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

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.

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.



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



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.



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.

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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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

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

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

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.

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

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.

* * * * * * *

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.


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.


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.


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.

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).

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

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

More forthcoming evidence:-

http://sites.google.com/site/appliedbiophysicsresearch/

Here you can listen to some of the results of our DNA music translations and productions.

We have successfully interpreted over 80 genetic sequences already and we have examples of some of our most recent clients as a sample for you, with kind permission of the owner's.

The effect upon the listener/client on first hearing their DNA music is magical and enriching. The client feels a great sense of affinity with this personalised and intimate musical reflection of themselves.

Your DNA Song Ltd (2008) - Home






Stuart Mitchell - Saturn's Hexagon and Cymatics

Much of Walter Russel's work remains unproven and is contrary to the theories that currently have the most supporting evidence. While I'm not too familiar with Russel's writing, his philosophy appears to be in the same vein as the proponents of the technological singularity but for consciousness. It's unclear if either is actually taking place or if it's a matter of perception--the horizon approaches very slowly even when the trees on either side of the road blur past.

In any case, no, not all scientists are atheists. The credible scientists that do believe in a creator being take it as a matter of faith, however. Just as I described Russell's teapot, the corollary to it is the uncertainty principle: Just because there's no evidence that there is a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars does not mean that no such teapot exists. One can obviously ardently believe that such a teapot does exist, but one cannot reasonably force that belief on others without substantial evidence.

Also:

Nikola Tesla once told Russell
he should "lock up his work in a vault in the Smithsonian for a
thousand years" to keep it for future generations who might be
developed sufficiently to understand it.


Please see the following article about Walter Russell which should give some weight and credibility to some of his claims:-

The Macrobiotic Genius of Walter Russell

By John David Mann


(also wordsearch MERLib.org for 'Walter Russell' for more articles)

Walter Russell - An Open Letter to Science


Gentlemen:

This Open Letter to the World of Science, accompanied by a Treatise on The Russell Cosmogony, is being sent to approximately 350 members of our National Academy of Science and Royal Society of London, 100 Universities, and 300 leading newspapers.

This announcement with its new concept of Light, Matter, Energy, Electricity and Magnetism is a simple yet complete, consistent and workable cosmogony which will enable future scientists to visualize the universe as ONE WHOLE, and will open the door to the New Age of Transmutation.

Recalling the important contributions I have already made to science, such as my work in completing the hydrogen octave and my prior discovery of the existence of the two atom bomb elements given to the scientific world in my two Periodic Tables of the Elements, assures me that you will give serious thought and attention to these documents.

Present threatening world conditions make it imperative that science discloses the way whereby the weakest of nations can protext itself from the strongest of them and render attack by land, sea and air impotent.

This new knowledge will give science this power.

England could have been rendered immune from her devastating bombardment had the world been receptive to these new scientific discoveries which I endeavored to give to it when World War II started. Science, however, did make use of the two atom bomb elements mentioned above, which I charted and copyrighted in 1926.

The world needs new metals. Many new rustless metals of greater density, malleability and conductivity await division in vast quantities from carbon and silicon. These will be found when science discards its concept of matter as being substance, and becomes aware of the gyroscopic control of motion which will split the carbon tone into isotopes as a musical tone is split into sharps and flats.

In the chemical elements, the sharps and flats are isotopes. These can be produced by man in greater numbers than Nature has produced them, for Nature does not begin to split her tones until she has passed two octaves beyond carbon. There is a tremendous opportunity for the metallurgist of tomorrow to create new metals in the carbon and silicon octaves.

Of even greater importance to the world in this crucial period is the production of unlimited quantities of free hydrogen. This ideal weightless fuel could be transmuted from the atmosphere while in transit without the necessity of storage capacity.

These are the important things which might now be known if Kepler's discovery had divulged the facts of geometric symmetry and dual curvature within the wave field.

His law of elliptical orbits evidences that he was on the verge of discovering that four - not two - magnetic poles control the dual opposed balance of this two/way universe. With but two magnetic poles a three-dimensional radial universe of time intervals and sequences would be impossible. A balanced universe must have two poles to control centripetal, genero-active force, and two compensating poles to control centrifugal, radioactive force.

By means of such knowledge, science could rid the earth of fear of attack by any nation no matter how the attack might come, whether by land, sea or air.

This new knowledge will give to science the cause of all the effects which have for centuries of research deceived the senses of scientific observers.

Man has a Mind as well as having senses, but he has given preference to the evidence of his senses in the building of his cosmogony. Man can reason with his senses but he cannot know with them. Reasoning is sense-thinking - not Mind-knowing. He has also produced effects without knowing their cause.

The senses have not revealed to man that this is a substanceless universe of motion only. Neither have they told him the principle of polarity which divides the universal equilibrium into pairs of oppositely-conditioned mates to create a sex-divided electric two-way universe.

The time has come in the history of man when knowledge alone can save the human race. Man has for too long left the Creator out of His Creation, thinking He cannot be proven in the laboratory.

God not only can be proven in the laboratory, but because of the facts of that proof man can solve many heretofore hidden mysteries of the universe - such as that of the seed and growth - life and death cycles - the purpose of the inert gases as electric recorders of all repetitive effects - and the true process of atomic structure.

You might reasonably ask why I have withheld this knowledge for so many years. I have not withheld it. I tried in vain to give it from 1926 when I first published charts of the complete periodic tables herewith attached, up to the beginning of World War II when I tried to organize a laboratory group to save England from its unnecessary bombardment.

I also accepted and held the Presidency of The Social of Arts and Sciences in New York for seven years for the sole purpose of giving to the world this new cosmogony based upon a two-way continuous, balanced universe to replace the one-way discontinuous, unbalanced universe which is presumably expanding to a heat death.

During this period, I lectured upon the misconceived idea that hydrogen is the basic number one atom of the periodic table. I explained that there are twenty-one other elements which precede it and that hydrogen itself is not a single element but a whole complex octave. I also explained the impossibility of there being any element without an inert gas as its source. At that time I distributed my periodic charts to approximately 800 scientists and universities.

Further than inciting research which yielded so-called isotopes of hydrogen and heavy water, nothing came of my effort, nor did I receive the credit due me. Incidentally, those so-called isotopes are not isotopes but full-toned elements of an orderly octave group series. Isotopes do not occur in Nature until they reach the octave following the silicon octave. The reasons for this are fully explained in our Study Course.

I wrote two books, gave many lectures and set up a demonstration laboratory in a university to prove that the elements are not different substances but are differently conditioned pressures of motion - and that the structure of the atom is based upon the gyroscopic principle.

As one after another of my discoveries appeared under other names, I acted on the advice of a friendly science editor to withhold any more of my new cosmogony until it was fully completed in words and diagrams, and again copyrighted.

It has taken many years to so complete it that it is invulnerable to attack, but this has now been done, and this present treatise is as complete in brief as the whole cosmogony is complete in detail.

I do not look for immediate acceptance of this revolutionary new knowledge. I do hope and expect, however, that the seed of it will grow within the consciousness of science, and as I am nearing 82 years of age I feel it is incumbent to announce the fact to science through this open letter and treatise that The Russell Cosmogony, which my gifted wife, Lao, and I have together written into a year's Study Course of 935 uncontradictable pages, and 182 diagrams, is now complete.

This course is now being studied all over the world and, through our students as seed, this new knowledge will ultimately trnasform the world.

It is with the deep desire that a higher civilization shall arise that I send forth this message to mankind. The day is here when Science and Religion must marry, or through ignorance of God's Universal Laws man will perish from the earth.

Hoping that the world of science will recognize that this treatise has within it the answer to basic cause for which it has been so long and tirelessly searching, I am

Sincerely yours
Walter Russell

February 13, 1953
(Introduction to "A New Concept of the Universe", which is available from philosophy.org and various other places that sell Russell books)

In this he is clearly wrong. Carbon exists in three isotopes in nature (Carbon 12, 13 and 14 -- C13 is used in radiocarbon dating). No carbon isotope exists that exhibits significantly different metallurgical properties other than increased radioactivity. There are numerous naturally-occurring isotopes of lighter elements than Carbon, as well. Tritium, for example, is a hydrogen atom with two extra neutrons, and is thought to be key in human-controlled fusion reactions.

Essentially, Walter Russell's theories aren't consistent with scientific discoveries in the recent past. Whether or not he's a theist, or that he believes that a deity's hand can be seen in the laboratory, is an entirely separate issue. As I said before: there are many religious and spiritual scientists, but that belief is an act of faith, not science.

There are many components to the abiogenesis and evolutionary theory, none of which have been falsified theoretically or experimentally. If anything, there is a corpus of evidence that that life on Earth is a product of random happenstance. A previous point that Fremen Bryan made, or was made by proxy through him, was the extreme unlikeliness of life arising out of nothing. I think that this is perhapsbased out of a misunderstanding of exactly how large the universe is: Astronomers estimate that there are 10^22 stars visible from Earth. That's a 1 with 22 zeroes behind it, which is a quantity unimaginably large.* Then you take the individual history of all those stars (some will burn out eventually, and new ones will be formed) from the beginning of the mature universe some 10 billon years ago (an unimaginably long time) to the present moment, it's plausible that life could spontaneously arise at least once, based on our limited knowledge of abiogenesis.


* A little NapkinMath indicates that if you stacked 10^22 dollar bills (assuming each dollar is 0.1mm thick, or there are 100 dollars per centimeter), the stack would be about 10 light years tall. In other words, the scale is so unimaginably large that all the analogies are unimaginably large as well.

The Spring Festival is the most important festival for the Chinese people and is when all family members get together, just like Christmas in the West. All people living away from home go back, becoming the busiest time for transportation systems of about half a month from the Spring Festival. Airports, railway stations and long-distance bus stations are crowded with home returnees.
,wow gold,
The Spring Festival falls on the 1st day of the 1st lunar month, often one month later than the Gregorian calendar. It originated in the Shang Dynasty (c. 1600 BC-c. 1100 BC) from the people's sacrifice to gods and ancestors at the end of an old year and the beginning of a new one.

Strictly speaking, the Spring Festival starts every year in the early days of the 12th lunar month and will last till the mid 1st lunar month of the next year. Of them, the most important days are Spring Festival Eve and the first three days. The Chinese government now stipulates people have seven days off for the Chinese Lunar New Year.
wow power leveling,
Many customs accompany the Spring Festival. Some are still followed today, but others have weakened.
On the 8th day of the 12th lunar month, many families make laba porridge, a delicious kind of porridge made with glutinous rice, millet, seeds of Job's tears, jujube berries, lotus seeds, beans, longan and gingko.
The 23rd day of the 12th lunar month is called Preliminary Eve. At this time, people offer sacrifice to the kitchen god. Now however, most families make delicious food to enjoy themselves.
wow gold,
After the Preliminary Eve, people begin preparing for the coming New Year. This is called "Seeing the New Year in".

Store owners are busy then as everybody goes out to purchase necessities for the New Year. Materials not only include edible oil, rice, flour, chicken, duck, fish and meat, but also fruit, candies and kinds of nuts. What's more, various decorations, new clothes and shoes for the children as well as gifts for the elderly, friends and relatives, are all on the list of purchasing.
wow gold,
Before the New Year comes, the people completely clean the indoors and outdoors of their homes as well as their clothes, bedclothes and all their utensils.
archlord gold,
Then people begin decorating their clean rooms featuring an atmosphere of rejoicing and festivity. All the door panels will be pasted with Spring Festival couplets, highlighting Chinese calligraphy with black characters on red paper. The content varies from house owners' wishes for a bright future to good luck for the New Year. Also, pictures of the god of doors and wealth will be posted on front doors to ward off evil spirits and welcome peace and abundance.
wotlk gold,
The Chinese character "fu" (meaning blessing or happiness) is a must. The character put on paper can be pasted normally or upside down, for in Chinese the "reversed fu" is homophonic with "fu comes", both being pronounced as "fudaole." What's more, two big red lanterns can be raised on both sides of the front door. Red paper-cuttings can be seen on window glass and brightly colored New Year paintings with auspicious meanings may be put on the wall.
wow gold,

Spring Festival

Quote tags dont seem to be working with me, so everything below appears in quotation marks and my comments appear underlined.


"In the chemical elements, the sharps and flats are isotopes. These can be produced by man in greater numbers than Nature has produced them, for Nature does not begin to split her tones until she has passed two octaves beyond carbon. There is a tremendous opportunity for the metallurgist of tomorrow to create new metals in the carbon and silicon octaves." - Walter Russell

'Sarielite':-

"In this he is clearly wrong. Carbon exists in three isotopes in nature (Carbon 12, 13 and 14 -- C13 is used in radiocarbon dating). No carbon isotope exists that exhibits significantly different metallurgical properties other than increased radioactivity. There are numerous naturally-occurring isotopes of lighter elements than Carbon, as well. Tritium, for example, is a hydrogen atom with two extra neutrons, and is thought to be key in human-controlled fusion reactions."

Russell is himself the very reason the element you have just named was ever discovered -- and his spiral chart was the very first Periodic Table of the Elements to include said element. This is taken from the before mentioned 'The Macrobiotic Genius of Walter Russell':-

Atomic Prophesies
It was an uncannily accurate forecast: ozone depletion was
first noticed over the Antarctic in 1982 -- and scientists have
since concluded that it first appeared in 1979. But then, as now,
the Russells' voice received little notice.
The somber prediction of Atomic Suicide? was not the first
time Russell had gone out on a limb with scientific prophecy.
His spiral charts of the atomic table, copyrighted in 1926,
predicted the discovery of the transuranic elements Plutonium and
Neptunium, as well as the now-familiar elements of "heavy water,
Deuterium and Tritium" -- years before they were isolated in
research labs.
Some have claimed that the 1926 Russell charts (for which he
later received an honorary doctorate from the American Academy of
Sciences) and his years of New York City lectures on the subject
led directly to the laboratory research that resulted in these
elements' later discovery. It is difficult to document such a
claim at a half century's distance, but this sequence certainly
is feasible. Russell himself evidently exerted considerable
energy for years urging the research labs of Union Carbide,
Westinghouse, General Electric and others to verify his atomic
findings.
In any case, the exclusion from the mainstream of Russell's
charts is perhaps one of the most unfortunate snafus in the
history of science. For in neglecting to credit Russell with
these pivotal atomic discoveries, the world also lost track of
the other side of the Russell equation: the larger scientific
understanding in the spiral charts, the pragmatic warnings that
accompanied them, and the breathtaking scope of macrobiotic
thought his life and work revealed.


Sarielite :-

"Essentially, Walter Russell's theories aren't consistent with scientific discoveries in the recent past. Whether or not he's a theist, or that he believes that a deity's hand can be seen in the laboratory, is an entirely separate issue. As I said before: there are many religious and spiritual scientists, but that belief is an act of faith, not science."

Walter Russell has not been disproven by science at all, and in fact his experiemnts in TRANSMUTATION OF THE ELEMENTS have been proven successful, and they only could have been, if he were correct (which he was/is). Science continues to give validity to his cosmogeny, please see:-

Walter Russell: The Universal One:

In this 1926 historic volume, Walter Russell first reveals the possibility of transmutation of the elements.


Jeane Manning: Top 10 Impossible Inventions that Work

6. A METHOD FOR TRANSMUTATION OF ELEMENTS

Changing atomic elements or making elements appear mysteriously? It sounds like impossible alchemy, but experimenters recently did this, without Big Science particle accelerators. These scientists learned from a metaphysician, Walter Russell (1871-1963). During vivid spiritual experiences, Russell had seen everything in the universe, from the atom to outer space, being formed by an invisible background geometry. Russell not only portrayed his visions in paintings, he also learned science. He was so far ahead that in 1926 he predicted tritium, deuterium, neptunium, plutonium and other elements.

Recently, professional engineers Ron Kovac and Toby Grotz of Colorado, with help from Dr. Tim Binder, repeated Russell's 1927 work, which was verified at the time by Westinghouse Laboratories. Russell found a novel way to change the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in water vapor inside a sealed quartz tube, or to change the vapor to completely different elements. Their conclusion agrees with Russell: the geometry of motion in space is important in atomic transmutation. Kovac shorthands that idea to geometry of space-bending.

These modern shape-shifters speak of Russell's feats such as prolate or oblate the oxygen nucleus into nitrogen or hydrogen or vice versa. To change nuclei, they change the shape of a magnetic field. Although they used expensive analyzing equipment, it is basically tabletop science. No atom-smashing cyclotron needed; just a gentle nudge using the right frequencies. Focus and un-focus light-motion, create a vortex and control it.

Cold fusion researchers are also running across strange elements popping up in their own electrified brews. No one is proposing to make gold and upset world currencies, but some experimenters aim to clean up radioactive waste by their novel processes."

Please also see:-

http://merlib.org/blog/distance/5078


Grotz, Toby, Tim Binder, et Ron Kovac, (1992), "Novel Means of Hydrogen Production Using Dual Polarity Control and Walter Russell's Experiments with Zero Point Energy," 27th IECEC, pages 4.339-4.344.

Binder, Timothy, (1993), "Transmutation of the Elements, A Modern Alchemical Team's Experiments with the concepts of Walter Russell", Proceedings IANS pp.107-134.

Binder, Timothy - Russell's Nuclear-Magnetic Transmutation Experiments - ISNE 1993 Grotz, Toby - Russell's Power Multiplication Principle Experiments IECEC 1992, ISNE1993



Toby Grotz and his team are planning to replicate the energy experiments of Walter Russell. In the fall of 1959, General Chapman, Colonel Fry, Major Sargent, Major Cripe, and others from NORAD in Colorado Springs, attended a meeting at Swannanoa, Virginia (University Of Science And Philosophy) at the invitation of Walter Russell. At this meeting Russell explained the workings of a device he proposed to build to take advantage of the vacuum state energy, and the two directional movement of energy from gravitation, (generation), to radiation, (degeneration). During the following year Russell, his wife, Lao, and their assistants built the device. The prototype that was built consisted of two sets of dual and magnetically-sexed coils. On September 10, 1961, Walter and Lao Russell reported to their contacts at NORAD, that the coils had worked and that the President of the United States could announce to the world that a "greater, safer power than atomic energy" could be provided for industry and transportation.

Tim Binder and his team have replicated the 1927 experiments of Walter Russell and have created fluorine from pure water vapor using complex E-M field arrangements. This work validates Russell's theories about nuclear structure and the proper arrangement of the Periodic Table of the Elements.

(See 'The Influence of Vedic Philosophy on Nikola Tesla's Understanding of Free Energy', 15th Annual USPA Conference, Sacramento, California, audio and video tape available, paper to be published, fall of 1992 in the Journal Of The USPA)



The December 1994 issue of the university's Science Journal published a report filed by the Russell Science Research (RSR) Colorado team of Ron Kovac, Toby Grotz, and Dr. Timothy Binder. Titled, "A Report On The Russell Science Research Team's Transmutation of Nitrogen into Lithium and Helium," the abstract is authored by electrical engineer and team member Ron Kovac. In a 1992/1993 attempt to verify Walter Russell's 1927 effort at transmutation, the RSR team states that they succeeded when they produced fluorine from water vapor. According to the report, "The first generation experiment utilized water injected into evacuated quartz tubes which were subsequently heated, placed in magnetic fields, allowed to cool while in the magnetic field, and then qualitatively analyzed with an emission spectroscope."



Sarielite:-

"There are many components to the abiogenesis and evolutionary theory, none of which have been falsified theoretically or experimentally. If anything, there is a corpus of evidence that that life on Earth is a product of random happenstance. A previous point that Fremen Bryan made, or was made by proxy through him, was the extreme unlikeliness of life arising out of nothing. I think that this is perhapsbased out of a misunderstanding of exactly how large the universe is: Astronomers estimate that there are 10^22 stars visible from Earth. That's a 1 with 22 zeroes behind it, which is a quantity unimaginably large.* Then you take the individual history of all those stars (some will burn out eventually, and new ones will be formed) from the beginning of the mature universe some 10 billon years ago (an unimaginably long time) to the present moment, it's plausible that life could spontaneously arise at least once, based on our limited knowledge of abiogenesis."

Biogenesis - Life Begets Life - is the most likely plausable scenario. How could 'No life' somehow spontaniously produce 'Life' out of nothingness? Life Begets life - as we already see in Nature with reproduction - is the best answer, instead of the highly unlikely 'spontaneous order' (terms which seem to contradict one another).

Sarielite:-

"* A little NapkinMath indicates that if you stacked 10^22 dollar bills (assuming each dollar is 0.1mm thick, or there are 100 dollars per centimeter), the stack would be about 10 light years tall. In other words, the scale is so unimaginably large that all the analogies are unimaginably large as well."


It is an extreme unlikelyhood and mathmatically unsound, alhough I disagree with the followings claim that disproving 'spontaneous generation' is the same as disproving evoluion, however serves as good reading to completely disprove spontaneous generation from a scientific point of view:-

The Odds
During the last several decades a number of prestigious scientists have attempted to calculate the mathematical probability of the random-chance origin of life. The results of their calculations reveal the enormity of the dilemma faced by evolutionists.

Dr. Blum estimated the probability of just a single protein arising spontaneously from a primordial soup. Equilibrium and the reversibility of biochemical reactions eventually led Blum to state: "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a ‘chance’ act."




In the 1970’s British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth – a bacterium.




Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoebae. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power, i.e., 1 in 1040,000. Prior to this project, Hoyle was a believer in the spontaneous generation of life. This project, however, changed his opinion 180 degrees. Hoyle stated: "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Hoyle also concluded that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacteria, "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein."




Hoyle’s calculations may seem impressive, but they don’t even begin to approximate the difficulty of the task. He only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in the cell. He did not calculate the chance formation of the DNA, RNA, nor the cell wall that holds the contents of the cell together.




Consider this. The odds of winning a state lottery are about 1 chance in ten million. The odds of someone winning the state lottery every single week from age 18 to age 99 is 1 chance in 4.6 x 1029,120. Therefore, the odds of winning the state lottery every week consecutively for eighty years is more likely than the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of an amoebae!




A more detailed estimate for spontaneous generation has been made by Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist. Morowitz imagined a broth of living bacteria that was super-heated so that all the complex chemicals were broken down into their basic building blocks. After cooling the mixture, he concluded that the odds of a single bacterium re-assembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. This number is so large that it would require several thousand books just to write it out. To put this number into perspective, it is more likely that an entire extended family would win the state lottery every week for a million years than for a bacterium to form by chance!




In his book, Origins–A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Robert Shapiro gives a very realistic illustration of how one might estimate the odds of the spontaneous generation of life. Shapiro begins by allowing one billion years (5 x 1014 minutes) for spontaneous biogenesis. Next he notes that a simple bacterium can make a copy of itself in twenty minutes, but he assumes that the first life was much simpler. So he allows each trial assembly to last one minute, thus providing 5 x 1014 trial assemblies in 1 billion years to make a living bacterium. Next he allows the entire ocean to be used as the reaction chamber. If the entire ocean volume on planet earth were divided into reaction flasks the size of a bacterium we would have 1036 separate reaction flasks. He allows each reaction flask to be filled with all the necessary building blocks of life. Finally, each reaction chamber is allowed to proceed through one-minute trial assemblies for one billion years. The result is that there would be 1051 tries available in 1 billion years. According to Morowitz we need 10100,000,000,000 trial assemblies!




Regarding the probabilities calculated by Morowitz, Robert Shapiro wrote: "The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."




Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated in 1982: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."




Regarding the probability of spontaneous generation, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald stated in 1954: "One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here–as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." In this incredibly twisted statement, we see that Wald’s dogmatic adherence to the evolutionist’s paradigm is independent of the evidence. Wald’s belief in the "impossible" can only be explained by faith: "…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."




Despite these incredible odds and insurmountable problems, spontaneous generation is taught as a fact from grammar school to the university level. In fact, NASA reported to the press in 1991 their opinion that life arose spontaneously not once, but multiple times, because previous attempts were wiped out by cosmic catastrophes!




Conclusion
The overwhelming evidence is clear…spontaneous generation is an impossibility. It is a scientifically corrupt theory that, among other things, violates the Law of Biogenesis, which says that that life never arises except from life. Life simply cannot come from non-life. Since spontaneous generation is impossible, so then the foundation that evolution rests on has been shattered. Without spontaneous generation there can be no evolution.




Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, however, there are those who continue to believe in evolution, and are therefore forced to accept and defend some form of spontaneous generation. The reason for this dogmatic adherence to spontaneous generation is eloquently pointed out by George Wald: "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!" According to Wald, it’s not about discovering the truth through the finding of fact, it’s not a matter of evidence, not a matter of science…it’s a matter of philosophy! Like George Wald, many people do not like the alternative: that all life on earth was created by God. So, as Wald said, they are willing to "believe the impossible."




Since the impossibility of spontaneous generation is a conclusion that leads to a supernatural creative act by God, it is a conclusion that many choose not to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present politically correct climate, undesirable philosophic and religious implications. It is for that unfortunate and illogical reason most scientists continue to cling to the unscientific, disproved theory that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation.

"

http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evolut...in_of_life.html

Walter Russell Vortex Video: The Cosmology of Twin Opposing Electro-Magnetic Vortices

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

Video Diescription:-

These are images one may use to contemplate the properties of Walter Russell's Cosmology of "Twin Opposing Electro-Magnetic Vortices". His ideas explain all of the natural observations of our Universe which baffle confused academicians.

The physics of Russell's Cosmology also explains the Free Energy Implosion Technologies of the great Austrian Water Wizard, Viktor Schauberger. Schauberger invented Implosion Turbines in the 30's and 40's in Austria and Germany.

This implosion physics defies academic physics and makes academic theory provably obsolete and the professors pushing these socially engineered lies as well.

For a detailed account of the free energy technologies of Viktor Schuaberger and Walter Russell, Implosion Physics, Bio-mimicry, Scalar Mechanics and the many types of Free Energy Technologies currently in existence please see:

http://www.feandft.com/

Viktor Schauberger Implosion Turbine from the 1940's

http://www.frank.germano.com/viktorsc...

Permanent Magnetic Free Energy Motors

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

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

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mromag.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fR3vB...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQAo3O...

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

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

All current destructive academic forms of energy production including the corporate alternatives of Solar, wind and tide are all obsolete. Demand that this technology not be suppressed by the energy barons again for another 50 years. Start a group and demand it be implemented immediately to reverse our present direction into a planetary environmental hell.

Hold President Obama accountable for his promised mantra of "Change". This is the only change that will bring about real freedom, happiness, recreation and eternal abundance for humanity.

Namaste Amigos

Music by Pink Floyd "Dogs" from the beautiful "Animals" recording. The gorgeous vocal work of David Gilmore and his soaring guitar solos, makes this a personal favorite. Plus I am a wood dog (58'), so it is rather poignant for me as well.

Namaste Friends

'I've Found God' Says Man
Who Cracked Genome
By Steven Swinford
The Sunday Times
6-11-6


THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man "closer to God".

His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. "One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war," said Collins, 56.

"I don't see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years."

For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to "glimpse at the workings of God".

"When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it," he said. "But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

"When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can't survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can't help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind."

Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: "This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."

Although Einstein revolutionised our thinking about time, gravity and the conversion of matter to energy, he believed the universe had a creator. "I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details," he said. However Galileo was famously questioned by the inquisition and put on trial in 1633 for the "heresy" of claiming that the earth moved around the sun.

Among Collins's most controversial beliefs is that of "theistic evolution", which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further.
http://i.am/jah/evolut.htm

"I see God's hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way," he says.

"Scientifically, the forces of evolution by natural selection have been profoundly affected for humankind by the changes in culture and environment and the expansion of the human species to 6 billion members. So what you see is pretty much what you get."

Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.

"They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance," he said. "That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling."

He decided to visit a Methodist minister and was given a copy of C S Lewis's Mere Christianity, which argues that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life. "It was an argument I was not prepared to hear," he said. "I was very happy with the idea that God didn't exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away."

His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: "It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, 'I cannot resist this another moment'."

Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the "natural" world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. "If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion," he says.
__________________



The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution




http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

As scientists explore a new universe˜the universe inside the cell˜they are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution?
http://i.am/jah/evolut.htm


Related Articles
Coming to a School Near You: Darwinism in the Classroom <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn36/darwinism.htm>
Drawings Faked to Support Evolution? <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn36/darwinism_drawings.htm>
Creation or Evolution: Did God Create Man? <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn17/createman.htm>
Evolution: Fact or Fiction? <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn18/evolution.htm>
Creation and Evolution: The Bible Explanation <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn19/explanation.htm>
A Course on Evolution and Faith <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn52/evolutionfaith.htm>
How Did Life Begin? <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn29/lifebegin.htm>
Serious Problems With Dating Methods <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn46/noahsflood_methods.htm>
The Human Genome Project Decoding the Mystery of Man <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn29/mysteryman.htm>
Creation and Evolution: An Interview With Philip Johnson <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn17/interview.htm>
FREE BOOKLET
Creation or Evolution - Does It Really Matter What You Believe? <http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/>
by Mario Seiglie


Two great achievements occurred in 1953, more than half a century ago.


The first was the successful ascent of Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world. Sir Edmund Hillary and his guide, Tenzing Norgay, reached the summit that year, an accomplishment that's still considered the ultimate feat for mountain climbers. Since then, more than a thousand mountaineers have made it to the top, and each year hundreds more attempt it.


Yet the second great achievement of 1953 has had a greater impact on the world. Each year, many thousands join the ranks of those participating in this accomplishment, hoping to ascend to fame and fortune.


It was in 1953 that James Watson and Francis Crick achieved what appeared impossible˜discovering the genetic structure deep inside the nucleus of our cells. We call this genetic material DNA, an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid.


The discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule opened the floodgates for scientists to examine the code embedded within it. Now, more than half a century after the initial discovery, the DNA code has been deciphered˜although many of its elements are still not well understood.


What has been found has profound implications regarding Darwinian evolution, the theory taught in schools all over the world that all living beings have evolved by natural processes through mutation and natural selection.


Amazing revelations about DNA


As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected˜an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information˜the detailed instructions for assembling proteins˜in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).


It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica˜an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!


Yet in their actual size˜which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick˜a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334).


Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?


DNA contains a genetic language


Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.


Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).


The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.


The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.


Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."


Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution˜no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?


DNA language not the same as DNA molecule


Recent studies in information theory have come up with some astounding conclusions˜namely, that information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself.


For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the book˜the paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of transporting it.


If the information in the book was spoken aloud, written in chalk or electronically reproduced in a computer, the information does not suffer qualitatively from the means of transporting it. "In fact the content of the message," says professor Phillip Johnson, "is independent of the physical makeup of the medium" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 71).


The same principle is found in the genetic code. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it.


As George Williams puts it: "The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message" (quoted by Johnson, p. 70).


Information from an intelligent source


In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.


As Lee Strobel explains: "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task˜the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244).


For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters˜far from it.


So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.


Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples.


He writes: "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step˜say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41).


We therefore have in the genetic code an immensely complex instruction manual that has been majestically designed by a more intelligent source than human beings.


Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added).


Evolution fails to provide answers


It is good to remember that, in spite of all the efforts of all the scientific laboratories around the world working over many decades, they have not been able to produce so much as a single human hair. How much more difficult is it to produce an entire body consisting of some 100 trillion cells!


Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident˜by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.


Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. "As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." (God: The Evidence, 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).


Quality of genetic information the same


Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.


So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a language˜alphabet, grammar and semantics˜in simple bacteria and algae as in man.


Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).


So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?


Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: "The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (Strobel, p. 282).


Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).


The clincher


Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remaining˜the ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation.


Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters.


This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth˜a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance" (Gitt, p. 95).


More witnesses


Back in Darwin's day, when his book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, life appeared much simpler. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, almost 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered a virtual universe inside the cell.


"It was once expected," writes Professor Behe, "that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).


Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).


Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction" (ibid., p. 77).


Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution˜mostly due to the discoveries of the information found in DNA˜states: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth" (ibid., p. 221).


Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.


"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004).


"Fearfully and wonderfully made"


Although written thousands of years ago, King David's words about our marvelous human bodies still ring true. He wrote: "For You formed my inward parts, You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought. . ." (Psalm 139:13-15, emphasis added).


Where does all this leave evolution? Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).


All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: "Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday.


"Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three" (Johnson, p. 113).


Evolution has had its run for almost 150 years in the schools and universities and in the press. But now, with the discovery of what the DNA code is all about, the complexity of the cell, and the fact that information is something vastly different from matter and energy, evolution can no longer dodge the ultimate outcome. The evidence certainly points to a resounding checkmate for evolution! GN


<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=54475>

No man-made law ever, no matter whether derived from the past or projected onto a distant, unforeseeable future, can or should ever be empowered to claim that it is greater than the Natural Law from which it stems and to which it must inevitably return in the eternal rhythm of creation and decline of all things natural. This is valid, no matter whether we speak in terms such as "God," "Natural Law," "Cosmic Primordial Force," "Ether" or "Cosmic Orgone Energy."

— Wilhelm Reich Response to the FDA's Complaint for Injunction (22 February 1954)

fellas fellas, you guys are wasting your time. well, one of you is, the other is just cutting and pasting worthless info (in my opinion). anyone who claims that they can prove the existence of god probably isn't worth listening to. there is no proof, there will never be proof. sure there are things one can point to and say "hey that looks like it had to be created" but who created the creator. the creator is much more complex than the creation, so how'd he get there. also, suppose there was a creator, how could one be so arrogant to think they can prove that it's the Christian God. why not Zeus, or any other for that matter.

Dear Free Leo P.,

I doesn't matter what people call the Creator - Wakan-Tanka, Allah, The Force etc. Many people have had direct personal contact with the Creator and so know from their own lives experience that a Creator-God exists. You yourself seem here to be saying that there is a Creator and a Creation, but seem to be saying that there is no way we could ever comprehend it. That is I believe what defines an agnostic, as opposed to a Gnostic who feels that not only can you know but that it is only through knowing God and God's Workings in the Uni-Verse that you can believe in Spirit, and that it is your actual duty to seek out this knowledge ceaselessly. Either way, you are saying that there is a Creator, correct? That was my entire arguement. Sarielite seems to believe that the entire Uni-Verse just fell into place randomly, with no Intelligent-Guidance from Divine-Hands, and that the vast expanse of Space just happens to be inter-locking and co-operate with all of its various systems and parts in perfect timing (like the Springs of a Giant Cosmic Clock) entirely by "chance". That conclusion is very illogical and is the real holding onto dying dogma, only in this case it is the dogma of the athiest scientific community, who have already been proven wrong by their own peers. I have already posted alot of material that completely disproves that dogma to anybody who doesnt have rocks for brains - and I copy and pasted that material because it is coming from more informed individuals than myself, and also because I don't feel I am that well with words. The following speach is from somebody who was far better with them, please see below, and enjoy.

LLTF,HBFK
Fremen Bryan

* * * * * * *

'If Britain and America were truly Christian, there would be no other religion on the planet'

-- Mahatma Ghandi. "


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk_RtLayZqY&feature=related

Mahatma's Kingsley Hall speech in 1931 London

"There is an indefinable mysterious power that pervades everything, I feel it though I do not see it.

It is this unseen power which makes itself felt and yet defies all proof, because it is so unlike all that I perceive through my senses.

It transcends the senses.

But it is possible to reason out the existence of God to a limited extent.

Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules.

In my tour last year in Mysore I met many poor villagers and I found upon inquiry that they did not know who ruled Mysore.

They simply said some God ruled it.

If the knowledge of these poor people was so limited about their ruler I who am infinitely lesser in respect to God than they to their ruler need not be surprised if I do not realize the presence of God - the King of Kings.

Nevertheless, I do feel, as the poor villagers felt about Mysore, that there is orderliness in the universe, there is an unalterable law governing everything and every being that exists or lives.

It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living being and thanks to the marvelous researches of Sir J. C. Bose it can now be proved that even matter is life.

That law then which governs all life is God.

Law and the law-giver are one.

I may not deny the law or the law-giver because I know so little about it or Him.

Just as my denial or ignorance of the existence of an earthly power will avail me nothing even so my denial of God and His law will not liberate me from its operation, whereas humble and mute acceptance of divine authority makes life's journey easier even as the acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier.

I do dimly perceive that whilst everything around me is ever changing, ever dying there is underlying all that change a living power that is changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves and recreates.

That informing power of spirit is God, and since nothing else that I see merely through the senses can or will persist, He alone is.

And is this power benevolent or malevolent ?

I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see that in the midst of death life persists, in the midst of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists.

Hence I gather that God is life, truth, light.

He is love.

He is the supreme Good.

But He is no God who merely satisfies the intellect, if He ever does.

God to be God must rule the heart and transform it.

He must express himself in every smallest act of His votary.

This can only be done through a definite realization, more real than the five senses can ever produce.

Sense perceptions can be and often are false and deceptive, however real they may appear to us.

Where there is realization outside the senses it is infallible.

It is proved not by extraneous evidence but in the transformed conduct and character of those who have felt the real presence of God within.

Such testimony is to be found in the experiences of an unbroken line of prophets and sages in all countries and climes.

To reject this evidence is to deny oneself.

This realization is preceded by an immovable faith.

He who would in his own person test the fact of God's presence can do so by a living faith and since faith itself cannot be proved by extraneous evidence the safest course is to believe in the moral government of the world and therefore in the supremacy of the moral law, the law of truth and love.

Exercise of faith will be the safest where there is a clear determination summarily to reject all that is contrary to truth and love.

I confess that I have no argument to convince through reason.

Faith transcends reason.

All that I can advise is not to attempt the impossible."

Not your entire argument. You're clearly placing the Christian mythology above those of other traditions, which means that you believe that it has some special insight into the nature of the universe. The "many faces, one god" argument is a fairly common one, but one that's profoundly insulting to anyone who believes differently than you: how would a Muslim feel if you said that his religious experience was simply a subset of yours, or a Taoist who has no specific beliefs relating to the origin of the universe and shares none of the moral strictures of Christianity. Were I a believer of any faith, I imagine I'd be a bit insulted.

Most religions, and all of the most popular ones, begin their doctrine with something to the effect of, "This is the only true belief. All others are false." Christianity's first commandment says "I am the Lord your God... Do not have any other gods before me," and Christ further hammered that point in by saying, "whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him." In other words, if you say anything ill about god, you are forever damned without chance of redemption--all other actions are pardonable except blaspheming the evil sky tyrant.

Unless you're a Unitarian, or take the biblical verse in broad strokes, it's not really feasible to believe in the "many faces, one god" hypothesis.



I can't speak to the origins of the universe, or to the question of "why?". I'm comfortable with saying that I don't know, and I'm fairly sure that our species will never know why the universe exists. No theory at all is better than a wrong one. There are some interesting hypotheses--both supernatural and prosaic--but nothing strong enough to be called a theory.

I don't think the universe fell into place randomly: it's possible that the currently-stable structure of the universe determined the shape of its own origin in a bit of paradoxical reverse-causality. The nature of quantum mechanics could mean that the observable present determines the past, based on what's being measured. Stephen Hawking has suggested this as a possibility, and other physicists have developed some mathematical frameworks on how this hypothesis might operate.

Also, Mahatma Gandhi was an interesting person, but not for his great understanding of the universe. If I remember correctly, he was a lawyer before his entrance into radical politics, not a scientist or physicist or great philosopher. It's maybe not a great idea to defer to his authority on such matters, just as I wouldn't ask Stephen Pinker about cooking filet mignon.

The New York Times has an interesting write-up on some advances in developing artificial proto-life. Apparently fatty acids will spontaneously arrange themselves into double-layered spheres that will grow larger as more lipids are added until some point when they divide. These membranes also allow small molecules in, but will not let larger compounds out, meaning that they represent a viable container for RNA and other proteins.

There's more, but I'd rather let the article speak for itself rather than paraphrasing or copying the full text here.

Link: New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins

PZ Myers is on a roll today, and has two posts on his web site about the development of dinosaurs into birds. The anti-evolution contention is that, while dinosaurs and birds both underwent a process known as bilateral digit reduction (i.e. they lost some of their fingers as they evolved), the remaining digits are different on dinosaurs and birds. Birds have digits II, III, and IV while dinosaurs seem to have I, II, and III. In other words, dinosaurs would have to have "regrown" their first digit and lost their fourth before evolving into birds.

PZ tackles this by pointing out that "anatomists initially assigned digit numbers I, II, and III to bird limbs on the basis of their form, but later had to revise that to II, III, and IV on the basis of embryology." He goes on to say that "Dinosaur digits are assigned numbers I, II, and III on the basis of their adult form (which is admittedly much less ambiguous than adult bird digits!)…but what about their embryology?" Because we don't have access to dinosaur embryology, we can't rule out the possibility that dinosaurs might exhibit II, III, and IV digits instead of I, II, and III.

The embryology of the primitive tetrapod hand shows that the IV digit--the ring finger--is the primary axis of the development of the hand. The ring finger is the extension of the limb, and digits grow in-sequence along the interior axis (i.e. first III, then II, then the thumb, or I) and the exterior axis (V, or the pinky finger). In other words, because of its importance in the development of the hand embryonically, it's very unlikely that dinosaurs lost their IV digit. This would indicate that dinosaurs exhibit, at the very least, I, II, and IV digits (and no III digit).

The second post by Myers is about the fossil remains of Limusaurus inextricabilis, a Jurassic ceratosaur, that has a vestigial I digit as well as a full complement of II, III, and IV digits. It truly is a "transitional form" that anti-evolutionists shrilly declare do not exist. It shows that saurian tetropods started with (at least) I, II, III, and IV digits and proceeded to lose the I (thumb) digit. Meanwhile, the II digit acquired much of the morphology of I digit.

The whole thing is really interesting. To me, at least.


Sources:
Digit Numbering and Limb Development
Limusaurus Inextricabilis

[The Accidental Weblog]

Most of the posts I have made to this thread have nothing to do with religion but rather I focused on more science oriented reads that support believing in a Creator, like the man who cracked the human Genome or the former atheist professor who now believes the Universe was Created. What you call 'Christianity' is Roman and would more rightly be called 'Churchianity' or 'Paulianity' which I do not identify with (especially going to church, paying them money, and recieving absolution from a 'priest'). The REAL Teachings of Jesus the Nazarite (Numbers Ch. 6) the Revolutionary urge people to leave organized religions and instead go into the wilderness, onto a mountainside or by a lake, to Commune with God (which is why the organized religious leaders, who were loosing money and power as a direct result of Jesus Teaching, engineered the Crucifixion). Christianity as it is known today is almost word for word the exact opposite of what the Christ (i.e. Anointed One) taught. What is more, i have never placed Islam (Arabic: God's Will) as a 'simple sub-set' of Christianity whatsoever, and the Bible that I read (The 'Kofk' or King of kings Version) has the Torah/Tanoch 'Old Song' (of Moses) Testament'/Covenant; the 'New Song' Testament/Covenant (of Jesus), AND the (True, Holy) Koran/Qur'an of the prophet Muhammed, United into One Book, just as these three Faiths/People should be United into One Brotherhood of Believers, as indeed ALL of their different Scriptures tell them to do. What is more, I do not have any problems with the Teaching in the Tao Te Ching (The Way of The King, The Way of Heaven) which is in perfect harmony with the (True) Teaching of Christ and the (True) Teaching of Buddha. The REAL followers of Jesus the Nazarite the Revolutionary did NOT call themselves 'Christians' either, they were 'Gnostics' and 'Essenes' and called themselves 'Followers of The Way'.

It has taken your silly scientists all of these years to observe this, yet this is word for word the exact process that Walter Russell describes in detail over 60 years ago.

I disagree: The assertions made by the original author, to whom you gave implicit support, was that Christianity represents the truth and anything else can be dismissed as atheists being "arrogant".



There's a lot you're leaving out there: Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Shintoists, Wiccans, and all the other innumerable religions out there not covered by your pantheon. And you're totally failing to see why conflating Christianity (whatever you want to call it--following some collection of Christ's teachings) with other religions like Buddhism, Islam, or Judaism is profoundly insulting to people who ardently believe in those cosmologies.

Timothy who is the original author said: -


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

And, Christ (means Anointed or Enlightened One) represents the Wisdom of All-Ages, inspite of the apualing ignorance of people who follow the religion (completely opposite of Christ's Teachings) of "Chrstianity" - which is not what I follow. People who are members of the religion Islam know that Jesus is the Mahdi, and many ethnically Jewish/Judahish people accepted Yahshua as the Meshach or Messiah. There really is no conflict in the TRUE Teachings of these Faiths, yet I do NOT agree with all so-called 'religions', as many of them ARE complete nonsense ~ But I am not activiely seeking to destroy those I do not agree with, either. I know that I left several traditions out, because they are very numerous, yet all of the GOOD ones are strikingly similar in appearance and practice. Here is a quote to ponder, by a Wise-man:-

Put every great teacher together in a room, and they'd agree about everything, put their disciples in there and they'd argue about everything.

As I said, all of the GOOD Spiritual Traditions are very similiar in practice and appearance. For instance, in India for thousands of years 'Holy men' wander for years not cutting their hair as a devotion to their Deity, known as Sadhus. (Note the similarity in the underlined below with the Vow of the Nazarite in Numbers Ch. 6*, which is a Vow of Seperation).

From wikipedia:-
The Sanskrit terms sādhu ("good man") and sādhvī ("good woman") refer to renouncers who have chosen to live a life apart from or on the edges of society in order to focus on their own spiritual practice.^[2]

The words come from the Sanskrit root sādh, which means "reach one's goal", "make straight", or "gain power over".^[3] The same root is used in the word sādhana, which means "spiritual practice".









In the America's the Native American Indians traditionally never cut their hair, believing that it IS a persons Spirit (save for some tribes like the Warrior tribe Mohawk who cut some of their hair, and some Hopi who cut their bangs so they can 'Watch for the return of Pahana'). Native American Indians also wear face paint, and smoke pipes. Though these different cultures are on different land-masses and seperated by an vast ocean are united in many of their common-beliefs and practices, and were a group of wandering Sadhus to stumble across a Hopi village, I believe there would be Peace between them (especially because Hopi means "People of Peace").








Another similar practice of not cutting ones hair/locks is the Nazarite Tradition found in the Torah, which presumably dates back to BEFORE the Torah was ever written down (by Moses from God, on the mountain top), since the Patriarchs Noah and Enoch were said to be Nazarites, like the Bible records Samuel Samson and Jesus all being (though with Jesus a mistranslation occured and Nazarite was changed to Nazarene or of Nazareth over the ages {and note that the village of Nazareth didn't exist until around 400 A.D.). John the Baptist and his followrs were said to be ascetic Nazarites and many of the ancient Essenes were as well. Also, many Rastafarians take the Nazarite Vow, as a devotion to the One Holy God (though not all Nazarites are "Rastas"). Note how much these Nazarites look like Sadhus.











(modern day) Essene Nazariah and Rastafarian HiYah

Jesus was not a christian, but a Nazarite (see Numbers ch. 6). James the Just (Jesus' brother) is said to have had locks to his ankles.


Also note that when a Nazarite breaks their Vow, the hair is shaven, and they then look like Buddhist Monks for a time:-



Then there is the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH!) who is said to have had long hair (in the Hadith), and many sects of Islam forbid the cutting of the beard as well. Sufi Mystics seen here and Dervishes keep their hair wrapped up in turbans (much like Rastas who wear a "Tam") as many middle-Eastern religions do, and in fact some sects in the middle-East only allow men to uwrap their hair in private with their spouses.



Also in Islam, from wikipedia we read:-

In Senegal, the Baye Fall, followers of the Mouride movement, a sect of Islam indigenous to the country which was founded in 1887 by Shaykh Aamadu Bàmba Mbàkke, are famous for growing locks and wearing multi-colored gowns.^[6] Cheikh Ibra Fall, founder of the Baye Fall school of the Mouride Brotherhood, claims that he was "the first dread in West Africa".

(end quote).

Before I said that the Hopi are "People of Peace" - So are the followers of Islam, for the traditional greeting among Moslems is "Peace be upon you" - as is the traditional greeting among "Essenes" - as is the traditional greeting/well-wishes of the "Hippies" who are "People of Peace" (Hippie and Hopi sound very much alike as well). Hippies are known for their long hair. Some hippies, like Cat Stevens, converted to Islam.









From essene.com we read:-

Pythagoras & the Nazareans

Pythagorean Connection to Mt. Carmel

We know from ancient documents that both Essenes and Pythagoreans shared many things in common. Both were vegetarian, both wore white, and both were deeply immersed in Qabbalistic studies. Pythagoras was nicknamed "the long haired one" which further links him with the northern Nazarean Essenes who were all Nazarites (long hairs). History has preserved for us a link between Pythagoras and the Mt. Carmel Essenes:

"In Phoenicia he (Pythagoras) conversed with the prophets who were the descendants of Moses the physiologist, and with many others, as well as the local heirophants . . . . After gaining all he could from the Phoenician Mysteries, he found that they had originated from the sacred rites of Egypt, forming as it were an Egyptian colony. . . . On the Phoenician coast under Mt. Carmel, where, in the Temple on the peak, Pythagoras for the most part had dwelt in solitude . . . Mount Carmel, which they knew to be more sacred than other mountains, and quite inaccessible to the vulgar..."(Life of Pythagoras by Iamblichus)

Josephus, writing between A.D. 75 and A.D.85, tells us that the Essenes were Pythagorean in lifestyle.

"The sect of the Essenes maintain that Fate governs all things, and that nothing can befall man contrary to its determination and will. These men live the same kind of life which among the Greeks has been ordered by Pythagoras."


* * *

Josephus also records his mentor being a Nazarite, which is in the Book of Numbers, and Pythagoras just so happened to be obsessed with Numbers! :-) Also I believe that the oldest known Biblical artifact which was a tiny tiny scroll smaller than a cigarette that was found in a Hebrew tomb had the final verses of the chapter the Nazarite Vow is in, which is a Blessing for the Children of Jackob/Israel. Beyond physical appearance, if a religion or Spiritual Tradition or even somebodies personal belief system is that of Peace, surly they will have no problem getting along with followers of other schools of thought whose tradition and center pillar is Peace. Even armed militant groups who are at war are at war to acheive Peace/comfort for themselves, which is the Universal desire.

*King of kings Version Bible, Book of Numbers:-

6:1 And the "I AM" spoke unto Moses, saying,
6:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate [themselves] to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate [themselves] unto the "I AM":
6:3 He shall separate [himself] from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
6:4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.
6:5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth [himself] unto the "I AM", he shall be holy, [and] shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
6:6 All the days that he separateth [himself] unto the "I AM" he shall come at no dead body.
6:7 He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God [is] upon his head.
6:8 All the days of his separation he [is] holy unto the "I AM".
6:9 And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it.
6:10 And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation:
6:11 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make an atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day.
6:12 And he shall consecrate unto the "I AM" the days of his separation, and shall bring a lamb of the first year for a trespass offering: but the days that were before shall be lost, because his separation was defiled.
6:13 And this [is] the Law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation:
6:14 And he shall offer his offering unto the "I AM", one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings,
6:15 And a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings.
6:16 And the priest shall bring [them] before the "I AM", and shall offer his sin offering, and his burnt offering:
6:17 And he shall offer the ram [for] a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the "I AM", with the basket of unleavened bread: the priest shall offer also his meat offering, and his drink offering.
6:18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation [at] the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put [it] in the fire which [is] under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.
6:19 And the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put [them] upon the hands of the Nazarite, after [the hair of] his separation is shaven:
6:20 And the priest shall wave them [for] a wave offering before the "I AM": this [is] holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.
6:21 This [is] the Law of the Nazarite who hath vowed, [and of] his offering unto the "I AM" for his separation, beside [that] that his hand shall get: according to the vow which he vowed, so he must do after the Law of his separation.
6:22 And the "I AM" spoke unto Moses, saying,
6:23 Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them,
6:24 The "I AM" bless thee, and keep thee:
6:25 The "I AM" make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
6:26 The "I AM" lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
6:27 And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

*

If you don't believe in GOD.
Who do you thank when everything goes right for you?
Being an atheist is like self denial, you know there's
something there but you just can't grasp it!.
FISH

If this is all true then why would He not put it into the world in a way that the everyman can understand? Just a thought. I don't know of any proof either way so I would have to go with Occams razor on this one.