It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Well, actually, no, it isn't evidence.
Them simply sharing the same shape is not evidence of a connection between them.
Does this mean that there is a connection between them and DNA? Again, what is your justification?
There is no reason to believe that this symbol was made to resemble DNA, as there is no evidence that the creators of the symbol knew anything about DNA. What is the connection?
A brief rundown of the mechanism would suffice. I'm not asking for all the research.
So you left it purposefully vague so that anyone could apply anything they wanted to it, and it's simply a collection of dubiously-connected symbols from anything that was to hand. Is this right?
With no justification.
And please don't think that I'm being purposefully nasty or anything. I'm not trying to dismiss any of your claims without considering them. I just want to know if there's really any reasoning behind this.
Originally posted by dzonatas
I disagree with your approach to disqualify evidence, any strong, or weak links.
Given different cultures relate these various symbols and mechanics in a similar theme
you can't deny the possibility it has never been corroborated.
There goes the Theory of Evolution out the window... with that kind of logic.
If you don't consider transitional elements of the evidence, then you'll probably never consider any of this as evidence.
When there are several coincidences where things 'just fit' then it seems more than just mere inspiration.
I don't believe anything that easily. Just be sure to apply your principle in reverse if you take the devil's advocate approach, ok?
Have you studied anything about quantum mechanics? I don't mean physics on that.
The word 'non-deterministic' is not at all vague
Programs in computers have executed with non-deterministic programs and the results and expectation of them are certainly never dubious.
As I stated earlier, it would sound like computer jargon. Are you familiar with computer programs and how to program them? Are you familiar with artificial intelligence?
I would like to know your reason to want such complete justification even though I stated this is limited only to initial research.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Why? There is no strong link between DNA and this symbol. In fact, there is evidence that there cannot be a link between them, as the makers of the symbol had absolutely no idea of what DNA was, let alone what it looked like.
Given this fact, I believe that the caduceus' shape can be dismissed as coincidence, ...
There goes the Theory of Evolution out the window... with that kind of logic.
False analogy.
First of all, evolution does not simply rest on the case that fossils look alike. They also share DNA,
And, again, you are stating that they "just fit" with no justification.
What? What does this mean? You don't believe that the ancient peoples had no knowledge of DNA? Really?
But it leaves the application open for literally anything you want.
Programs in computers have executed with non-deterministic programs and the results and expectation of them are certainly never dubious.
Such as? As a programmer myself, I'd be interested to see what it is that you're talking about.
nondeterministic finite state machine
(definition)
Definition: A finite state machine whose transition function maps inputs symbols and states to a (possibly empty) set of next states. The transition function also may map the null symbol (no input symbol needed) and states to next states.
Also known as NFA, nondeterministic finite automaton.
See also deterministic finite state machine.
Note: Any such machine may be converted to a deterministic finite state machine, although the number of states may increase by an exponential amount.
Originally posted by dzonatas
If you believe that, then you already disqualified yourself from this thread.
For some reason, I don't think you intended that
yet perhaps you didn't get my hint about 'professional debunkers'. It's ok to be skeptical, but... I'll also be skeptical of your intention to debunk this as a conspiracy to prevent this knowledge from being shared, and as an example of why it 'never' seems as 'evidence' as you state.
Your stated "fact" just became a contradiction with what you just said there. For one, there weren't any gene map when the Theory of Evolution was developed.
Are you also going to tell schools they can't use greek letters for their mathematics because it was never intended that way? (Or, some other skeptical excuse we could make up.)
This thread isn't titled "the complete encylopedia of Zodiac Charkras and how to compute DNA" -- and for one, there wouldn't be a conspiracy theory involved at all if it was.
Computers don't preform miracles.
The terminology I used is standard and widely known among computer scientists. There is nothing vague or wildly made-up about this. If you are a programmer I'm really surprised with your approach.
That has already been proven. With DNA in the likeness of program code of a computer, the use of symbols from various sources such as the zodiac and chakras only add extra functionality as one finds when the greek letters are added to basic mathematics.
The foundation is already there.
You will have to come up with some reason why these symbols should never ever be used in the context of a computer in your next reply.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
So I disqualify myself from the thread for not believing that a bunch of people who lived thousands of years before the discovery of DNA knew what DNA was?
So anyone who doesn't believe you is a member of a conspiracy?
The point is that you're using a connection that doesn't exist as a basis for your idea.
If you have evidence that the caduceus was designed specifically to represent DNA and its connection to chakra nodes, present it.
Only half the stuff you say seems to have anything to do with what I said.
Nor do I know everything about programming.
...and you have to do that before you can run a program based on it.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Actually, scratch the bit on the computers. It's off-topic, and I apologize for letting it get that way - I have a tendency to wander off on tangents. Let's get back to the matter at hand.
Between the science of the evolution of DNA with battles of origin over religion and who got it more right, sometimes I wonder if this battle has distracted from the plain and simple truth that neither side has wanted to state the obvious that both are right.
QUESTIONS:
Let's take a look at these images and you draw your own conclusion. I can get much deeper into the subject of dimensions or how personification of religions relate to these in an alchemic pattern, yet that's for another thread later after this initial research.
Originally posted by dzonatas
Why even believe DNA exists if you can't see it with your own eyes in modern times?
You don't have to believe anything anybody ever told you. I even go so far to prove who is alive and that we actually move forward in time, yet that would really derail the thread. It's easy to say "prove it."
Instead, I'll defer you to other websites that recognize this debate is continual, and I hope to focus this thread on how they 'just fit' rather than the continual debate of 'prove this' and 'prove that' first.
obviously if scientists, atheists, intelligent design promoters, religious devotees, etc etc can't do it yet why do you expect a sudden breakthrough to even talk about it?
You want to be deterministic about this debate here, which would drive this discussion exponentially off-topic. I don't fall for your attempts.
Do a search, I usually tell people they don't have to believe me. If you can't prove your alive and where you come from, why should we listen to you first without your justification to live and how? Touche.
An example of your attempt to be deterministic.
"Specifically"??? I said it is about the symbols, how they 'just fit', and their non-deterministic mechanics. Don't put words in my mouth and try to argue strawmen.
Start another thread where you can discuss what is off-topic to this thread.
I don't expect everybody that reads this thread to know everything about computer science and ag-biotech, yet if I use words that are standard and you come back as if I need to prove what has already been proven by those standards, that isn't being skeptical at all. Google it, please.
Again, you are alive? Your DNA acts like a computer? Have you proven it? *ahem*
Who says I wanted computers to be off-topic? I did make it a point of my initial research, as I reiterate from OP:
All those questions seemed to purposely leave out the obvious: "computers"
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Huh? I want evidence that what you say is true. If that's off-topic, then we may as well close down the entire forum, as it's supposed to be about combating ignorance - and you do that with facts.
Okay, so you have absolutely zero basis for your supposed connection and therefore your idea is entirely baseless. Thanks for clearing that up.
I've asked for evidence. You're the one who's dancing around the issue.
Again, you're saying things that literally make no sense. This has nothing to do with what I said, and has no meaning anyway.
And again, you are making no sense.
What? This isn't about computers. It's about your DNA/chakra/zodiac link.
But I might as well stop here. I started this discussion because I thought I might make some progress, or at least learn something. I see now that you are simply a nutter with zero evidence and a bunch of nonexistent "connections".
Bye.
Originally posted by dzonatas
By the way, instead of any mere question for "evidence" or "prove it" with the fewest of words stated, present your evidence of why you think it needs more evidence or why to prove it and be sure to source and site your justification for your request.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Because you have presented no valid evidence.
There's a simple reason for why I have not heard of a "non-deterministic" program: I program video games, and unprofessionally. I'm good at it, but I'm by no means perfect. Nor do I know everything about programming.
You aren't going to listen to reason and you aren't going to explain yourself. You don't answer any questions put to you and you seem physically incapable of understanding the burden of proof.
Originally posted by dzonatas
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Because you have presented no valid evidence.
All you did was ask for evidence. You didn't state what kind of evidence you want.
Just admit you don't know and don't understand any of this. Just admit all you have done is argue because you misunderstood it completely.
Burden of proof goes both ways here.
Listening 'skills' means you aren't the only one that asks questions for evidence. You have given me no evidence that you have understood any of this, or non-deterministic finite state machines, except to prove that you don't understand. And you find reason to get upset? Oh my...
You want me to prove the existence
and connection of the zodiac, chakras, DNA, and etc
and trace down there origin for you.
I said "no" because that is off topic. You continue to try to derail this thread off-topic.
What you totally missed is my point -- the use of these symbols, the zodiac, the chakras, and dna -- and to use them in a computer program to render new ways to talk about DNA.
NEW WAYS to talk about it... I see the "origin" differently than you.
Have you done anything to try to come up with new ways to talk about this? No.
You want someone to prove connections of "zodiac" and "chakras" and all these other things before they even ever talk about it.
Admit, you are are flat out wrong. It was not the intention of this thread to prove what you wanted to prove because you can merely question of it. You derailed it completely and purposely and obviously I will have to make a new thread sometime.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Evidence that actually supports your claim that there is a connection between the caduceus, the zodiac, the chakra nodes, carbon rings and DNA. It's not that hard to understand.
Have you done anything to try to come up with new ways to talk about this? No.
I've obviously introduced you to a concept that you haven't seen before: evidence.
Originally posted by dzonatas
If you are blind and unable to see the similarities in the images I have already provided and unable to recognize the mechanics of the rotation I presented, then I can understand why you acted as though there was no evidence.
However, you never ever once even provided a simple acknowledgment of what I provided in the OP and to discuss what I provided in the OP.
You asked other questions
strawman
and you wanted evidence to your strawman questions. You tried to "debunk" this thread based on your strawmen fallacies.
I've obviously introduced you to a concept that you haven't seen before: my ignore list.
I given more than a chance to discuss the similarities themselves. You denied them outright without any evidence of why you deny them, so there is absolutely no reason for you to continue in this thread. My evidence is the OP, and there is obviously more I haven't provided for reasons. Obvious, reasons such as people like you.
Provide evidence of why you think there is no similarity otherwise it's pretty simple that you need to look in the mirror.
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Unless you provide evidence that the similarities between the images actually prove a connection, you have no case. Two things looking alike does not mean they are connected.
This entire thread has been about the OP. I have not gone off-topic, despite what you say. You just don't have a case.
If you have evidence, I am willing to accept what you say as true.
It was evidence that what you claim - a connection between DNA, carbon rings, the caduceus, the zodiac and the chakra nodes - exists.
You need more than that.
I never said there was no similarity.
Maybe someone will come along that you haven't put on your ignore list yet and get through that giant wall of bull you have erected around yourself. As I'm on ignore, there really isn't any point in me hanging around. But I leave knowing that you have completely and utterly failed to make your case, and that all the newcomers to this thread will be able to see that as well.
Originally posted by dzonatas
Originally posted by Golden Boy
Unless you provide evidence that the similarities between the images actually prove a connection, you have no case. Two things looking alike does not mean they are connected.
Prove takes an act of corroboration, so reason 'initial research' seems to imply a request to corroborate towards proof.
It take two things that look alike to corroborate and instance of evidence and execution of further corroboration of that instance.
This entire thread has been about the OP. I have not gone off-topic, despite what you say. You just don't have a case.
Not true.
It was evidence that what you claim - a connection between DNA, carbon rings, the caduceus, the zodiac and the chakra nodes - exists.
Finally, more corroborated evidence there is this connection described as 'just fits' in the OP.
Perfect.
You need more than that.
Again, reasons such as people like you.
I never said there was no similarity.
Corroborated evidence confirmed.
Maybe someone will come along that you haven't put on your ignore list yet and get through that giant wall of bull you have erected around yourself. As I'm on ignore, there really isn't any point in me hanging around. But I leave knowing that you have completely and utterly failed to make your case, and that all the newcomers to this thread will be able to see that as well.
The way this 'matter' 'just fits' is quite a fascination.
A complete case would definitely be a resource lag. It does lead towards a case of the meaning of "rib" in the bible, as DNA does look like a "ribbon." A "rib" obviously is a suggestion of a part of the whole, and "bon" means good. If we were to put the word "ribbon" into a verb based on this thread and to give it a perfect tense then we could define "ribboned" as new.