Proof we were Created - Yes, I said Proof!

reply to post by tremex


It has nothing to do with knowledge. Nous is a prize of sorts. Faith is what allows you to receive. Nothing can be taken from God. Blindness comes by denying God.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by tremex

 

It has nothing to do with knowledge. Nous is a prize of sorts. Faith is what allows you to receive. Nothing can be taken from God. Blindness comes by denying God.

Yes, your case got nothing to do with knowledge. It's all within the realm of blind faith Germans used to have in Hitler.


I just can believe that God wouldn't mention the word CIRCLE in the whole Book of Genesis when he got that Pi going in the very beginning of the book, because Pi is best known and used as a ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.

Well, if you don't know, ask. Right?


Heavenly Father, what's going on in that Genesis? Where's that circle? You didn't even bother to support the Pi by the most expected mean.

What do you mean that I didn't? That's why I used the same method that found Pi to find the other well-known mathematical constant e in John 1:1.



You must have evolved from a monkey, if it's not clear to you. Follow me to the board:
Pi & e = Pie.





Does that look to you like a square or a triangle?

No.

So what is it?

A pie.

Duh. What's the shape of it?

A circle.

Alright. So don't tell me that I forgot to include a Pi-supporting circle into the works.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by tremex

 

It has nothing to do with knowledge. Nous is a prize of sorts. Faith is what allows you to receive. Nothing can be taken from God. Blindness comes by denying God.

Might i remind you your title doesn't say i have faith we were created it says proof.So far all i see is bible quotes and your poor understanding of science as proof. Not to mention a math problem that doesnt actually give us pi??? so im guessing god was unclear about circles? Ah maybe he just failed math he should have just used 7/22 its easier.

reply to post by dragonridr


I provided proof. You can't see it and I get that. It takes faith to see it.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

I provided proof. You can't see it and I get that. It takes faith to see it.

If it were really "proof", no faith would be required.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I provided proof. You can't see it and I get that. It takes faith to see it.

If it were really "proof", no faith would be required.

It is true that faith is a confident belief in truth, value trustworthiness of an idea. It is also a belief that does not rest on proof or material evidence. This would be an accurate way to describe how faith does not require proof. On the other hand, evolution is a theory that is held by many with the same level of faith. So how is it that I have proof. What is the proof that we are created? Faith allows the mind to see the fact. It allows us to draw near to the Creator Himself. While faith does not require proof, proof requires faith. There is no paradox in this statement. I do not need proof to have faith in the trustworthiness of an idea. What I do need to have for proof of that idea is a foundation in faith. Once this is set in place as a cornerstone, proof is evident. This is why so many reading this thread can see it immediately.

Use your argument for Evolution. So far, not one post touting the evident nature of Evolution. 20 + pages and you will not find anyone defending evolution. Why? Creation is evident. An evident conclusion is not proof. I agree. This is why you first need the foundation to see the proof. You CANNOT see fact apart from faith in the fact it self.

Evolution is a result and not a cause. DNA is a result, but the cause is the LETTER and WORD it came from.

No intelligent input apart from faith.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


great video.

lots of unknowns in the origins/evolution model.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I provided proof. You can't see it and I get that. It takes faith to see it.

If it were really "proof", no faith would be required.

It is true that faith is a confident belief in truth, value trustworthiness of an idea. It is also a belief that does not rest on proof or material evidence. This would be an accurate way to describe how faith does not require proof. On the other hand, evolution is a theory that is held by many with the same level of faith. So how is it that I have proof. What is the proof that we are created? Faith allows the mind to see the fact. It allows us to draw near to the Creator Himself. While faith does not require proof, proof requires faith. There is no paradox in this statement. I do not need proof to have faith in the trustworthiness of an idea. What I do need to have for proof of that idea is a foundation in faith. Once this is set in place as a cornerstone, proof is evident. This is why so many reading this thread can see it immediately.

Use your argument for Evolution. So far, not one post touting the evident nature of Evolution. 20 + pages and you will not find anyone defending evolution. Why? Creation is evident. An evident conclusion is not proof. I agree. This is why you first need the foundation to see the proof. You CANNOT see fact apart from faith in the fact it self.

Evolution is a result and not a cause. DNA is a result, but the cause is the LETTER and WORD it came from.

No intelligent input apart from faith.

edit on 28-8-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

See theres your problem it doesnt take faith to believe in evolution it occurs we watched in labs weve studied the changes in gene sequencing. we know it happens we dont need faith just eyes.It happens all around us every single day. Just off the top of my head i can tell you so many branches of science and so many observations disagree with you.

For example theres DNA sequencing showing us changes in organisms,Theres chromosome 2 in human DNA its a genetic snafu if you will thats why we only have 23 because we can show it combined through what oh evolution. Im going to abbreviate this list or its going to be a couple of pages so just ask if you have questions.

Evidence from comparative anatomy,Feline endogenous retroviruses,Vestigial structures, Human endogenous retroviruses,Pelvic structure of dinosaurs,Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes,Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development,DNA showing human origin from Africa, Evolution of the horse,Transition from fish to amphibians,Migration, isolation, and distribution of the Camel,Evidence from observed natural selection such as Darwin himself,E. coli long-term evolution experiment, observed speciation,Lactose intolerance in humans,House mice yes they adapted to live with us,Dogs again domesticated forever changing there DNA,and evidence from paleontology. Im sure given more time i can think of more but your going to try to tell me every field of science is wrong? So your turn what supports creationism show me one observation that supports it just one see empirical data isnt easy to come by takes more then faith.

reply to post by dragonridr


Part of my proof includes evolution. It is evident. It's just not a cause. It's the result of programming.

I watched the first video, but when he lied to me about which direction people write and how it points to Jerusalem I had to stop watching because well,

Commandment number 9...

I don't like being lied to!

And I am not sure how you prove Evolution does not exist yet we need to Evolve...very contradictory!

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Part of my proof includes evolution. It is evident. It's just not a cause. It's the result of programming.

Theres no programming to it what so ever it occurs though 5 processes.Here they are in order :
1. mutation 2. migration also known as gene flow 3. random genetic drift 4. non-random mating 5. natural selection

Notice no where in there is programming if anything its the opposite this would be computer glitches errors in programming if you want an analogy better suited for 4 out of 5.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Use your argument for Evolution. So far, not one post touting the evident nature of Evolution. 20 + pages and you will not find anyone defending evolution. Why? Creation is evident.

So if I go to a thread about evolution and find that "no one defends creation" then evolution is evident? And if there is a science journal that does a paper on evolution and it's peer reviewed and no one says, "Hey, no one defended creation in this paper, so therefore the body of text, the data, the information, it's not needed, the peer review process is not even needed... Lack of creationism arguments proves evolution!"

Do you see how silly you are? You have the mentality of a five-ten year old.

Haha you said loser so you're a loser! NananNANAnaNAAAAAA


SO according to you creation is proved because no one "defends evolution" but last time I checked the title of the thread was "Proof we were Created - Yes, I said Proof!"

It wasn't "Proof evolution is false."

In fact, you are actually supporting evolution in half your confusing, hard to understand ramblings, but repeatedly you state that "evolution is a result not a cause."

You, you YOOUUUUUU! Are saying evolution exists, and that somehow it's all just god's words or some other snake oily bulshido,

You are also full of crap however. Which is proven by how many contradictions are in your "theory", your body of work, the junk you are spewing all over this forum.

Any time you are asked any direct question that might require actual scientific understanding, you simply ignore the question or the post. You cherry pick your arguments and you cherry pick your answers. Not a surprise to most of us though, who were expecting exactly this walking into a creationist thread. Creationists and creationism in general, tends to cherry pick anything that supports the idea and dismisses or completely ignores anything that might seem contrary to the very narrow minded, twisted viewpoint, rife with hypocrisy,

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Part of my proof includes evolution. It is evident. It's just not a cause. It's the result of programming.

Theres no programming to it what so ever it occurs though 5 processes.Here they are in order :
1. mutation 2. migration also known as gene flow 3. random genetic drift 4. non-random mating 5. natural selection

Notice no where in there is programming if anything its the opposite this would be computer glitches errors in programming if you want an analogy better suited for 4 out of 5.

No programming in DNA? Denying the evidence is embracing ignorance. The way to deny ignorance is to stop ignoring truth that is evident. What you are listing is a theory you are calling truth. On the other hand, what I have outlined is demonstrated at all levels. Father in Hebrew is Aleph bet. Word is His Prima Materia. It doesn't get much more clear than this. It's proof that the Bible holds the highest axiom. Science has yet to admit it.

Physics mirrors our own error correction code. You are ignoring the evidence.

reply to post by boncho


I stated that not a single post in THIS thread has anyone trying to defend an analog universe as presented by evolution. It is a digital universe. See the last post and accompanying video.

You are holding to an old paradigm of truth. The Bible is way ahead of the curve and leads us to the actual truth. This is proof. No rational argument of human knowledge can deny this. It's a proof the Creator was here all along showing us the higher truth. PROOF.

Cornell University: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Design Peer Reviewed.

Human Brain Project: Human Brain Project

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Evolution doesnt explain how DNA was created and is not supposed to so how does this disprove evolution? You really dont understand science. What your trying to argue is creation vs say ambiogenesis your barking up the wrong tree. SO guess you dont know so ill tell you evolution doesnt explain how life was created and it isnt meant to. So the reason no one has argued with you trying to defend analog DNA stupid term by the way. Is youve been fighting the wrong battle picking on evolution.

PS I already explained to you why DNA seems digital in a previous post its information and how we choose to display it.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by boncho

 

I stated that not a single post in THIS thread has anyone trying to defend an analog universe as presented by evolution. It is a digital universe. See the last post and accompanying video.

You are holding to an old paradigm of truth. The Bible is way ahead of the curve and leads us to the actual truth. This is proof. No rational argument of human knowledge can deny this. It's a proof the Creator was here all along showing us the higher truth. PROOF.

Not quite. Your classification of proof is unbelievable. Forget that evolution has years and years of science, data, with everyone working on it reaching the same conclusion... Somehow, that is all made up to you, but fairies, leprechauns and the Matrix, that's all real...

Cornell University: Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Design Peer Reviewed.

Here is where you are extremely laughable. This paper is not peer reviewed. You don't know what peer review is, nor can you tell the difference between peer review and online publication to internet hubs for hobby submissions.

I am not saying the body of work these people have under them is not valid, nor is this paper complete bunk, or any of the like. But trying to claim it's peer review when it isn't, is either your abhorrent lack of understanding when it comes to anything related to science, or because you are merely trying to fling words like "peer review" to try and appear legitimate with your convoluted ideas.


I've been so tempted to use my membership @arxiv to submit a paper entitled:

"Insight into gullible internet citizens."

Abstract: The naive and their urge to believe something is peer reviewed simply because it would strengthen their argument and fundamental problems with people who assume arxiv is a peer review journal simply because it's hosted at a university."

By Boncho

The arXiv.org e-print archive is fully automated.

It processes over 200 new submissions per day.

This is only possible if YOU as author or submitter take responsibility:
always carefully check and verify your submissions, pay close attention
to diagnostic messages sent to you, and take corrective action if
necessary.

Here's a tip, next time you try to claim something is peer reviewed, find the journal it's published in. So far you have entirely failed at any attempt you've made to combine your asinine beliefs with science. How about you just leave it alone from now on, you are obviously not ready to play with big boy toys yet.

I think everyone needs to watch this video this is from the author who writes most of the biology text books used in schools. He will explain science vs intelligent

Well, this is a long, but non-the-less interesting thread. I tried reading all of it but it seemed to have descended into farce pretty early on.

Before I start, I must say you are one of the most condescending people I've read – which is a common trait among Creationists, I've found. That was an ad hominem statement.

However, getting back to the OP and the request to disprove the 'facts' shown, here is my evidence that your evidence is no evidence at all.

Proof 1
Your 'numerological coincidence' example (this 'fact' has not been tested by anyone else, by the way) is taken from one particular translation of the bible, written in English. Please provide proof that this example works also in the original text. Only then can this 'proof' be considered as such.

Even if it did – which it doesn't – what sort of proof is it that God knows how to calculate the ratio of a circle's C to its d or that He knows how to calculate compound interest? What is the significance of these ratios in the eyes of God? Why are they so hidden for something with relatively little significance? Was he just proving that He's smarter than us? What a pretentious cad he must be!

Proof 2
This part is full of errors but I'll concentrate on the first couple paragraphs. How did you possibly get Strong Nuclear Force from aleph bet nun? And where did DNA suddenly appear from in this translation? There is absolutely no connection between any of these words – none!

This supposition and inference is in reality factual obscenity of the highest order. This is not evidence, simply inferred – and totally unsupported – wordplay to suit your argument. You should be ashamed to be posting this.

If I were a believer in God I would certainly not want somebody like you on my side – somebody who is so desperate to convince or convert others that they resort to rubbish and present it as evidence or fact. There are so many other things, real mysteries and enigmas, to use as a base for discussion than to resort to fakery and trickery like this.

Shame on you.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Evolution doesnt explain how DNA was created and is not supposed to so how does this disprove evolution? You really dont understand science. What your trying to argue is creation vs say ambiogenesis your barking up the wrong tree. SO guess you dont know so ill tell you evolution doesnt explain how life was created and it isnt meant to. So the reason no one has argued with you trying to defend analog DNA stupid term by the way. Is youve been fighting the wrong battle picking on evolution.

PS I already explained to you why DNA seems digital in a previous post its information and how we choose to display it.

edit on 8/29/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

As I have said, I believe that micro evolution happens. It is part of the process of involution. I did an entire thread as a sequel to this thread praising the merits of evolution as a result and not a cause: Evolution Thread

Read the posts and threads. My theory supports evolution as a result and not a cause. The cause is a design of information in a digital universe. As I have sown in the posts and videos, evolution is part of the process of involution (baptism into the material world of a soul). Your bias is blinding you. Read the posts and threads. Quote my words stating that I have ever tried to disprove evolution.

reply to post by boncho

Silas Beane is a physicist at the University of Bonn, Germany. His paper "Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation" has been submitted to the journal Physical Review D

Submitted for Peer Review