New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

WOW, just reading through this and I can't believe this thread! I hate such ignorant people who don't even have sufficient and accurate Scientific Knowledge, understanding, and know how to apply it.

Nearly 200 years after Charles Darwin, it's a sad world we live in with people still idiotically following Religion like this. A perfect, sympathetic, pain relieving god could never create the beauty and simplicity which exists in our Biosphere, and on the larger scale in the Universe. We are a spek of a spek of a spek in the Universe, and to think that WE were created so specially? I think it's just the tendency of Humans to think of themselves so centrally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no old man in the sky called NATURE. The universe is finite. Only one able to create both beauty and its antithesis can perform either of those tasks.

None can question observances - while none can prove the conclusions made of them. If anyone here knows of a scientific alternative to Creationism - please enlighten me - I'm listening with an open mind. The question has nothing whatsoever to do with negating Creationism, only with illustrating an alternative based on an absolutely finite realm.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just read that, what kind of Intelligence do people have these days. This is beyond plain disgusting.

It is clear that she has no f####ng proper knowledge of cell division of a zygote nor what matter is, "When these shapes are being formed it is also the same principle that goes into creating matter, which turns into form with the combination of atoms forming into molecules and then into cells."
DUDE, DID YOU EVER GO TO SCHOOL? You're one of the most just plain retarded people I've ever seen, how can people just be so plain stupid? That's a bigger mystery. :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

-> BTW, can I request the moderators to PLEASE keep this topic and not delete it as an example of how NOT to think like, and what NOT to be?
And it's some pretty awesome comedy as well

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

!

 

I'll name 3 scientific alternatives:

evolution, agnosticism, atheism

 

I can, therefore you are wrong.

 

I was perfectly reasonable. If your position is not one you can support with anything more than mindless bible quoting and simply flat out lying about physics then perhaps you should re-evaluate your position.

That PhD lets me know what you have lied, just flat out lied, about physics. If you are in a position of 'truth' you shouldn't need to lie, you shouldn't need to misrepresent the work of physicists. You can't simultaneously say "Your PhD is worthless" and "The work of people with PhDs supports my position!". You want people to think science backs you up but when someone who paid attention in science class points out otherwise suddenly you flick into "Science is wrong and worthless and evil". You want to have your cake and eat it.

Except that democracy is not how any of the groups which are mentioned in the bible obtain their leaders. It's "God says I'm the Chosen One, if you don't like me you're pissing off god.". Its not a million miles from the whole right wing "I'm doing gods work" attitude I see so much in republicans, particularly the ones who are a lot like you in their attitude (wilful ignorance and hypocrisy), like Sarah Palin.

The pope visits the UK tomorrow and while I'm not a fan of him for a plethora of reasons I do find it quite nice that the first high level government representative he'll meet is our deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, someone who quite plainly says he has no religious faith. He doesn't rub it in people's faces, he didn't make a fuss during the elections and more importantly the media didn't either. Though there's plenty of things wrong, IMO, with the whole notion of a state sponsored religion, as we have in the UK, during elections the religious faith (or lack of) of our candidates is a non-factor in the campaign. I think the US would be a vastly better place if they followed that same approach.

So all the science in the Hebrew bible, which is the template for the old testament, was taken out to make the old testament? So you're therefore saying that creationism isn't science as the literal reading of the Christian bible is what provides the motivation for creationism in the majority of the western world.

The concept of using plants and particular diets to make people better isn't originally from the bible. Shamans and witch doctors and 'the village wise man' exist in all ancient cultures, including those which were not touched by the Abrahamic religions until long after Jesus supposedly spent a weekend in a tomb before becoming a zombie.

Remember, always aim for the head!

Evidence says otherwise. For instance your next comment, which contradicts your first about there supposedly being no science in the Christian bible :

So creationism is science, yet you just said there's no science in the bible or quran. But both of them promote, in literal reading, creationism. You're being like Anita, wanting to have your cake and eat it, in that you say "Oh that's not science, it doesn't count" when someone points out issues with the Christian bible's take on things but then you mention things which are in the Christian bible as being 'science'.

Creationism is contradicted by observation. It is therefore false. And even if it weren't it isn't science as it makes no precise testable predictions, unlike things like evolution which tell us how the long time development of life occurs. Monotheism isn't science either, it is faith. Faith is what you have when you have no evidence, because if you have evidence you don't need faith. Neither of your examples are science. And to address your final comment evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology are scientific alternatives to "God made it all in under as week". And since monotheism isn't even in principle anything 'scientific' there doesn't need to be a scientific alternative. The rational position which relates to a deity (or deities) of any kind is disbelief until evidence is presented, as you have for deities like Zeus, Apollo, Mithra, Odin and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If you must have a specific answer then atheism, in the sense that you answer anything other than 'yes' to the question of "Do you believe in a god" (which is different from strong atheism which is the affirmation of "I believe no gods exist", take care to note that), is the scientific alternative to monotheism or theism of any kind. Provide evidence and believe becomes at least possibly rational. Until then faith is irrational.

 

My name is Anthony B and I am a recognized biologist that studies Cell and Molecular Biology. I am a associate director and a professor at a top ranking University. I have several texts books out and a book myself.

I have been following Anita’s thread here and have been acquainted with her on several occasions in the past. I had the great pleasure of working with her some time ago. Not only is this woman beautiful with a witty sense of incredible humor, she is dazzlingly brilliant! She encapsulates an area of science that is beyond expectation; top of the line. To speak palpably off the meters.

I also have Anita’s book and it has certainly opened my eyes. It is the last book anybody will ever need to read. I will admit that I am not a staunch religious person in any sense but the book is working on changing my opinion. Anita has discovered something with the Hebrew letters that will eventually demand the full attention of the scientific community. This ambiguity has us all questioning right about now.

I wholly understand Alphanumeric and his position and his approach, I was taught this way too. I understand what is academically correct in the eyes of science and the Universities curriculum, but I am starting to reason that it is not all correct. I value my job and my position at the moment, but once I retire all this is going to change. It will be a complete 180 for me.

It is regrettable that Anita was banned. I genuinely enjoyed her conversation and looked forward to reading her responses. Her postings were like an endorphin pill for me. The only thing that brought this forum to life was Anita. Nothing else even on the Web compares to her intelligence or knowledge.
I will pledge that she is completely correct on cell biology, and as far as I can see most everything else she has had a discussion about. She was right you know about everything. What a loss on your part here.

I sense that you people here (moderators in particular) are fearful. You realized that this knowledge is a threat to the very existence of this forum. You banned Anita to shut her up before her discovery consumes like a wildfire and the forum goes kaput. Is that your motto here to keep the religious zealots at bay.

This is completely incorrect. I have been following this thread from the very start and nowhere could it be considered that Anita trolled. She repeated her religious hypotheses again and again because they were never appropriately or justifiably refuted. She never spammed either. There is all sorts of swearing going on here and much ethnic and cultural discrimination towards Anita, yet these people are not reprimanded or banned. I will agree, Anita was a pain that needed to be continually watched simply because she was a threat to the forums, its continual survival to be exact. That is the real reason for her banning.

I don’t take lightly to dishonesty.



Cheers.

 

Anita's new sock AnthonyB. lol.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

uke:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anita your god would not like you receiving profits for spreading lies.
"Babylon the great" Spammer! Shut the hell up!:mufc:

 

No, you're not, and, no, you don't.

There's really no point in asserting credentials on an anonymous forum if you can't back it up. Which is why forum members earn credibility not by assertion, but by content. For instance, AlphaNumeric, which you mention, is believable when he says he has a PhD in mathematical physics, because he consistently posts content that shows that he has a thorough command of physics and math. So, when he asserts authority, it is credible.

You, on the other hand, arrive from out of the blue, assert some astounding credentials, and then support a well-known crackpot. While there aren't that many biologists here, a lot of the members are knowledgeable enough to see right through here ludicrous claims. That means you're overwhelmingly likely to be lying or delusional. It's exceedingly likely to be the former.

Hence you're: Trolling, trolling, trolling - Rawhide!

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Here's a challenge for you: As a university professor you undoubtedly have a webpage - please create an (otherwise unlinked) .html under that directory and send a link to the moderators of this forum, and anyone you wish to persuade of your credentials (I'd like to see them.) I promise to keep your identity a secret if you so desire, but until you can persuade me otherwise, I'll call you a liar.

 

Proof you are not who you say you are. No one of a scientific leaning would say "I never need to read anything else again" because it utterly shuts off the scientific method, preventing you from learning and understanding more.

This isn't just me being a robot for what I've been taught, its about giving a damn about open, rational, evidence based discussion. Anita provided none of that, all she could do is quote the Bible again and again.

If your position were supported by evidence you'd not need to wait, you could publish your views now. If Anita's position were supported by evidence she'd be published in journals. The fact you have to wait, if you were in deed who you say you are, is not a reflection on the scientific community but on the utter baselessness of Anita's position and claims. There's nothing to support her claims. Someone in a reputable university publishing that stuff would endanger their job because it would show they have turned away from the thing they are paid to do, scholarly research.

Then your life must be horrific.

Get a room

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The biologists here will disagree with that. I'm a physicist and I disagree with what she said about physics.

Then you know very little about science and you're daft enough to not acknowledge that.

If she's so right help her write some papers and submit them to journals. If there's reason and evidence behind her position then she'll not need to publish books, she'll get published by peer reviewed journals. That is if you're who you say you are, which you aren't.

Come off it Anita. How do you think you needing to make a sock puppet shows anything but fear? If you could present a reasoned coherent argument with evidence you'd not be banned, you'd not be rejected by scientists, you'd not be rejected by journals. You are having to resort to lying to try to further your position, which says it all about who is really fearful.

You clearly have no idea how science works. An entire area of science can be rewritten overnight but that doesn't mean people lose their jobs or that science is destroyed. In fact its a testiment to science that it allows such things, that fundamental principles can be knocked over, because it allows self improvement by correction. Your attitude smacks of someone who can't see outside of the religious view, that to admit mistake might allow the entire edifice of your religion to be torn down because it preaches infallibility. If you can provide evidence and reason for your position you are able to make a valid scientific argument for it. Since you don't you can't and thus you resort to sock puppetry and lies.

I bet in 1 year Anita will have gotten no more press than she generates herself and a few gullible scientific illiterates and will have had absolutely no impact on this forum or any other scientific forum other than the occasional sock puppet.

Her only support for her arguments were bible quotes and lying about the scientific mainstream. When asked not to she continued to do so, she was trolling.

An hypothesis with no evidence or reason behind it.

What a funny deluded world you must live in.

Given your either a sock puppet of Anita or lying about your position and knowledge in science I find that comment ironic and hypocritical. You need to take a long look in the mirror.

 

Is that the best any of you have for keeping this forum alive? You can go only so far at attempting to tape up, or mask obscuring the truth.

Sad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There's posts made outside of this thread, its not like this thread is the only way the forum can be kept alive. There's currently more than 500 people viewing these forums, it seems to be doing fine.

Funk asked you to demonstrate the truth of your claims, that isn't masking them, its providing you with an opportunity to show you're not a liar. I repeatedly made reference to evidence, reason and sound argument and if you were a scientist, which we all know you aren't, you'd know how they fit into justifying your position in a scientific way.

We have provided reasons why Anita was never engaging in sound science. We've also provided reasons why we believe you haven't either. If either you or Anita or any other sock puppet you wish to make can provide sound arguments and evidence for your position, all without having to resort to lying about science (and remember, many of us are scientists by profession) then you'll be listened to. Anita couldn't and she was banned for repeated lying and inability to hold a rational discussion. The question is whether you will go down the same route.

Do you have anything other than lies and hyperbole?

 

Anita was banned and came back as AnthonyB without learning anything. Sounds like AnthonyB should be banned as a sock of a banned member.

 

Something tells me not to believe or trust you given some of your remarks that I've read in this thread. But you can look me up. There may be others with my name, but you'll get the general idea and should be able to spot me out with the info I supplied.

That may be so, but the people that seem to be posting here are the same people. Who, if I might add are hopelessly addicted to posting on forums like bar flies. it must be time consuming to be engaged in this forum on a full time basis and actually be working a credible full time job. Obviously if you're posting all the time, which shows by the large number of postings each one of you have, you certainly cannot be doing your jobs.

Thats impossible, I'm several states away from Anita! :shrug: Sock puppet or not, the likes of this forum seems to be almost commune style, in which case you can have it all to yourselves.

The end scenario is that you will eat yourselves alive.

 

I can feel a song coming on:

'Eat yourself alive,
Eat yourself alive,
Come on, put some salt on honey,
Eat yourself alive.'

Ah yes

Nothing could be sweeter
Than Anita, when you tweet her
To talk about the meter,
It won't be bo-o-oring.

Nothing could be better
Than the finest Hebrew letter:
Etcetter. . .

 

Is that the best insult you can come up with? The fact there's a group of people who come here often isn't a negative thing. You attempt to frame it in such a way by using a bar as an analogy but people talking to one another about topics which interest them is not a negative thing, debating societies would fit such a description.

Some of us manage to post here and hold down full time research jobs. Unlike Anita we get paid to do actual research by people whose job it is to evaluate things for scientific worth.

I'm the other side of the Atlantic and yet here we both are. If I had picked 'Anita Meyer' as my username I could try to pass myself off as her. If I logged out and reregistered I could pick the name "The real Anthony B" and then pretend to be you and claim you're an imposter. It's easy to pretend to be anyone online, for instance I'm actually the Queen of England. Just Google for me, you'll find out plenty about me. Do you believe me? Not likely. All you've provided is the same, "I am me, check Google". Someone with your name existing in the real world doesn't mean you're them. Not only have you presented no evidence to think such an Anthony B exists or that if he does you're him but you've provided reasons to think you aren't a scientist.

The forum has managed fine for about a decade, your attempts at insults need to be a bit more imaginative, just like your qualifications.

 

You are clearly a sock.

You come in hard, and direct, it's a dead giveaway. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have let their sock character develop here, before wading in. But no, you've got so many ants in your pants you jump right on the itch.

This just demonstrates how pathetic and desperate you are.

 

You must realise how utterly weak that is: "My name is StephenH, I'm a world-renowned theoretical physicist with a severe handicap at a top university. No, I will not prove who I am, but you should be able to spot me with the info I supplied"

Pathetic. But then again, I didn't expect anything else from a liar.