond, "God did it," we would never have learned how it is made up of charged particles expelled from the sun, and we would have no way of predicting when it would take place in the future. Similarly, if we imagine that animal life were distributed across the planet in (more or less) their current form, we would have no insight into the past biosphere of our planet or even our own biology: mammals have a peculiar reaction (chemically-induced hibernation, which might be used to reduce brain damage from strokes) to the toxic gas Hydrogen Sulfide that seems to have it roots in a survival mechanism formed during the Permian extinction. Instead, we would still believe that god causes disease and we were descended only from two prototypical humans a few thousand years ago.

There are logical issues with a creator god, as well. There's an engineering axiom that, to create anything, the creator must be an order of magnitude more complex than the thing it creates. This applies to automotive assembly lines, craftsmen, and gods. If a god created the universe and everything within it, it must be vastly more complex than the universe. If this is the case, what created the creator god? And what created that entity? And that entity? And so on ad infinitum. If one imagines that a creator god just is, why must the universe be created, could it not "just be" as well? We would avoid the complexity problems of a vastly complex universe being created by a vastly more complex creator.

One also confronts the vast number of "one true gods" postulated by our species: what makes the Christian god the real god and all others merely superstition or misunderstanding? Clearly, the universe couldn't be created by the Judeo-Christian God, Ptah, Vishvakarman, and all the other creator deities of myth. It's possible that one of these myths is correct, but what is far more likely is that none of them are. As Dawkins likes to point out, we are all atheists to Zeus, Re, and Thor. A true atheist just goes one god further.

This post has been edited by Sarielite: Feb 11 2009, 09:39 AM

[Sarielite]

He criticizes people who are not ready to debate a matter without being able to base it on facts. Yet, the idea of the planets in our solar system being on their stable course, providing us with stable days and nights, with clockwork accuracy, and the existence of a balanced system of life with a perpetual life-cycle, disturbed only by man, being formed out of nothingness and just based on a story, a theory, without any facts, makes him the target of his own critique.

Astronomical evidence (based on observations of other stellar nebulae, mature stars, particle simulations, and geology) suggests that the Solar system began as a gas cloud that slowly collapsed over a period of a few hundred thousand years around 4.6 billion years ago. Evidence suggests that the gas cloud had a very slight angular momentum, which was conserved and amplified as the gas cloud collapsed into a star and proto-planetary ring. Heavier elements were ejected from the star during this process, which makes up the metallic mass of all bodies in the solar system. It's important to note that 98% of all mass in the solar system belongs to hydrogen atoms: it's far and away the most abundant element in our solar system (and the universe at large).

The early solar system was unstable. Planets formed in uneven patterns with one another, which produced chaotic harmonies of gravity. These tidal forces pushed some bodies closer to the sun, but pushed many others farther away. Neptune and Uranus are two examples of bodies that have properties indicating that once, billions of years ago, they were much closer to the sun. However, orbital systems fall into two categories: The first is the positive feedback loop, where each additional orbit increases the eccentricity and chaos of the orbits involved until one or more of the bodies achieves escape velocity from the central body's gravity well. The second is a negative feedback loop, where each additional orbit period increases the total stability of the system. This process is roughly analogous to metronomes synchronizing each other, and represents a phenomenon known as spontaneous order.

With that said, the Solar system isn't perfectly synchronized. The Moon and the Earth exert strong tidal forces on one another, such that eventually the Moon will become rotationally locked with the Earth so that it might only be observed from one place on Earth. Other observations suggest that the eccentricity of Mars is slowly increasing such that it will eventually (within 10 billion years or so) develop an Earth-crossing orbit, which could result in a collision.

Furthermore the study of genetics and biological machines, which is what life here is, shows that they were obviously designed and it is complete lunacy to believe they have randomly formed by themselves, with there being absolutely no proof available to back up the idea, whereas there is ample documented proof of God and His revelations, which is blindly ignored by people like Dawkins, who admits that he hasn't even bothered to study it.

How is it "obviously designed"? What ample documented proof exists that a god--any god--manufactured humanity and placed them on Earth.

Science itself dictates that entropy increases, and therefore that without a creative force, everything continuously tends to chaos and disorder, without exception.

The physical principle of Entropy is that the energy available to do work is always decreasing. That is all. The concept of Entropy is used in many nonscientific ways to describe a force for disorder within a system, however this is often offset by the above-mentioned principle of spontaneous order.

Out of nothingness, a perfectly interoperating system forming by itself without guidance is a stupefying concept and a religious one at that. Have you seen stones organising themselves together by chance, to build houses? It may sound like a simplistic question, but it is exactly, what these so-called scientists would like you to believe, but rather about the system of the universe, which is countless times more complex.

This is a perfect example of misunderstanding evolutionary theory and abiogenesis. The two concepts are very, very different. We can simply describe evolutionary theory as the process by which one species developed into multiple species based on selection pressure. Abiogenesis is the process by which chemicals that were previously not able to self-reproduce became able to do so. The first of these concepts has a corpus of experimental evidence supporting it with a few unknowns.

Abiogenesis is an area of active research, with some promising theories and experiments. The organic compounds that appear to predate life can come about naturally, those organic compounds have a tendency to organize into long-chain polymers, and those long-chain polymers have been shown to carry out fundamental biological transactions. It appears that RNA, which is a simple non-living self-replicating polymer, can also form key enzymes used in replication of other enzymes and compounds.

[Sarielite]

In science, facts are supposed to be provable. When one starts weaving up stories and fantasies about millions and zillions of years, and enters the realm of thought where "everything is possible, given enough time", even when it goes against conventional science itself, it is NOT science, but tales.

Everything associated with the development of early single-celled life can be simulated in a laboratory, but the initial experiments indicate that the timescale of developing a fully-formed organism from organic molecules is extraordinarily long. Perhaps a billion years to develop simple single-celled life and another 1.5 to develop multicellular life. Fossil evidence indicates that blue-green algae appeared about 2.8 billion years ago, at the very latest.

Richard Dawkins draws a comparison of the setting and studying life on this planet to a "detective entering the crime-scene after the act has already been committed", and simply because he thinks ill of the concept of an external Creator, he admits he dismisses it on that grounds alone, because he thinks he has got the better theory about it - what amazing arrogance.

He dismisses it for the reasons I have stated previously, and that no religious documentation matches the evidence at hand. The biblical theory of biodiversity doesn't match the available evidence, and must either be reexamined or rejected, as is the case with all theories. Evolutionary theory has been revised many times in the 150 years since its postulation, and may continue to be revised as new evidence is brought to light. The same is true of the theory of gravity (Newtonian laws have been replaced by Einsteinian laws), astronomical theory, etc. No such revision has taken place for religious interpretations of the universe, nor would such revisions be allowed, despite their obvious inaccuracies.

Bible prophecy is FULL of facts to show that people have been given insight directly from God, and The Bible history also reveals a wealth of proof of The Creator... Jesus said 2,000 years ago, that if any man doubts His words, they can be proven by living by them, and then one will KNOW whether they are true or whether He "came up with them Himself".

Explain how such an experiment would present documentable evidence for the existence of a divine creator.

The Bible, when one truly without preconceived ideas studies it, will reveal that God has told us already thousands of years ago that this would happen. Or would you say it was a pretty "good" guess to give the prophecy that an army of 200 million men will go into action in the end? I am referring to the available manpower of China, and 2,000 years ago when the Book of Revelation was written, an army of that size would obviously have been unthinkable. The prophecies are fitting in exact and in minute detail.

The specific quote from Revalations is, "And the number of the army of horse[men] {cavalry?} were two myriads of myriads {i.e. a whole lot}..." The meaning of "myrias" is more commonly used in ancient greek to describe a very large property than a specific number. In addition to meaning ten-thousand (which is idiomatic to the KJV of Revelations), it could mean many thousands, one thousand, and fifty thousand.

And we could then examine the army of China. The Chinese PLA currently has 2.25 million active-duty soldiers serving in its army. If you bring in their inactive units, the number goes up to about 7 million. Their selective service (i.e. if they were to draft their entire eligible population), their army would number about 609 million. If we interpret "cavalry" to mean some form of mobile infantry (via IFVs, main battle tanks, or other combined arms forces), they would need to build and deploy more than 50 million new pieces of equipment.

To be perfectly frank, Revelations is bunk.

Once again, the ONLY way is to LIVE the teachings of Jesus, to find-out whether they are true or not.

How does living by a 2000-year-old book that Jesus didn't even write prove whether or not there's a divine creator? The logical leap made here is absurd.

P.P.S. The Truth is certainly NOT with organized religion, "Christianity" (falsely so called), or priests. They have obscured the truth, the true history, for many millennia, and given The Bible and God a horrible reputation, undeservedly so.

The Bible condones slavery, rape, tyranny, and murder. I think the last thousand years or so have been an excellent experiment in what happens when you take some insane scribbling in a book too far.

P.P.P.S. Trying to make evolution and creation mutually exclusive is insane as well. We design programmes and machines with as great automation as possible. One must have really shrunk one's mind to think that an external, universal, creator of this universe wouldn't use a concept such as evolution to automate processes, after creating the basic models.

The written word of the bible and three thousand years of Judeo-Christian philosophy disagrees with you.

[Fremen Bryan]

Sarielite,

On your behalf I wrote to the author of the open-letter, Timothy, and included your replies to him. What follows are his responses, which appear in ( )'s. Feel free to reply furthur, however be aware the the original appears on www.100777.com/node/1887 and people have been leaving their comments there as well.


Timothy@JAHTruth.Net wrote:-

Dear Bryan,

Good evening.

I am not sure if this does any good, if someone is so deeply programmed
against The Bible as most are, and as the writer lacks manners and
humility, and I do not wish to waste my or anybody else's time, but, for
what it's worth:-

Please see more below in ( ).

> > Open Letter To Atheist-scientists And Their Followers
> > http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?showtopic=16082
> >
> > And the 3 replies that Sarielite has left (Excerpts from the original
> > letter appear is QUOTE):-
> >
> > 1)
> >
> > This article has numerous misunderstandings of natural theory and
> > knowledge. I'll address the overarching principles and then get into
> > direct refutation.
> >
> > Dawkins' position, and one of many other atheists (or disbelievers in
> > the Big God hypothesis, like myself), is that if a divine creator
> > doesn't need to exist for anything to take place, it's very likely that
> > no such creator exists.

(One is free to have that opinion, even though it is exactly that, an
opinion, even though it sounds as if it was factual by using words "very
likely" when it is just an opinion.)

> In other words, if something can come about by
> > accident, by natural arrangement, or intelligent action by beings within
> > the constraints of the universe, then no god is needed, and by the
> > simplicity principle (Occam's Razor), no god exists.

(It is quite a twist to claim it to be the simplicity principle to add
up so many "amazing coindicendes" that counting the odds makes one run
out of digits on a computer to get the odds of any small piece of
machinery materializing or self-organizing out of nowhere.

It is the same as finding a ready-cooked meal, and because one can in
one's brain come up with a wonderful story how it all happened by
accident, and all the ingredients just happened to jump into the pot and
a heat was started under it, and then when it was just perfectly cooked,
it got transferred onto plates in correct portions, and that thus there
would be no chef needed, and then by some imagination yet claim that
this is the likely result according to "simplicity principle".

Very insane.)

> > The scientific process, by its nature, is hostile to the existence of an
> > all-powerful all-controlling creator. The scientific method requires
> > falsifiability--there has to be an experiment that one could carry out
> > that could potentially disprove the existence of god. For example, if I
> > were to test Newton's theory of gravity, I could drop a series of
> > differently-weighted balls from a great height and measure with a
> > stopwatch their descent. I could reasonably disprove Newton's
> > observations of gravity by performing that experiment. No analogous test
> > exists for the existence or nonexistence of a creator-god.

(Yes, there exists a test. His arrogance and ignorance is typical. God
gave us His Laws, and obeying those Laws will give results. By obeying
The Laws which were explained even further by Christ, is a test that
yields results, that the writer has not tested and probably will not
test with that attitude.)

> > Furthermore, attributing natural events to a divine creator doesn't
> > provide any knowledge of, or predictive power over those natural events.
> > 150 years ago, people believed that aurora borealis was a sign of god's
> > pleasure. Without scientific inquiry beyond, "God did it," we would
> > never have learned how it is made up of charged particles expelled from
> > the sun, and we would have no way of predicting when it would take place
> > in the future. Similarly, if we imagine that animal life were
> > distributed across the planet in (more or less) their current form, we
> > would have no insight into the past biosphere of our planet or even our
> > own biology: mammals have a peculiar reaction (chemically-induced
> > hibernation, which might be used to reduce brain damage from strokes) to
> > the toxic gas Hydrogen Sulfide that seems to have it roots in a survival
> > mechanism formed during the Permian extinction. Instead, we would still
> > believe that god causes disease and we were descended only from two
> > prototypical humans a few thousand years ago.

(Only "two prototypical humans" is a false church-teaching and obviously
many more humans were created, and that the story of the two were given
to the people of the mentality of their days for the simplicity's sake.)

> > There are logical issues with a creator god, as well. There's an
> > engineering axiom that, to create anything, the creator must be an order
> > of magnitude more complex than the thing it creates. This applies to
> > automotive assembly lines, craftsmen, and gods. If a god created the
> > universe and everything within it, it must be vastly more complex than
> > the universe. If this is the case, what created the creator god? And
> > what created that entity? And that entity? And so on ad infinitum. If
> > one imagines that a creator god just is, why must the universe be
> > created, could it not "just be" as well? We would avoid the complexity
> > problems of a vastly complex universe being created by a vastly more
> > complex creator.

(The answers to these questions have not been revealed to us. The Bible
shows that we have been condemned to this planet as a punishment and to
learn to be good, and it is apparent many things are hidden from us.
That does not cause any "logical" issues. Obviously God is more complex.
He is referred to as "I AM" (YHWH), Self-Existing.)

> > One also confronts the vast number of "one true gods" postulated by our
> > species: what makes the Christian god the real god and all others merely
> > superstition or misunderstanding? Clearly, the universe couldn't be
> > created by the Judeo-Christian God, Ptah, Vishvakarman, and all the
> > other creator deities of myth. It's possible that one of these myths is
> > correct, but what is far more likely is that none of them are. As
> > Dawkins likes to point out, we are all atheists to Zeus, Re, and Thor. A
> > true atheist just goes one god further.

(A "true atheist" would KNOW that there "is no god", but there is a God,
and even in a hypothetical situation that there was no god, we couldn't
know it, and it would simply be the utmost arrogance to claim to be a
"true atheist" without knowledge.)

> > This post has been edited by Sarielite: Today, 09:39 AM
> >
> > 2)
> >
> > QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 8 2009, 07:57 PM) [*]
> > <http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=217180> He
> > criticizes people who are not ready to debate a matter without being
> > able to base it on facts. Yet, the idea of the planets in our solar
> > system being on their stable course, providing us with stable days and
> > nights, with clockwork accuracy, and the existence of a balanced system
> > of life with a perpetual life-cycle, disturbed only by man, being formed
> > out of nothingness and just based on a story, a theory, without any
> > facts, makes him the target of his own critique.
> >
> > Astronomical evidence (based on observations of other stellar nebulae,
> > mature stars, particle simulations, and geology) suggests that the Solar
> > system began as a gas cloud that slowly collapsed over a period of a few
> > hundred thousand years around 4.6 billion years ago. Evidence suggests
> > that the gas cloud had a very slight angular momentum, which was
> > conserved and amplified as the gas cloud collapsed into a star and
> > proto-planetary ring. Heavier elements were ejected from the star during
> > this process, which makes up the metallic mass of all bodies in the
> > solar system. It's important to note that 98% of all mass in the solar
> > system belongs to hydrogen atoms: it's far and away the most abundant
> > element in our solar system (and the universe at large).
> >
> > The early solar system was unstable. Planets formed in uneven patterns
> > with one another, which produced chaotic harmonies of gravity. These
> > tidal forces pushed some bodies closer to the sun, but pushed many
> > others farther away. Neptune and Uranus are two examples of bodies that
> > have properties indicating that once, billions of years ago, they were
> > much closer to the sun. However, orbital systems fall into two
> > categories: The first is the positive feedback loop, where each
> > additional orbit increases the eccentricity and chaos of the orbits
> > involved until one or more of the bodies achieves escape velocity from
> > the central body's gravity well. The second is a negative feedback loop,
> > where each additional orbit period increases the total stability of the
> > system. This process is roughly analogous to metronomes synchronizing
> > each other <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1TMZASCR-I> , and represents
> > a phenomenon known as spontaneous order
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order> .
> >
> > With that said, the Solar system isn't perfectly synchronized. The Moon
> > and the Earth exert strong tidal forces on one another, such that
> > eventually the Moon will become rotationally locked with the Earth so
> > that it might only be observed from one place on Earth. Other
> > observations suggest that the eccentricity of Mars is slowly increasing
> > such that it will eventually (within 10 billion years or so) develop an
> > Earth-crossing orbit, which could result in a collision.

(There is a lot we don't know about the universe and thus I don't think
one should arrogantly claim that we can project the future, or the past
for that matter. I haven't followed astronomy much, but I remember
reading that it was recently either discovered or suggested that there's
a massive black hole quite close to us. Similarly there is matter that
we do not understand. There may be greater cycles that we don't know
about, and, for all that we know, this planetary system may have been
designed to operate for only a duration.)

> > QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 8 2009, 07:57 PM) [*]
> > <http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=217180>
> > Furthermore the study of genetics and biological machines, which is what
> > life here is, shows that they were obviously designed and it is complete
> > lunacy to believe they have randomly formed by themselves, with there
> > being absolutely no proof available to back up the idea, whereas there
> > is ample documented proof of God and His revelations, which is blindly
> > ignored by people like Dawkins, who admits that he hasn't even bothered
> > to study it.
> >
> > How is it "obviously designed"? What ample documented proof exists that
> > a god--any god--manufactured humanity and placed them on Earth.

(For those with eyes to see, it is obvious. I don't know how else to
explain, how a ball looks like a ball. All the signs point to design,
likewise what has been revealed and recorded in The Bible. Some people
come up with these fantasies that it all happened out of nothing,
whereas some see that for what it is. If you believe your theories as
you seem to do, I understand it is "obviously" not obvious to you. How
to make one see it is another question.

Perhaps it's obvious to me because I've already verified God's and
Christ's Law personally and that they do exist.

And I don't know that it's possible to show it to anyone who is already
of the disposition that God doesn't exist and doesn't want to even see
into it.

I think that to find God one requires to search for His values, which
are Justice, Equality, Mercy, Truth, and in that search, one will
inevitably find out that they don't exist here, and that the world is
controlled by very nasty people, who are in fact Lucifer-worshippers.

The search for Truth reveals such a wealth of information, that makes
one really desire to seek God, and one WILL find Him, if one seeks Him
with ALL one's mind, heart, and soul.

Obviously if one thinks He "isn't needed" and that it's better to
explain Him away with all kinds of theories, then He probably won't even
show.

We have been told in The Bible that because of our rebellion and
arrogance He turns His back, and ONLY if we FIRST turn BACK towands Him,
with the respect, then He will embrace us, but will not reveal this to
the "wise" arrogant people.

The woes of this world are exactly because of that, turning away from
God's Law, and this is what we are now reaping.

America is part of the true descendands of Israel, the so-called 10
"Lost Tribes", and their prophecied chastisement ended at exactly the
time USA declared independence, and the unconditional blessings made to
Abraham enabled America to prosper, but because of the wickedness and
turning away from God, the down-hill slide is already in full swing.

You will be sorry if you keep turning away from God.

And this is exactly part of the "practical testing" of God, if one obeys
His Law, there is abundant blessing and KNOWLEDGE of Him, but by
disobeying, you will reap what you are sowing.)

> > QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 8 2009, 07:57 PM) [*]
> > <http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=217180> Science
> > itself dictates that entropy increases, and therefore that without a
> > creative force, everything continuously tends to chaos and disorder,
> > without exception.
> >
> > The physical principle of Entropy is that the energy available to do
> > work is always decreasing. That is all. The concept of Entropy is used
> > in many nonscientific ways to describe a force for disorder within a
> > system, however this is often offset by the above-mentioned principle of
> > spontaneous order.
> >
> > QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 8 2009, 07:57 PM) [*]
> > <http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=217180> Out of
> > nothingness, a perfectly interoperating system forming by itself without
> > guidance is a stupefying concept and a religious one at that. Have you
> > seen stones organising themselves together by chance, to build houses?
> > It may sound like a simplistic question, but it is exactly, what these
> > so-called scientists would like you to believe, but rather about the
> > system of the universe, which is countless times more complex.
> >
> > This is a perfect example of misunderstanding evolutionary theory and
> > abiogenesis. The two concepts are very, very different. We can simply
> > describe evolutionary theory as the process by which one species
> > developed into multiple species based on selection pressure. Abiogenesis
> > is the process by which chemicals that were previously not able to
> > self-reproduce became able to do so. The first of these concepts has a
> > corpus of experimental evidence supporting it with a few unknowns.

(The small experiments prove nothing regarding the topic, and are not a
"corpus of experimental evidence" "with a few unknowns".)

> > Abiogenesis is an area of active research, with some promising theories
> > and experiments. The organic compounds that appear to predate life can
> > come about naturally, those organic compounds have a tendency to
> > organize into long-chain polymers, and those long-chain polymers have
> > been shown to carry out fundamental biological transactions. It appears
> > that RNA, which is a simple non-living self-replicating polymer, can
> > also form key enzymes used in replication of other enzymes and
> > compounds.

(Finding out about God's processes doesn't really make up any argument.)

> > and 3)
> >
> > QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 8 2009, 07:57 PM) [*]
> > <http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=217180> In
> > science, facts are supposed to be provable. When one starts weaving up
> > stories and fantasies about millions and zillions of years, and enters
> > the realm of thought where "everything is possible, given enough time",
> > even when it goes against conventional science itself, it is NOT
> > science, but tales.
> >
> > Everything associated with the development of early single-celled life
> > can be simulated in a laboratory, but the initial experiments indicate
> > that the timescale of developing a fully-formed organism from organic
> > molecules is extraordinarily long. Perhaps a billion years to develop
> > simple single-celled life and another 1.5 to develop multicellular life.
> > Fossil evidence indicates that blue-green algae appeared about 2.8
> > billion years ago, at the very latest.

(This "perhaps" throwing about billions of years doesn't bring anything
relevant into the subject but guess-work. And nowhere does The Bible say
that life in this form didn't exist before our sentence.)

> > QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 8 2009, 07:57 PM) [*]
> > <http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=217180> Richard
> > Dawkins draws a comparison of the setting and studying life on this
> > planet to a "detective entering the crime-scene after the act has
> > already been committed", and simply because he thinks ill of the concept
> > of an external Creator, he admits he dismisses it on that grounds alone,
> > because he thinks he has got the better theory about it - what amazing
> > arrogance.
> >
> > He dismisses it for the reasons I have stated previously, and that no
> > religious documentation matches the evidence at hand.

(Wrong. Patently arrogant and ignorant. Evidence exists with ample
supply.

The Bible is two-thirds prophecy, most of which has been fulfilled in
exact and minute detail.

http://jahtruth.net/prophecy.htm

)


> The biblical
> > theory of biodiversity doesn't match the available evidence

(I don't know what is this "biblical theory of biodiversity". One
certainly shouldn't mix-in any false teachings of any
churches/organized-religion and men.)

> , and must
> > either be reexamined or rejected, as is the case with all theories.
> > Evolutionary theory has been revised many times in the 150 years since
> > its postulation, and may continue to be revised as new evidence is
> > brought to light. The same is true of the theory of gravity (Newtonian
> > laws have been replaced by Einsteinian laws), astronomical theory, etc.
> > No such revision has taken place for religious interpretations of the
> > universe, nor would such revisions be allowed, despite their obvious
> > inaccuracies.

(It sounds like he is talking about the church/organized-religion, which
is a complete racket and out of this topic.)

> > QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 8 2009, 07:57 PM) [*]
> > <http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=217180> Bible
> > prophecy is FULL of facts to show that people have been given insight
> > directly from God, and The Bible history also reveals a wealth of proof
> > of The Creator... Jesus said 2,000 years ago, that if any man doubts His
> > words, they can be proven by living by them, and then one will KNOW
> > whether they are true or whether He "came up with them Himself".
> >
> > Explain how such an experiment would present documentable evidence for
> > the existence of a divine creator.

(Stupefying and arrogant demand (not even manners to ask to explain,
"please"). As it was said, and written,

``If any man doubts His words, they can be proven by living by them, and
then one will KNOW whether they are true or whether He "came up with
them Himself".''

We are Spirit-Beings, locked inside these human-animals. Obviously this
person will huff and puff and say "non-sense", which is exactly the
reason he will never find God, if he makes that mistakes. We KNOW when
we are tuned (and turned) to God.

Without His knowledge, we are left to the mercy of these fantasies and
theories and arrogant speculation, like a rudderless boat.

He can be communicated with and He talks to us all the time, NOT in
words, but with telepathical knowledge.

By respecting Him and living by His Laws, we become tuned to Him and
start to learn, like it was meant to in the beginning, the garden of
Eden, but because we don't listen to Him, but the liar/s, it all goes
downhill except for the moments we catch what He is telling us, that we
usually mistakenly think is our "conscience".)

> > QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 8 2009, 07:57 PM) [*]
> > <http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=217180> The Bible,
> > when one truly without preconceived ideas studies it, will reveal that
> > God has told us already thousands of years ago that this would happen.
> > Or would you say it was a pretty "good" guess to give the prophecy that
> > an army of 200 million men will go into action in the end? I am
> > referring to the available manpower of China, and 2,000 years ago when
> > the Book of Revelation was written, an army of that size would obviously
> > have been unthinkable. The prophecies are fitting in exact and in minute
> > detail.
> >
> > The specific quote from Revalations is, "And the number of the army of
> > horse[men] {cavalry?} were two myriads of myriads {i.e. a whole lot}..."

(Incorrect. It says two thousand thousand.)

> > The meaning of "myrias" is more commonly used in ancient greek to
> > describe a very large property than a specific number. In addition to
> > meaning ten-thousand (which is idiomatic to the KJV of Revelations), it
> > could mean many thousands, one thousand, and fifty thousand.

(As above.)

> > And we could then examine the army of China. The Chinese PLA currently
> > has 2.25 million active-duty soldiers serving in its army. If you bring
> > in their inactive units, the number goes up to about 7 million. Their
> > selective service (i.e. if they were to draft their entire eligible
> > population), their army would number about 609 million. If we interpret
> > "cavalry" to mean some form of mobile infantry (via IFVs, main battle
> > tanks, or other combined arms forces), they would need to build and
> > deploy more than 50 million new pieces of equipment.

(The people describing the revelations obviously could only use words
they and the people knew at the time.

As the situation in the world gets tougher, it's not difficult at all to
see the Chinese at some point simply sending off their men to march,
with whatever equipment they can get their hands on.

As the USA is falling and soon disintegrating as it is out of control
economically with no remedy, and their military power collapsing because
of that and leaving a power-vacuum, there will be great tumult and to
secure areas, the Chinese may not need to do but to arrange a gun for
each of their men to send with.)

> > To be perfectly frank, Revelations is bunk.
> >
> > QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 8 2009, 07:57 PM) [*]
> > <http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=217180> Once
> > again, the ONLY way is to LIVE the teachings of Jesus, to find-out
> > whether they are true or not.
> >
> > How does living by a 2000-year-old book that Jesus didn't even write
> > prove whether or not there's a divine creator? The logical leap made
> > here is absurd.
> >
> > QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 8 2009, 07:57 PM) [*]
> > <http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=217180> P.P.S. The
> > Truth is certainly NOT with organized religion, "Christianity" (falsely
> > so called), or priests. They have obscured the truth, the true history,
> > for many millennia, and given The Bible and God a horrible reputation,
> > undeservedly so.
> >
> > The Bible condones slavery, rape, tyranny, and murder.

(It certainly does not. Instead The Law is SPECIFIC about condemning all
but slavery, and it does not promote slavery and teaches to keep very
good care of anyone under your control, if that be the situation day
days of which is obviously long gone.)

> I think the last
> > thousand years or so have been an excellent experiment in what happens
> > when you take some insane scribbling in a book too far.

(Organized-religions and other criminal syndicates have certainly done a
lot of damage, and abused The Bible. Like atheists and communists, which
may have inflicted far greater damage. Both are bad, and liars.)

> > QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 8 2009, 07:57 PM) [*]
> > <http://www.zdlr.net/board/index.php?act=fi...&pid=217180> P.P.P.S.
> > Trying to make evolution and creation mutually exclusive is insane as
> > well. We design programmes and machines with as great automation as
> > possible. One must have really shrunk one's mind to think that an
> > external, universal, creator of this universe wouldn't use a concept
> > such as evolution to automate processes, after creating the basic
> > models.
> >
> > The written word of the bible and three thousand years of
> > Judeo-Christian philosophy disagrees with you.

(The written Word of The Bible may disagree with any mistakes I make,
but NOT with the bulk of what I'm striving to tell.

Much of so-called Judeo-Christian philosophy-nonsense is garbage and I
do not mind if any such hypocrites disagree with me.)

* * * * * * *

And to add to what Timothy has written here I would like to say that the Bible Code which was only recently unlocked with the advent of the computer is an advanced Code so sophisticated by todays standards that it is only with the help of a computer that anything so complex could ever have been made by humans, written thousands of years ago, over the course of thousands of years by different men (Prophets) who never physically met one another. See the movie Pi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(film)


Fremen Bryan

This post has been edited by Fremen Bryan: Feb 12 2009, 01:37 PM

[Sarielite]

The movie Pi is a work of fiction. Linguistic studies of Biblical texts have shown that it was written by people. Regular humans, in other words. Wikipedia has an adequate (and free) breakdown of who is thought to have written different books of the Old and New Testament [link]

[Fremen Bryan]

The movie Pi is a work of fiction. Linguistic studies of Biblical texts have shown that it was written by people. Regular humans, in other words. Wikipedia has an adequate (and free) breakdown of who is thought to have written different books of the Old and New Testament [link]

The theme of the movie is not fiction however, and the storyline simply makes it entertaining.

See

Bible Code

and

Theomatics

[Sarielite]

Neither of those processes have been satisfactorily proven: these processes suffer from adopting a nonskeptical initial position and designing the experiments based on an assumption that they will produce a positive result. The outcome, of course, is a subjective result, not an objective one. It's not science or mathematics, it's wishful thinking.

[Fremen Bryan]

Neither of those processes have been satisfactorily proven: these processes suffer from adopting a nonskeptical initial position and designing the experiments based on an assumption that they will produce a positive result. The outcome, of course, is a subjective result, not an objective one. It's not science or mathematics, it's wishful thinking.

Scientific Proof of the Discovery Putting the Skeptics to Bed Theomatics is probably the most solid, credible, valid, and scientifically provable discovery of all time ~ relative to God and the Bible. Yet nobody in the academic community is paying attention.

The facts are all right there ~ in plain sight ~ for everyone to physically see and verify. Yet to date, few people have had the desire or felt motivated to pursue an independent investigation. As almost 100,000 copies of our books have sold, and literally hundreds of thousands of people have had their hearts blessed and touched deeply by this discovery, it has seemed amazing that to date, no one has picked up on all of this. After more than twenty years of extensive research, no one yet has been able to even begin challenging theomatics at a scientific level.

Here exists what is probably the most precious and spectacularly provable discovery of all time ~ the one thing that holds the answer to virtually everything. And it is basically being ignored. That fact, in itself, is almost as amazing as the discovery of theomatics! Surely, the all wise and all knowing Sovereign Lord, has been in control of it all.

God controls man's knowledge of the divine and supernatural, by either giving or witholding inspiration. We can know nothing about God, unless He steps through the veil and chooses to reveal Himself. If God does not give a person the gift of faith, they will remain blind ~ this subject will hold no interest to them. So the bottom line to all this is not academic excellence by impressing all the statisticians and theologians in major universities. Those types of individuals are generally not interested in having the Bible proven to them.

That is why comprehending, understanding, and believing this subject is really an issue of the heart (and also God's timing). God deliberately blocks His truth from view, as He may deem appropriate, especially from those who are not pure in heart or have a genuine hunger for the real things of God.

"Blessed are the pure in heart: for THEY shall see God" (Mat. 5:.

"Blessed are they which hunger and thirst after righteousness: for THEY shall be filled" (Mat. 5:6).

"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast HID these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Mat 11:25).

"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be CONVERTED, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Mat. 18:3).

God cannot place his new wine of truth into old wineskins. One reason that theomatics remains hidden from the Christian and academic worlds, is that it is very difficult for people to accept new truth who have already made up their mind about fundamental issues. The uncommitted ~ mostly the young ~ pick up new ideas and carry them forward. The people with old ideas die out.

NOTE: It is presumed that most people reading this page have some basic understanding of theomatic features and how the system operates. There are four examples given on this web site that show the phenomenon.

Stating the Evidence

On this page here, the objective is simple: To present the method of proof that unequivocally establishes the validity of this subject from an academic and scientific perspective. Also, the following will plug any holes relative to skeptics being able to disprove or debunk this discovery.

If anybody out there wants to take on theomatics, they had better prepare themselves for a major challenge. They will find themselves burried under an avalange of hundreds of pages of data and computer print outs (see Theomatics & the Scientific Method). There are a lot of young, cocky, and cynical dudes out there in cyberspace (particularly in the newsgroups), who love to challenge all sorts of egregious claims. They actually enjoy discrediting things and trying to debunk them. That is how they get their kicks and jollies. Sort of a predator instinct. We will be more than happy to welcome them to the challenge. What is our advice? Be prepared to jump over the grand canyon in your bare feet.

At this point, we would like to make a bold and assertive statement that will forever stand.

It is absolutely, completely, and totally impossible to mathematically disprove theomatics. The overall validity of this discovery ~ the fact that God did it ~ is unimpeachable. Theomatics will never be disproven. In fact, no one will even come close to it. The evidence is so thoroughly convincing and so absolutely conclusive, that those who examine it carefully, their knees will buckle and they will quite literally fall to the ground ~ they will not be able to stand up against it.

We can state the above with 100% confidence, because it is based on hard cold mathematical facts. Numbers do not have personal feelings. They have no philosophical or theological bias. Theomatics is something that either exists, or else it does not exist. (There is no such thing as a woman being 50% or partially pregnant.) Either God placed a secret code in the Bible and it saturates everything from top to bottom. Or else the pursuit is a waste of time and contains no merit whatsoever.

If theomatics were not true, then trying to find spiritual significance with the numerical values of Hebrew and Greek words of the Bible, would be no more meaningful than trying to derive spiritual meaning out of the numbers in the Greater Chicago phone book.

What is signifant, is the fact that the only criticism of this subject you will ever hear (on the Web or anywhere), will only come from people who give theomatics a perfunctory review and shallow analysis, and then heckle their own cynicism. No one will be able to delve into the mountain of evidence and come up with any credible statistical evidence that will cast doubt on the overall validity. This subject contains no fatal flaws.

Estabishing the Method of Proof

There is only one way that the validity of theomatics can either be proven or disproven. To prove it, it must be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, that the numerical structures and features come from a number base that is not random, but the numbers are structured according to an intelligent design.

In order to disprove theomatics, it must unequivocally demonstrated, that all the data that theomatics has thus far discovered, was found by arbitrarily picking and choosing from a base of numbers that is strictly random (i.e. the proponents of this subject have "cooked the results" of the inquiry.)

If the numbers are not random and the results are not cooked ~ and there is also no basis for a supernatural intelligent design ~ then the skeptic must produce a "natural cause explanation," that both explains the results that theomatics has achieved, plus removes any supernatural element as the cause for the results.

There is no such explanation! (See complete discussion ~ Pgs. 183-188, Theomatics II).

There is a lot of information and statistical studies available on this, both in Theomatics II and Theomatics and the Scientific Method.


Here now, we shall give a brief synopsis.

Matching the Results with Random Values

In order to perform any objective and scientific investigation, both the procedure and end results must be: (1) definable, (2) testsable, (3) the tests repeatable, and (4) the outcome predictable.

There must be absolute ground rules that eliminate as much as possible, any human factor. Various classifications must be pinned down and identified in advance of performing any tests. There can be no accusations of bias or arbitrary manipulation of data, entering into the tests.

When theomatics discovers a pattern, it must be defined by the usage of a particular Hebrew or Greek word. Every phrase to be examined must: (1) contain a specific word, (2) be a certain length away from that word in both directions, (3) use only one text, and (4) examine every phrase combination or mathematical possibility present.

The computer then proceeds through all the phrases looking for features. It tallies every "hit" within the cluster range of -1, +1 and -2, +2. The evidence is then recorded.

Next the same computer program goes back through all of the same Bible references, again looking for features. Only this time, the numerical values for the letters are jumbled into random allocations.





The computer software currently in use, can mix up to one million random seed numbers. A random seed is entered, and the program instantly re-calculates the value of every word ~ based upon the specific random seed number. Shown above on the right, is one example. The left side shows the standard theomatic values or sequence for the Hebrew or Greek alphabets. On the right is a sample of random values (the same values have been reshuffled). Which now means that for every word present in the Bible, it would have a numerical value that is different than the original theomatic value, and is most certainly random. It obviously contains no meaning or significance.

For example, the name "Jesus" equals 888 in theomatics. With the above random values, the word would come out to 974 instead.

Next, the computer goes through all the same verses, now randomized, looking for features. It tallies every "hit" within the cluster range of -1, +1 and -2, +2. The evidence is then recorded.

Now this experiment is not done just once. It can be done hundreds of times. In fact, up to one million times (if someone wants to take the time to do it). Over and over again the computer searches with the random allocations, trying to play catch up with theomatics.

Furthermore, not only can the programs mix up to one million alphabetical arrangements. They can also go through all the phrase combinations looking for features and attempting to find the "best" number that produces the "best" results within the random values ~ common to the greatest number of references.

It should be clearly obvious to even the most casual observer, that if the theomatics code has produced a long list of features from every possible reference to a particular word or topic (with only one set of standard allocations), the skeptic then being allowed access to hundreds, even thousands of random alphabet/number arrangements, plus he can use any number factor he wants to ~ he should be able to easily match or at least come close to tying the results of theomatics.

There are some stipulations to all this however. The skeptic must use a number at least as large as what theomatics has used, or a number of the same probability ~ not smaller numbers. Also, the number of phrase combinations must be in the same range or average length as what theomatics derived. Longer phrases, obviously have many more possible combinations in them.

The point to all this is very simple. If theomatics is untrue, if God did not put this supernatural phenomenon into the Bible, then that would mean that the numbers theomatics is using, are random based. Therefore, any other random based allocations, should by all reasonable logic, have just as good a probability or chance of producing "features," as what theomatics has been able to produce. Why not?

This method of comparison is absolutely objective and absolutely irrefutable. There is not a mathematical scientist or probability expert on the face of the earth, that will disagree with it. Right now, there are "hundreds" of clearly definable studies in our files, where no one could even come close to matching the results with any random values.


The Clustering Phenomenon

Furthermore, on top of having to match the results of theomatics with random numbers, the next dilemma the skeptic is going to face is the clustering phenomenon.

When theomatics carefully and faithfully records every possible hit that falls within the range of -1, +1, or -2, +2, there will invariable be far more direct hits and -1, +1 hits, than what the laws of chance will allow. Furthermore, the -2, +2 results are below the expected number. Explaining this more simply, since there are five possibilities within any given cluster, there is a 20% chance of a direct hit, a 40% chance of a -1, +1 hit, and a 40% chance of a -2, +2 hit .

Direct hit: 1 chance in 5, i.e. 20%

-1 hit: 1 chance in 5, i.e. 20%

+1 hit: 1 chance in 5, i.e. 20%

+2 hit: 1 chance in 5, i.e. 20%

+ 2 hit: 1 chance in 5, i.e. 20%

In virtually every major theomatic pattern that has been discovered to date, when all the hits are faithfully recorded, there will almost always be twice as many -1, +1 as -2, +2 hits, plus way more direct hits than the expected results.

If the numbers were random, this would be like witnessing a mathematical miracle. It would be no different than challenging a person to flip a coin 1000 times, and get 800 heads and 200 tails ~ a "total" impossibility. This clustering phenomenon has happened consistently with tens of thousands of theomatic features over the years. It virtually never fails (except in perhaps a few short stretch examples).

In Chapter twelve of The Original Code in the Bible, there is an entire chapter that explains the clustering probabilities. Mathematics professors were consulted from one of the largest universities on the West coast of the United States. On numerous major theomatic patterns the p factor (probability) of the clustering is 1 chance in trillions, i.e. 0 probability.

The clustering phenomenon, by itself, scientifically validates the whole theomatic concept. The results are positively staggering.


What All of this Proves

The question must now be asked. What does all of this prove? For one thing, it proves that God put theomatics in the Bible and that we are witnessing a phenomenon of earth shattering proportions ~ without any natural or earthly explanation.

What it also establishes, is a total dilemma for any skeptic who wishes to discredit and debunk this discovery. In order to do so, he is going to have to take two or three major designs (at least one), and demonstrate convincingly that it is nothing more than the product of random chance, or that the researcher in some arbitrary manner skewed the results. And the only way that can be done, is to show that it is possible to match both the feature output with random allocations, and also demonstrate that random numbers can produce the same clustering curve.

The truth of the matter, is that no one will be able to even come close to it. In Theomatics and the Scientific Method, all 55 references to Jesus being the Son, both in the Gospel of John and the epistles of John, were thoroughly tested by computer. No random number could even come close.

NOTE: Since it was the computer that found the results, derived from all mathematical possibilities, this removes any possibility of human "bias" or use of "selective data."

And then, out of all 235 features that the computer printed out, the following clustering occurred.

Direct Hits: 55

(23.40% ~ expected result 20%)

-1, +1: 119

(50.64% ~ expected result 40%)

-2, +2: 61

(25.96% ~ expected result 40%)


The probability for the clustering in just this one study alone, was only one occurrence every 18,000 atempts, i.e. p = .0000556.


Finding Excuses

The only way left, by which theomatics can be attacked, is with pseudo methodology.

• The first and most common course of attack, is that various individuals will seek to formulate their own tests and experiments, and perform them in their own way according to their own style and method of logic. They will most likely start out with a negative bias, looking to find "any way the system does not work," subsequently ignoring and refusing to acknowledge and parallel test the current positive and spectacular data. They will most likely commit one or all of the statistical falacies: (1) Data limited in quantity, (2) Data of an unrepresentative quantity, and (3) Data compiled from false precision.
• The second approach will be with speculative, hypothetical, mathematical, theorizing. This is the sort of logic that tries to prove that aeronautically, it is impossible for bumble bees to fly. The person using this approach will formulate hypothesis and mathematical models, that theoretically seeks to get the point across that theomatics does not work and is not valid. This theoretical approach has already been attempted by a man from Virginia, a brilliant mathematician. When challenged to match the results with random numbers, he dropped out.
• The third or last method, will be to attack the logic of the whole system. This approach will be philosophical, and will seek to demonstrate that any "esoteric" method in interpreting numbers and associating theological meaning and concepts to numbers, can only bring conclusions that are ridiculous and bizarre. In otherwords, the argument will be made that a system of numbers cannot carry objective meaning from God to man. While scientifically inconclusive, this method will probably be the method used by most critics and evangelical leaders opposed to the existence of any hidden revelatory process in the Bible. Of course they will have no explanation for the statistical results, nor will they want to even deal with the scientific aspect.

The fact of the matter, is if theomatics was untrue, matching the results with random values, would be as easy as falling off a log. Failing to discredit or disprove the subject on that basis, the only possible approach left, is either of the above.


Finally, the Clincher

There is one other important fact to discuss as it relates to all this.

In lecturing to people who have a high academic perception (and who are also skeptical and don't want something like this to be true), they will invariably follow a two step process.

• The first line of attack, will be to say that there is nothing at all to the claims, i.e. they contains no validity. As all the above will clearly prove, once that objection is overturned and it is demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the whole text is full of an inexplicable phenomena, then …
• the next course of action is to try and find an alternate explanation for the positive results (anything but the idea that God put it there). The most common explanation is that man placed it there. In reply, this is ridiculous. Theomatics can only work if each word was precisely designed and placed into the text in juxtaposition to other words and their proper numerical values. At the time the Bible was written and its historical events took place, all of the words of the Hebrew and Greek languages were in existence and fixed. They had evolved within the unsuspecting framework of natural cultural development. So therefore, the Bible writers could not have engineered the words, much less the historical events that took place after the language vocabulary was fixed.

The second and only other alternate explanation is that it is a product of the language structure itself. In otherwords, there is some anomally or poetic rhythm that produces the results. This excuse will fall flat as well when examined more closely. The following three items are going to nail the coffin lid shut relative to the entire issue of theomatics vs. alternative explanations. Here it is folks.

• The phenomenon only works in the Bible and nowhere else. No other work of literature ever written, never has, and probably never will, be able to consistenly demonstrate anything like theomatics. We have no reason to belive that anything like this could exist in any work of literature any more than one would expect to find provable patterns in the Chicago phone book. If you take any other work of literature and categorize phrases according to meanings, or word usages, etc., and look for various multiple factors within all the numerical totals for various phrase combinations, you will find nothing in the numbers but chance expectation (the null hypothesis). Apparently the only place where this phenomenon appears, is in the 66 books of the Bible.
• The phenomenon only works with the standard numerical allocations for the alphabets. When any of the other 403 septillion random permutations are examined, even from the Bible, nothing will be discovered beyond chance expectation. Only the standard numerical values of historical record produce any positive results.
• Finally, AND THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT! The phenomenon only works in the Bible when words and phrases with related or similar theological meaning are examined. If one were to take words and phrases selected at random from the Bible text, even with the correct numerical allocations, there would still be no results beyond chance expectation. This proves that the language itself is not producing the phenomenon. The only phrases that can produce statistically significant results are those using a common Hebrew or Greek word, or there is an unmistakable and common and obvious theological relationship between the words and phrases, i.e. all the references to the birth of Christ, or all the references to Satan, or all the references to Jehovah the Rock, etc.

So theomatics only works when all three of the above conditions line up. This proves that only intelligence can be the explanation. Somebody with intelligence had to have arranged all of this. Therefore, all natural and alternative explanations (and excuses) are securely tucked into bed.

[Salva Veritate]

Timothy@JAHTruth.Net's response

Imagine that, I just read Plato's Gorgias, and now I come across this! Socrates would flip a shit.

[Fremen Bryan]

I thought the following was relevant to the topic being discussed, and am only posting the first two paragraphs of the article (located here http://merlib.org/node/6196) :-

Excerpts from an article written by Brian Desborough entitled "Why I Wrote "They Cast No Shadows""

"Authors of non-fiction books often experience difficulty in acquiring sufficient data to fill a book of normal length. In contrast, the research material acquired by myself over the past three decades has resulted in an overabundance of riches. Consequently, I've had to omit much important research material in my book and also shorten some passages."
"Had space permitted, the second chapter, which deals with the creation of life (biogenesis) would have delved deeper into what I perceive to be the fundamental hierarchical structure of the universe. My research into the nature of free energy systems suggests that an interrelationship exists between everything in the universe, harmony being maintained by what we perceive as a cosmic canon of mathematical correspondences, originated by a concious creative intelligence which trancends the universe and is complete unto itself."


As the chapter states: "It is quite probable that this creative intelligence, ... administrates by means of a hierarchy of creative agencies imminent within nature, which assist at various transcendental levels in maintaining harmony throughout the cosmos."
If this postulate is correct, one would expect plantlife to be receiving intelligent signals from somewhere in the cosmos, and this is indeed the case. Despite the claim of the late Dr. Carl Sagan and scientists in his SETI organization that we have not detected intelligent communication from any extraterrestrial source, this is a blatant falsehood. As the chapter relates, George Lawrence developed equipment which has been receiving intelligent signals from the cosmos since 1974. Interestingly, the component in Lawrence's electronic equipment which receives the signals from somewhere in the universe (or multiverse) is a transducer which is coated with living plant cells. Lawrence's equipment has been adopted by NASA.

* * * * * * *

This post has been edited by Fremen Bryan: Feb 16 2009, 06:17 PM

[Sarielite]

It is quite a twist to claim it to be the simplicity principle to add up so many "amazing coindicendes" that counting the odds makes one run out of digits on a computer to get the odds of any small piece of machinery materializing or self-organizing out of nowhere.

The author has failed to grasp the difference between defining the parameters of a particular argument and the evidence supporting that argument. If I were producing evidence in the referenced passage, I would have cited specific examples. Instead, I was laying out the framework of the atheist argument. That framework takes as a given that if there is a way for elements within the universe to self-organize into life without the requirement of a divine creator, and no repeatable, falsifiable way of detecting a divine creator, it one can imagine that no such entity exists.

Yes, there exists a test. His arrogance and ignorance is typical. God gave us His Laws, and obeying those Laws will give results. By obeying The Laws which were explained even further by Christ, is a test that yields results, that the writer has not tested and probably will not test with that attitude.

As I requested before, please explain how following the edicts of the Bible produce repeatable, falsifiable evidence of the existence of god. What results do such an experiment produce? Promises of a rosy eternal afterlife mean nothing when approaching the problem from a skeptic's angle; it's not like the results of the experiment could be transmitted from beyond the grave for further analysis.

Only "two prototypical humans" is a false church-teaching and obviously many more humans were created, and that the story of the two were given to the people of the mentality of their days for the simplicity's sake.

3000 years of Judeo-Christian theology disagrees with you. Much of that 3000 years (from about 1000 BCE to 1000 CE) there was no centralized church that maintained a common theological framework. I find it very difficult to believe that somebody (whether it was a divine author, as you would posit, or a mundane human figure) inserted their own editorial bias during the early Jewish kingdom (3000 years ago) or during the Gregorian Reforms (1000 years ago) just for the benefit of the common person. People, in general, are pretty smart; early humanity built giant pyramids and megaliths and navigated thousands of miles of ocean in a canoe just by watching the stars, clouds, and birds. It's far more likely that the relevant passages of Genesis have existed more-or-less in-tact since they were first recorded, well before the existence of any monolithic church entity.

A "true atheist" would KNOW that there "is no god", but there is a God, and even in a hypothetical situation that there was no god, we couldn't know it, and it would simply be the utmost arrogance to claim to be a "true atheist" without knowledge.

No. To be atheist means that one does not believe in the existence of god. Remaining atheist in the face of incontrovertible proof that a creator deity exists would be absurd, but atheists declare that no such incontrovertible proof exists. If we are to come to a consensus on the issue, it is required of theists that they prove that a god does exist rather than atheists to prove that a god does not exist; attempting to prove a negative is a logical fallacy. To illustrate, I'll use a common example of Russell's Teapot, which can be summed up like this:

Imagine that I declare that I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. This teapot is too small to be viewed by any telescope, but I have in my possession a book which declares its existence unequivocally. Because I have declared it to be true, I then demand that it is up to my peers to search the sky rigorously to attempt to not find this china teapot. Clearly, all of peers would reasonably complain that it is not their job to disprove the teapot, it is up to me to provide undeniable evidence that the teapot does exist.

In other words, the fundamental atheist (and scientific) position is skeptical. Nothing exists without observable proof of its existence; for example, there was no conclusive evidence of the existence of black holes until very recently, before which there were many heated debates as to whether or not they actually existed as a non-theoretical concept. We could get into the metaphysics and philosophy of perception, but it would be divergent from the topic at hand.

[Fremen Bryan]

Not all scientists are atheists, for instance Walter Russell:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Russell

Also, incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a Creator does exist when one looks in the right places (like the works of the above author for instance).

[Fremen Bryan]

Does God Exist? | The Message of Modern Science - 31:24 - May 2, 2006
ScienceFindsGod.com - www.ScienceFindsGod.com


(37 Ratings) Rate:

Dr. Gerald Schroeder sets forth a powerful argument for a Creator of the cosmos that goes beyond Intelligent Design theory to the radical ra...all » Dr. Gerald Schroeder sets forth a powerful argument for a Creator of the cosmos that goes beyond Intelligent Design theory to the radical rationality in nature. Dr. Gerald Schroeder holds a dual doctorate in Nuclear Physics and Oceanography from MIT along with high-level research in chemistry and planetary sciences. Dr. Schroeder's argument was so powerful it played a part in influencing the worlds leading atheist, Antony Flew to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Creator. This video is a part of the documentary entitled "Has Science Discovered God?" that made world headline news because it shows how Antony Flew changed his mind about atheism on the basis of the message of modern science, a message that testifies to the inherently intelligent infrastructure that underlies the universe.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=35...d+duration:long




<h2 class="date-header">Saturday, February 04, 2006</h2> <h3 class="post-title"> Has Science Discovered God? </h3>

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, Based on Scientific Evidence


A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "<a href="http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/" target="_blank">Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.
The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

origin: http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976
NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004

BACK TO MAIN PAGE



This post has been edited by Fremen Bryan: Feb 17 2009, 04:09 PM

[Fremen Bryan]

Not all scientists are atheists, for instance Walter Russell:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Russell

Also, incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a Creator does exist when one looks in the right places (like the works of the above author for instance).

http://www.philosophy.org/index.php?option...=77&catid=3