Like I said earlier, If I could post the entire proof on this thread/website, I would have. Your responses so far have not been directed to the proof on the webpage with The Proof. I Urge you to go to the website and try to find a flaw in the argument presented in seven segments. If however, you are unwillingly to do that, It is fine. It is okay.
Why don't you start with the first one or two premises. Paraphrase them. If they pass muster, we can advance to the next one or two.
You see, typically, with ideas like this, problematic logic crops up immediately - in the first few premises - that cause the logic heap to start to crumble before any items sitting atop them need be addressed.
For example, the first premise
I see (excerpted by Q in post 10):
Man was designed to use the Base 10 Numeral System.
is wrong.
This has cause and effect reversed. Early man invented his own numbering system - several, in fact. Presumably, base 10 was easy because one could count one's finger and toes. but several were developed in different cultures of the world - some use base 60, for example. Base 10 just happened to come out on top, and the others have lost most of their popularity. The point being that the earliest known numbering system is from Mesopotamia, about 5000 years ago.
Humans evolved to have ten fingers and toes long, loooooong before we even stood upright, let alone before we bought and sold beads and adzes. Almost all primates have ten fingers and toes, and we separated from the last of them more than 5 million years ago, so we've had 20 digits for more (a
lot more) than 5 million years.
That means our numbering systems came
at least 4.995 million years
after humans had ten fingers and toes.
So, if anything in your hypothesis is based on your "man was 'designed' to use the Base 10 Numeral System" premise being true, then we need go no further. (And if
nothing is based on that premise, then why is it even part of your "proof"?)
