Science and Religion Message Board 4501-5000

continued...

at age six clearly proves it how without income and extreme inhuman and state criminal treatment since 1973 frame up to my family and I survived .

As I said , I even found where one could find the potential body of original Jesus linked with the living God of the universe ,the God of the light , the father ,the son ,the holy ghost and all other phenomenon constituting everything for every religion. Which is more important - my need first or the living God's ? Benz Zakar

Back after leave; sorry to find meanwhile Leszek had a bereavement, like close in home here too - my condolences to you, Leszek.**

Dave, the two links (theory and application) given in :

appear intricate requiring a search; can you please mention the exact location in it where time is said to move discretely - it is easier to work backwards from there. [Of course, shall also be browsing through these links meantime. BTW, You(?) in your post, ? can = SeS. ]

Any explicit clear reference to the above point will be sufficient. In layman's understanding, discrete time would mean (in a mathematical sense) a reality which `vanishes between moments'; is this perception clear ?

More sooner heopefully.

Namaste to All.

SeS

Perhaps I overstated myself. I mean to say that I find it frustrating that so many science undergraduates are incapable of understanding what they know and do not know.

No. But scientific theories change. I find there to be an under-appreciation of this idea. Note here that I am not, for the most part, talking about people who go on to graduate degrees, since they, through research, get better exposed to the nature of science.

And yes, I do agree that, armed with such capacity for skeptical thought, I would hope it likely that we would see a decrease in the current proliferation of superstition and mysticism.

Bottom line: if I were forced to choose between scientific thought and scientific fact, I'd go for the former every time, since the latter can be derived from it. But I do agree that there does not have to be such a choice.

benz et al,

It is clear that the Adam story in the bible relates only the creation of the Hebrews. There were other tribes outside of Eden - "on the land of Nod, East of Eden".

TOM

Joy, Leszek, Dave, Andrew,

The goal of religion is to reduce ambiguity. To provide answers and thus stability.

The goal of science is to increase ambiguity. To open questions and increase the scope of inquiry. When the ambiguity of a field is exhausted that field becomes engineering.

Science and Religion then are direct opposites.

TOM

EC, my enquiry is in, but it's the weekend here, let you know more next week as to availability.

Whoa, Tom! The goal of science is ambiguity? Um, I think the goal of science is illumination... ambiguity is a by-product because science cannot answer scientific questions with absolute certainty, but it can at least provide provisional truths with some predictive power. That's a much more modest claim than religion's, which asserts it has the key to eternal verities.

Religion does claim absolute certainty, but has no predictive power that anyone has been able to verify to scientific specifications. That's only a problem, of course, when religion makes scientific claims which it usually and sensibly avoids.

If anyone wants to disagree with my contention that religion can't make any verifiable predictions, perhaps they'd point to some that aren't as ambiguous as an astrological prediction. Jean Dixon need not apply :)

I must agree with Leszek (you'll be happy to know I have finally added that word to my spell checker's dictionary :-) that ambiguity is a by-product of scientific thought, not its goal.

This does raise the interesting question `What is the goal of scientific thought?' (Tom, I have intentionally replaced science with scientific thought.) Illumination? Well, it has provided that for me, I can say.

As for religion reducing ambiguity, well, one need only look in on Religion Today to see the extent this reduction can take!

Something I often ponder over is whether if we were to rewind things and do it all over again, would the same science result? Let us say Einstein was never born; would general relativity have been produced? Somehow it seems likely that science would develop differently if the initial conditions were different. But, on the other hand, one sees more uniformity in scientific thought than in religious thought. This is not to say scientific thought is uniform, but, for example, faced with the problem Einstein was trying to solve while developing general relativity, many scientists would agree that he got the right answer; his answer just somehow feels right. This `feeling right' seems a more personal thing in religious thought.

This is indeed an interesting question. Suppose the Greek tradition of antiquity concerning scientific inquiry was coupled with experimentation? Would our first robotic probes be sending back images from alpha centauri in the latter half of the 20th century? It is an fascinating conjecture but one relegated to the machinations of science fiction.

Science is merely an application of a methodology in the investigation of the underlying order which exists in the cosmos. As such, if the "rewind" button were pressed and one arrived at some pre-enlightenment epoch, the tracking of scientific and technical advancement would vary wildly as a result of economic, military, social, and without a doubt religious factors. However, the advancements which would be made would most likely follow along similar lines as those encountered in history such as the formulation of classical mechanics i.e. a theoretical framework based on the introduction of variational mathematics (calculus) in the study of the motion of everyday objects. With our gaining insight in the phenomology of nature, a corresponding theoretical framework or model would most likely be developed by that generation's best and brightest. Sooner or later an analogue of General and Special Relativity would most likely be developed as well.

Granted, the terminology and expression of certain physical quantities may not be the same as those that we employ now since these parameters are often constructs of the society which developed them, it is likely that concepts such as mass, force, acceleration, angular momentum, etc.. would have their appropriate analogues.

One example of a "rewind" in an isolated instance involves the work of famed Indian mathematician Ramanujan who essentially derived nearly

(continued)

all of the formalisms in modern mathematics in total isolation from the outside world. He even progressed the study of elliptic functions beyond the level of the contemporary mathematics of his time and surprisingly did so using many of the conventions used in that field without any external input.

The underlying nature of the universe and the language used in interpreting it (mathematics) does lend itself to a sort of roadmap for discovery.

Hi E.C., Ph.D. ;-)

Yes, I think I pretty much agree with what you say here. As unlikely as it might seem at some glances, I think that science developed after rewind would not differ in the extreme from what we have seen in our history, provided that scientific thought was initiated. The mere fact that Greek science, for all its manifold flaws, was shelved as long as it was makes me wonder whether the introduction of scientific thought is inevitable. But it would be endlessly fascinating (really!) to see just in what ways the scientific theory developed after rewind would differ from what we have today.

Thanks for the Ramanujan link. The history of math is a favourite of mine :-)

Not to dredge up the worn out creationism vs. evolution argument but the British biologist J.B.S. Haldane was once asked what he could glean about the Creator from his study of the earth's biology, and he replied that God must have had "an inordinate fondness for beetles."

This is indeed true. If single examples of every plant and animal species were placed in a row, every fifth species would be a beetle and every tenth species a weevil (one type of beetle). No other group of animals exhibits such a range of size, color, and shape.

Ah, the mysteries of evolution.

E.C.Phd.: I always thought that Darwin reported God's fondness for beetles upon returning to the royal society after a trip to South America. Is this wrong?

Welcome back, SeS, and my condolences as well.

I have been discussing this subject via e-mail with Matti Pitkänen (of TGD notoriety) and hoped to have a clear conceptualization by now. Unfortunately, he answered "no" to each of my speculations relating to the separate possibilities presented by TGD consciousness. Now I have to rethink, re-read, and try again...

Pitkänen wrote in the paper I got, "Self and Binding,"

I don’t have difficulty with this stretch of imagination at all. I’m examining possible explanations for how this may work.

EC et al,

The rewind issue is thought provoking. Engineering is crucial to the advancement of scientific inquiry. The Greeks did not hold engineering in as high regard as did the Romans. The industrial revolution forced Science and Engineering together thus accelerating both disciplines. Rewind the tape and? My guess is something less than 50/50 we would be as far along as we are now.

Do not dismiss too quickly the concept that the goal of Science is ambiguity. It is a by product, yes. But it is much more. Without ambiguity Science becomes simply Engineering. Would anyone propose that Science today is less ambiguous than it was 200 years ago? I believe that today there are far more lines of investigation, competing theories and identified unknowns than 200 years ago. Hence increased ambiguity.

When a standing theory is attacked the goal is to increase ambiguity. Not a bad thing. Just true.

Organized Religions eliminate ambiguity. They are in essence Cargo Cults. If you understand the ritual and perform it properly you will attain some reward - worldly or otherwise. Hence no ambiguity.

To approach Religion from a Scientific standpoint has as it's goal to destroy an incorrectly held absolute. Hence ambiguity.

TOM

Laughing! I have to work, first! We'll probably leave mid-Fall. Although if we have any boat problems like we had last year, it may be later in the season.

I'm not sure I understand your response. Jesus's response was to the religious leaders of the day, who'd turned a humble life before God into a plethora of rules. God never wanted the sin and sacrifice cycle endlessly repeated. He wanted people to turn their hearts to him and never sin again, hence Jesus words to the woman who was to be stoned, "Go and sin no more."

Righteous anger still has it's place. It's protected entire nations from being conquered, and babies from being harmed. It's protected marriages from dissolution, and families from ruin.

While it can be offensive, it's almost always defensive in nature.

However, it is alive and well in those of us who love the Lord our God.

Not sure if this helps answer your post...

I do so as much as possible, for life's too short not to enjoy the heck out of it.

However, when certain others (not you) disdain to hold to the rules of gentlemanly and proper behavior, and leave honest and noble speech for distortions, gross mis-statements of fact and intentionally incorrect allusions, I reserve the right to take exception to such base behavior, no matter how well couched it may be in civil tounge.

In other words, it "sounded" polite

See previous post.

My mother's from Oklahoma!

Then may I respectfully and most humbly suggest that you begin your policing activities with the quiet, sneaky root source of lying that degrades civilization, and not my overt response such disharmonious words...

Then again, I could not expect you or anyone else, other than the responder, to know when a response to my post has been maliciously and deceptively distorted, for one simple reason: you didn't write it!

Nearly all of you (including Benz, despite the language translation!) respond in kind, quoting my writing either verbatim or in essence. Unfortunately, one of you does not, and to such a gross extent that it crosses the border of civility, hence my "ruffled feathers."

Ah, but Jesus also said, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I AM!"

The term "Jew" refers to some of Abraham's descendants, specifically from the tribe of Judah, and Jesus' human lineage most certainly meets that criteria.

Jesus' tomb (actually, that of an older man who donated it to him) is still there today. However, it remains as empty today (1997, anyway) as it was after the third day.

As I've sometimes found you unable to know the difference between facts and information, not to mention opinion, here's a link which, if you choose to use it, may actually help you learn the difference:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/di/toolkit/trade5.html

For example, the following is mere opinion, and a rather baseless and inaccurate one at that:

Leszek, I am a scientist. It's because of my scientific background that I'm such a strong believer, not in spite of it.

Your error lies in your persistant, but false, belief that faith in Christ and the Bible must, by your definition, anyway, preclude even the remotest possibility of unhindered scientific inquiry, and vice versa.

Here's a fact, and not opinion, of which I myself stand as evidence: you're wrong on this account.

Ok, enough hooky. It's been a long week. Time for bed, then back to work. Long day ahead.

Sorry, lost my last run for Sheriff. Still sit on the Juvenile Justice Committee, though. If you see what you believe to be distortion of your words or intentional misrepresentation of your statements, point them out in your refutation of points made. We all have eyes and minds. §:o)

I think your premise is wrong Benz. The fossil record indicates that modern-type humans have existed on this earth much longer than the Biblical timetable would indicate. The "Out of Africa" theory of human evolution is probably the correct one.

I think that trying to guess at the correct interpretation of the J story of creation is a rather difficult exercise. (Note: I assume the JEPD theory of authorship of the Pentateuch (or Torah) is correct, and that the Adam and Eve story is part of the J literature.) It appears to me that J purposefully left that aspect of the story ambiguous. Therefore, it is not surprising to me that we have difficulty establishing what was intended. The only thing that can be said for certain is that J was a very great poet and the story he tells is great literature.

I disagree, and here is why. Neither religion nor science are entities, of themselves, and thus neither can have goals. The practitioners of both science and religion often do have goals. I think the practitioners of science would insist that their purpose would be to reduce ambiguity. And I think they have done exactly that.

Assuming an infinite number of parallel universes, I would guess a full range of scientific development in every possible variation in each universe. The really interesting question is: are we in the upper or the lower half of the class? It is not certain that significant technology must always develop. I would argue that Men as intelligent as you and Einstein existed on this earth for thousands of years without any significant scientific advance. Without an education in the sciences and prior theories by Lorentz and others, Einstein would never have conceived of Relativity. In most parallel universes, you and I would not exist since it is only by the most extreme of odds that we came into being in this universe. Of all the possible universes, this is probably the only one containing a CNN Science and Religion Message Board in which you and I participate.

Actually, I would suspect it is beside the point in your case, Dave. I think you would be a believer regardless of your occupation. However, I think Leszek also has a point. While you have a scientific background and are a believer, it is not necessarily the case that a scientific background tends to cause one to be a believer. Indeed, it would appear to me that a scientific background might tend toward the opposite. Most scientists are not believers. I think Leszek's opinion is reasonably valid. You do admit that most scientists are non-believers, do you not?

Cliff ..

I'm not at all sure you're correct there, at least in some places. I read recently that in the UK this was not so, I'll try and find where I read it, probably the BBC, it's my favourite source.

Tom, thankyou for your recent post, very thought provoking ..

Cliff is right though, so I'll read it as if you said, the protagonists of Science and Religion .. .. etc. Thankyou

Leszek and Joy, thank you both ( especially also on behalf of my better-half) for the kind words in your following posts. [Shall try to post more frequently, as my access to here may break for about 25 weeks after next three weeks, with like `scientific gods' noticed long ago in old exchanges, among Thomas, Andrew and Leszek.]**

Joy, still remember am due with three words on Religion Today board - will post there sooner, thinking you didnt misunderstand me last time.

Perhaps I see your points here. If Time moved continuously OTOH, we would have a reality stuck at a moment (-achilles' paradox ?-), or that there are no `moments' of existence at all. Maybe,

has a key - so that we probably live at a present `squashed moment' (= a moment crunched by our mind-machine for our consciousness). ABG (=anybody's guess) ?

More sooner hopefully,

Namaste to All.

SeS

Couple of quick ones before I hit the road, this morning...

As it was God who found me (and not the other way around), I would agree with you.

However, my point was in refutation of Leszek's claim that in order to be both a scientist as well as a believer, I would have to forego at least a few tenets of either one faith or the other.

Not so. My point was that my scientific inquiries have done nothing but confirm the validity of Biblical Christianity.

Leszek says this is impossible. As a scientist, I've come to the opposite conclusion: That when scientists approach the subject of Biblical validity with an open mind, but holding fast to their scientific principles, the Bible stands firm in the basis of fact.

My overwhelming experience has been that when scientists examine Biblical validity, they usually do so in the light of their own religious beliefs, or lack thereof, and so taint their supposedly "pure" methods.

Regardless of Leszek's claims, all scientific investigations are undertaken with the prejudices of those conducting the experiment.

When it comes to such emotionally-charged issues as the Bible, it's a rare bird who is truly and utterly willing to allow the outcome of the experiment change his hypothesis.

Good. Then we'll hear no more about it.

Ah, I'm hardly what most would consider a "juvenile."

I did, which is precisely brought your (and others') ire down upon me.

While I've seen sufficient evidence of that in other subjects, I've yet to see such evidence in this matter.

Rather, I've no doubt you have "eyes and minds." However the use of such in this matter seems to be significantly biased or limited.

Don't allow your minds to be won over by smooth talkers, er, writers. The worst scoundrels of all are usually graduates of the finest schools...

Dave,

I agree that a Scientist can read the Bible and find God, as I am sure many have.

The first conflict, however, is not with God but with the dogma of organized religions. An objective reading of the Bible quickly shows that much dogma is simply the mores of a particular time. These 'beliefs' are not in agreement with the Bible but are strongly held. Some organizations rationalize this by placing tradition or subsequent revelation on a par with the Bible.

An objective reading of the Bible also reveals that it is absolutely true for what it is - the laws are laws, the history is history and the stories are just stories. Genesis 1-2:3 is beautiful literature but is in conflict with the other two creation myths that follow.

As a Scientist how do you view the authority of the Bible? Absolute? Literature? Other?

TOM

Dave, What I wrote ..no if or but.. I noticed cia.gov. I found a Mohammed addendum with cia.This was a spy agency called Central Intelligence Agency formed by Mohammed ,the Prophet as mentioned in Kabaa of Mecca.His major cabinet minister named OMAR ( almost 100% reliable person) confronted Ibn Yaman ,and said , " you were investigating me as if I am a criminal ,who are you". Ibn Yaman said " I am chief of CIA directly reporting to Muhammed , and I have found your deputy minister spying .Omar rushed ,and complained to Mohammed " howcome you did not disclose to your own cabinet ministers that you had started a cia dept ".This cia could not have been Bill Clinton's cia , 1400 year ago .Nearby,Mohammed in the city hall collecting the first Islamic Govt property tax ,was briefing basics absolute minimum..." One Mohammed to day ,has changed into 1.1 billion (minus ethnic cleansed )mohammeds (incl me) using a management technique, I find it more fascinating than Harvard School of Management. Benz Zakar

He also must have been the greatest mathemetician of all time, as the encoding scheme built into the Torah (Pentateuch, actually) is vastly more complex than the simple Masoretic scribes could have devised while maintaining a coherent language structure.

It's more complex than even we can devise, even with the benefit of computers!

http://members.xoom.com/bcodes/genesis.htm

Statistics is my primary field of expertise, and this paper is valid, and is yet another sound, scientific piece of evidence that the Bible, although penned by man, was, in fact, composed by God Almighty.

However, for the record, I do not agree with the plethora of prophetics claiming to foretell everyday events from Biblical code - this is not only sheer speculation, highly probable using any large volume of literature, but also goes against the text of the Bible itself, warning against divination.

Nevertheless, the structural code contained within the Bible is so complex, exact, and unwavering, and so statistically different than that of several control texts (including the Hebrew translation of Tolstoy's War and Peace), that it's inconceivable that it occurred by chance. For example, the min p value for the book of Genesis is .000004, whereas the min p value for War and Peace is .277.

While calculation the odds against it being random chance is exceedingly difficult given the nature of the experiment (millions of words in a book vs two-sided test of flipping a coin), given the experimental results of the data, it's on the order of 23 Quadrillion to 1 against this being a fluke.

While different controls may vary these results by several orders of magnitude, the absolute smallest chance against this being a fluke is still on the order of many mil

...many millions to one.

and here:

http://members.xoom.com/bcodes/witz1.htm

Also, for Leszek, a letter of testamony written by real, honest-to-God university professors, scientific specialists in their fields!

http://members.xoom.com/bcodes/letter.htm

It seems Dr. Gans and I share something in common, namely, that we both arrived at a conclusion diametrically opposed to that which we were trying to prove:

"Harold Gans, an eminent cryptologist, provided personal as well as a scientific response to one question. Gans initially pooh-poohed Torah codes and set out refute them. He ended up confirming, by scientific means, their scientific validity. His logical analysis and critique of the critics was devastating."

And with that, I really must go to work!

One last comment, quoted from Professor Eliyahu Rips: "The only conclusion that can be drawn from the scientific research regarding the Torah codes is that they exist and that they are not a mere coincidence."

Another:

PUBLIC STATEMENT BY HAROLD GANS SENIOR CRYPTOLOGIC MATHEMATICIAN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, RETIRED. PRESENTLY INDEPENDENT MATHEMATICAL CONSULTANT.

I have reviewed the book "The Bible Code" by M. Drosnin.

1. The book states that codes were found in the book of Genesis by Doron Witztum and Eliyahu Rips. An experiment was performed using scientific protocols specified by independent reviewers. The results of the experiment provided extremely strong statistical evidence for the existence of the encoding of great Jewish sages' names and dates of birth and death in the Hebrew text of the book of Genesis. This is all true.

2. The book states that I undertook an independent evaluation of the Witztum - Rips experiment. I duplicated their experiment and provided corroboration of their results. This is correct.

3. The book states that I also performed a new experiment, using the same methodology of Witztum and Rips, in which I found that the sages' names were also encoded in Genesis with their respective cities of birth and death. The statistical results obtained were even stronger than that obtained for the first experiment. This is all true.

4. The book also indicates that in spite of concerted efforts by many, no fatal mathematical flaw has been uncovered in the Witztum - Rips experiment. This too, is correct.

5. The book states that the codes in the Torah can be used to predict future events. This is absolutely unfounded. (lots more on this - see link, below)

6. A plethora of books have appeared over the last several months, concerning the codes. Unless the work is reviewed by qualified scientists or mathematicians, the reader accepts such a book at his own risk.

7. After exhaustive analysis,

7. After exhaustive analysis, I have reached the conclusion that the only information that can be derived from the codes discovered in Genesis is that they exist, and the probability that they are mere coincidence is vanishingly small.

- Harold Gans, June 3, 1997

Well said, IMO, at least as regards science.

Yes, this is an interesting question. More interesting in that we shall never know the answer! I am not altogether certain I share your view that science would be completely different - again stressing that we are dealing with unknowns here. As I said previously, the mere fact that most scientists knowledgeable in the area regard Einstein's solution of general relativity as the correct one for the question being asked, makes one think something interesting is going on here. As a mathematician, I believe that mathematical truth is independent of human interpretation - a widely held view among scientists of a mathematical bent. Since much of science has mathematics as its basis... These are just my thoughts.

Contrast this to religion. There is somewhat less uniformity in what is regarded as the correct answer to the questions posed by religious thought.

I think one needs to exercise some care in this discussion. When one says `believer,' what does one mean? I saw a study which suggests, for example, that the number of scientists who answer `Yes' to the question `Do you believe in an afterlife?' is significantly lower than the number of scientists who answer `Yes' to the question `Do you believe in God?' The point being that it is possible that the character of the God believed in by the scientist may be different from that believed in by the non-scientist.

I don't doubt your statement that science has created more ambiguity simply by expanding the fields of inquiry - I was just bemused by the idea that scientists plied their trade in order to increase ambiguity. That was never my intent as a scientist, though it was often the result! :)

I think that Andrew had the goods on religion too - it seeks to abolish ambiguity as you say, but the fact that there are so many religions and that they are constantly splintering rather than uniting, speaks to the fact that ambiguity and religion aren't strange bedfellows at all - they are constant companions.

Mr. Resnick, it may have escaped your attention, but these are opinion boards, not refereed scientific publications. I've seen you post your unsupported opinions on too many boards to be impressed by your campaigns of invective against those who oppose your opinions with their own.

If you want an example of a false assertion against another poster, here's one of your own:

This is the most blatant misrepresentation of anything I've ever said I've seen. Had you bothered to read and digest my posts instead of flying off the handle with unsupported and unsupportable accusations, you would have realised that I do not consider religion irrational - I merely disagree with it. Neither am I so stupid as to think that science cannot be peformed by religious believers. Your posts are patronizing, insulting, and deliberately misleading.

You claim to be a scientist. So am I. My degree is just as good as yours, so we'll get along just fine by focussing on ideas.

My experience of scientists - as opposed to technicians - is that a greater proportion incline to atheism or some form of deism rather than in the general population... I haven't seen any statistics though I'm sure they exist. That doesn't prove anything, of course, because even though one might think scientists have a better understanding of the universe and be better positioned to come to conclusions, I'm not at all certain that a better understanding of the mechanics of it is equivalent to an understanding of the divine. If indeed, anything divine exists.

I'm as impressed by the theological opinions of scientists as I am about the scientific opinions of theologians, which is not a whole lot in either case. They are opinions outside an area of expertise and need to be treated cautiously.

In the interest of focussing on ideas, let me focus on these:

You claim that scientific enquiries have done nothing but confirm biblical Christianity. Which scientific enquiries are these? It is inconceivable that every factual claim of the bible could be wrong. But how is it possible to assert that when on occasion biblical facts are found to be correct, that this somehow proves or confirms Christianity? Such findings may be consistent with Christianity, they may also be consistent with Judaism, or with Islam. They don't "prove" the bible to be the revealed word of god, nor that any of the religions based on it are true while others are false.

You further claim that I assert that scientists can somehow perform experiments completely objectively and without prejudice. Where did I make this absurd claim? If you must attack me in this way, you could at least support your accusations with a reference.

Lastly, you refer to the opinions of a bevy of doubtlessly eminent scientists. I am a scientist, and I'm not impressed. The theological opinions of scientists are no more than that, no matter how eminent the scientist. Such an opinion carries no authority, and unless it can be supported by scientific evidence incapable of contrary interpetation, is little more than "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Of course, these boards are full of sound and fury, and the sensible reader can come to his or her own conclusions.

Dave Resnick wrote:

"... my point was in refutation of Leszek's claim that in order to be both a scientist as well as a believer, I would have to forego at least a few tenets of either one faith or the other."

If by believer you mean one who believes that the bible is literally true, all of it, then it would seem extremely difficult to reconcile that belief with what is known scientifically (although one could maybe still function in some fields). It usually requires claiming that most of geology, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc., are wrong and have been for at least two centuries, invoking Last Tuesdayism with a deceptive god, or some combination of thereof. Do you take this approach, or is there another way I haven't heard about?

"My overwhelming experience has been that when scientists examine Biblical validity, they usually do so in the light of their own religious beliefs, or lack thereof, and so taint their supposedly 'pure' methods."

"...all scientific investigations are undertaken with the prejudices of those conducting the experiment."

I would agree that prejudices come into it, most people try to recognize and account for them. But, I doubt that religious beliefs come into it as much as you think. Also, once again, you make the implicit claim that you, and those who come to the conclusions you agree with, are not prejudiced. This is backwards reasoning, starting from the desired answer. It must be nice to be one of the "rare birds" who can truly see everything so clearly and with such certainty, while the rest of us are mired in our pathetic demands that theories be "falsifiable." What's it like?

Finally, to get back to a post you made a while ago, was the Percy article intended to support your apparent lack of interest in testing ideas experimentally? It didn't. While it did make the valid points that the "scientific method" is not a conscious procedure that people go through in their labs, but rather

continued...

While it did make the valid points that the "scientific method" is not a conscious procedure that people go through in their labs, but rather a more general approach, and that much of what is written about it is somewhat pretentious, it basically supported the point I was making.

Fascinating... I never realised this Bible Codes phenomenon existed (= the encoded listing of the names and dates of birth or death of important post-OT rabbis in Genesis), though it sounds distressingly redolent of numerology. I have no doubt the Christians who are excited about it will be converting to Judaism at their earliest opportunity ;)

The critical question is whether the "codes" found in the bible text are statistically more significant than the codes found in (in the example used) War and Peace, and the paper you reference and supporting material goes into great detail to explain why they are not.

So one can either conclude that the Bible codes are nothing more than an expected statistical feature of any long text, or that we should include War and Peace in the Judeo-Christian canon :)

Frankly, I'm chuckling at the absurdity of it all - the very idea that the bible should encode the names of future Rabbis... I mean, what on earth for!? Weren't there more interesting things to predict? It is remarkably easy to be fooled by statistically probable coincidences into thinking they are significant. And in something as complex as the bible codes (pace Dave Resnick), evidently even eminent scholars can disagree on the validity of applied statistical tests.

I'd say the Bible Codes phenomenon is very shakey, but like numerology, will be a long time a-dying.

It’s your basic pyramid scheme, as immortalized for purposes of government on the "Annuit Coeptis" face of the Great Seal of the United States (on the left, green side of the U.S. dollar bill). My brother-in-law always told me I’m in the wrong business, should be selling religion.

Or, as he so aptly puts it, "If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?" §:o)

Not necessarily, Dave. There is quite a bit of theological vs. historical linguistics debate about the whole matter of the Pentateuch. Interestingly enough, this debate does NOT rage within the ranks of Judaism, where it is agreed all the books were penned in ancient Hebrew script by Moses. Moses married the daughter of the king of Midianites in Sinai. The Sinai Midianites had encoded their dialect of Hebrew into writing before the time of Moses, so the Rabbinic tradition of authorship is plausible.

Genesis - the History - was collected from the oral traditions the Hebrews maintained through the generations, and tells the story of The Plan. The two allegories dealing with creation itself (general and special) were from separate traditions, both too important to discard.

Ever heard of an Egyptian god called Thoth? A mage known as Hermes Trismagestus (also Egyptian)? If so, you must be familiar with a symbolic encoding system known as "Hermetics." Genesis is in my opinion the finest example of Hermetic literature ever written. Not surprising, considering the background and education of the author.

Not me, Leszek! Of course, I’m neither "excited" nor "surprised." I’ll bet by altering the gaps just a little bit they’d find both your name and mine, and I don’t know about you, but I’m sure nobody! It’s common to Hermetic encoding that the symbology speaks to the reader/perceiver/hearer on whatever level of understanding the subject brings to the action. Because I understand that individuals vary widely in their abilities to understand, I do not think the "code" is all that important or meaningful.

But it does account for Hebraic (Judaic) mysticism, associated with Cabala. You are right that it is a method of divination, which I suppose was deemed permitted due to the source. I’ll do some checking... §:o)

Yes, I have heard that also and I suspect it may be true. The UK has a much different cultural and religious history than we have here in the USA. Also, I am sure the numbers tend to change when one imposes additional definition to the terminology. Einstein, for example tended to believe in a God of the universe, but he did not believe in a personal God, such as you, Joy and Dave believe.

How would you classify Einstein, believer or non-believer. I think I would tend to put him in the non-believer category.

I suppose it would depend on the nature of the tenets and how they are interpreted as relating to both science and religion. I think it is quite possible that you and I might disagree on any number of interpretations of those relationships, meaning that it is possible that I might sincerely see a contradiction where you sincerely see only harmony. For example, I find the order, tone and style of the creation story(s) as written in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to be different , even contradictory, and, therefore, decide that they must be from separate sources. I assume that you do not find any such contradiction, and instead find only harmony. I have no problem with our disagreement as long as we can discuss them in a civil tone and as long as you accept that my opinion on the matter is sincerely held--as I accept that yours is sincerely held.

Not so sure Pitkanen would agree with you at this point, Cliff! But that’s okay, since I’m a recent redhead anyway (compliments my freckles as well as my tenaciousness). The archive you linked is indeed the site recommended to me, and if you’ll look at some of the essays you’ll see why it is so far over my head! I’ve bookmarked it anyway, for whatever good that’ll do me... §:o)

Must have missed it, SeS. I’ll try to backtrack, or you could post whatever it is over here instead. I haven’t followed the "Religion Today" board very much lately. It becomes boring after awhile with the same arguments over and over again.

"Tom Harper - Friday, 07/16/99, 8:22:37am (#4505 of 4544) Joy, Leszek, Dave, Andrew, The goal of religion is to reduce ambiguity. To provide answers and thus stability "

Tom, I add " RELIGION of GOD= The Living God , you and everybody could ask directly...." Benz

Joy Busey - Saturday, 07/17/99, 11:41:27am (#4543 of 4544) "benz zakar 7/17/99 8:51am One Mohammed to day ,has changed into 1.1 billion (minus ethnic cleansed )mohammeds (incl me) using a management technique, I find it more fascinating than Harvard School of Management"; "It’s your basic pyramid scheme.!." Joy, The living God I found since my age six ...gave me ups and downs..like everybody else.. The God is in control ...of the earth and universe and wants us to do specific .... When it is said eve was thrown out of paradise for eating forbidden...And the world's adams and eves are eating forbidden in direct defiance of the Bible Torah or Quran ... adopting alternative to above --even same sex marriage... Walt Disney Fantasias of Prince Talal ...Clinton ...giving me hardtime for no reason ...what is it ?

Magnify what I wrote about Einstein and relativity experience of my own experience or knowledge... I found Religion is the Grand Master Scientist Economist Finest Management Reformist Living God .... to be worshipped , to be prostrated by all ...it is mandatory...and existing preachers,Imams ,Rabbis are his cabinet ministers with fully established churches,temples and mosques as management centres..! Seek knowledge though it be in China. Benz Zakar

Actually, I am not so sure about how "personal" God may be, even though I do call myself a Christian. I’ve said before that I’m sort of a reprobate Christian who would probably be deemed "heretic" in most fundamentalist circles. I believe that Jesus the Nazirite left a door open for me, and I plan to take it. How that relates to dogma such as triune God and virgin birth and other such supernatural things I do not know. Worse, I don’t particularly care. It’s purely a faith thing.

Faith in what? ...In the FACT that I have managed to encounter things throughout my life that science and medicine cannot even begin to explain. How I assign them is a product of my early indoctrination I’m sure, though I did spend some years looking around at other belief systems. I used to shrug and say that if when I die I find out there is no open door, I’ll be quite disappointed to have been wrong, but even if I’m wrong my life will have been well spent. That, however, was before I followed my son through the door and learned it’s really there.

Believers like Dave and maybe Rosemary would automatically assign things like that to God’s grace and sovereignty over time and space without question, and they may be right. In the end, I may have to make the very same leap beyond universal parameters. In the meantime, I am fairly convinced that what I experienced is not actually "unnatural," just "unusual." I suspect that it can be accounted for in a natural way, though that explanation probably won’t fit well with the scientific priesthood which holds so exclusively to the Standard Model.

I was being gently ironic :)

I've done some minor work in finding patterns in protein sequences, so it doesn't surprise me that you can extract "codes" of this sort from long texts just on the basis of random chance.

However, as you imply, to make the claim that they were put there by god, or even by other people, one needs to show beyond all doubt that the incidence of instances of the code is much higher than chance alone would provide for. It seems that there is good reason to doubt the statistical validity of such claims. Even the use of the word "code" embodies the assumption that it is a non-random, intelligently designed phenomenon, which is not proven.

I suspect it will all blow over, but not soon. After all, there are folk still trying to tell us there are deep meanings in the proportions of the pyramids... numerology rules, and this is but the latest instance.

Cliff -

Pitkanen is strictly separating "Psychological time" in his TGD consciousness model from objective universal "classical spacetime" time. His model is not strictly related to actual time passage, as he does not see time as separate from geometry (spacetime). What I’ve gathered so far is that he still adheres strictly to the Standard Model and Einsteinian relativities of time as a dimensionality rather than as a separate field factor with quanta.

IOW, he is strictly concerned with the methodology of thought process and "moments" of consciousness where one "small" spacetime completely replaces the "small" spacetime wherein the conscious thought originated. He has not applied the concept nearly as broadly as I have.

Which is reasonable, since it’s basically just a theoretical logic tree with applications in AI programming. An information processing system. Where I see a field vector which requires more than one transfer of energy to align with its surroundings (symmetry-breaking of a monopole), he sees a simple process with no actual energy transfer, thus no incremental passage of actual time.

My purpose in exploration is that the entire nature of my son’s ordeal is bound in consciousness. If there is a model of consciousness out there which will go toward a rational explanation of how someone certifiably "unconscious" can garner an 80+% cognitive assessment, I want to understand it.

Well, you know, Dave, I like to be friends with everyone. And I do not demand that my friends always get along with each other. But, assuming you said what I think you said, I can tell you that I have conversed with this gentleman, Leszek, far too long to believe that he is a scoundrel.

See prior post and link by Dawn on this subject, Dave. I might mention that I first met Dawn on the "Bible Codes" Messageboard and had an enormous amount fun arguing with her, Tom Anderson and Noel Yap and others on that subject. Basically I argued that while the Drosnin book was fallacious, I thought the "scientific paper" published in Statistical Science must be considered correct until proven otherwise. In my first series of post two posts in July of 1997, I wrote:

Bible Codes discussion (cont.)

But, although I continue to insist that I was basically right in my analysis, it is now clear to me that I was on the wrong side of the argument. If I may quote myself, reference S&R message #3810, in response to Dawn's earlier link to the McKay paper:

I probably ought to mention that I initially began to worry about the veracity of the Rips "scientific paper" due to exchanges of correspondence between McKay and Rips published in the McKay site a couple of years ago. It appeared to me that Rips was not as forthcoming as I would have expected him to be if he truly had the goods.

I agree with the part that religious beliefs can "taint their supposedly "pure" methods. I am not certain how the lack of religious beliefs can similarly taint the scientific method. (I, of course, accept that you have previously attacked the scientific method as being less than perfect, and have provided links to show that you are not the only one, but I think it is the basis of scientific thought and mention it in that sense.

Of course, and, obviously, your prejudices are different than Leszek's. That is the reason I think adherence to the scientific method is important. The idea that one can do science outside the structure of the scientific method may be valid, but problematic, I think.

Well, first, we have to decide the outcome of any such experiment. If you and I disagree on the results of the experiment, we are likely to come to different conclusions as to the meaning of that experiment. Sometimes, a reasoned discussion of the results and the meaning of the results can be illuminating.

Cliff - If you’ll check the Quantum Mind archive for July (apparently on current ‘hold’ due to a conference through August 1 in Flagstaff), you’ll see that the conceptualization of time in any of the models of quantum consciousness presents a significant problem between what Pitkanen terms "psychological time" vs. "classical time."

There are interesting postulations out there on how this dichotomy may be resolved, but most of them fail to link universal passage of time with individual perception of time... as if human consciousness itself were a Second Law violation. In fact, it now appears that Stephen Hawking has backtracked on the inevitable singularity associated with the big bang itself, as if to distance himself from this debate about the nature of time. Yet another "renormalized" equation designed to avoid things one cannot explain. <sigh>

In contemplation of the totality of our son’s miracle, I run into the psychological constants long developed and amply demonstrated about the nature of human consciousness. The "conscious," "personal unconscious" or "shadow," the anima / animus archtypes of "collective consciousness" and the heroic / mythical archtypes of "collective unconscious." Completely separate functions of the human psyche.

Dave,

I'm crushed! I turned on the computer this morning expecting to continue our discussion of Genesis but instead I get "The Bible Code". A completely discredited commercial hoax! Thomas, of UNM found the same results with War and Peace, Moby Dick and Supreme Court Decision texts. Drosnin made money - it was a book deal. I have read the book. It uses big print and lots of white space to make it thick enough to sell. The writing is infantile. It is like reading ad copy.

I give you credit for being better than to drag out this dead horse with the expectation that we would be willing to flog it!

Back to Genesis - please!

TOM

You go to a signed-in living God or non-signed in God for Bible,Quran,Torah.Preachers ,Imams and Rabbis are heading towards hell too.

Nowhere ,I indicated worshipping personal God.I gave away what signed-in God gave it to me from Kaaba to Islamic CIA, Taxations to Quran to Prophet Mohammed's cabinet minister.Just ask any muslim sitting next to you or nearby and confirm... Knowledge is virtue.

Take for instance , when you say Jesus was a carpenter . So what? Mohammed at age 25 married a christian millionaire woman 15 yrs older than him .Mohammed at age 40 became a prophet and died at age 63.Quran came in 23 yrs too. So what? My decoded analysis 100% true... Benz said:"Mohammed introduced 21/2% wealth tax ,income tax,property tax and establised social security,unemployment insurance and introduced welfare reform. " How?

A healthy youngman came to the office (in the presence of Mohammed) and asked for welfare because he had zero income.Mohammed said, I have enough fund to give it to you today.Would you prefer to live off welfare or rather have employment or have business training without taking a single cent on dole.The man in his late 20's said," own business with training ".

Mohammed Said ,come to the mosque with your asset..".. clothings.bedsheets,cups and plates..." He came with a broken chipped cup,plate and one bed sheet (his entire asset).Mohammed auctioned his cup send him a few doors away to an iron foundry .. and asked him to bring the Axe . Like a carpenter ,he fixed the handle himself and told him ..you are now a self- employed lumberjackman . Until you have delivery horse,camel or donkey , you bring on your back dried tree branches and sell door to door using bed sheet. He gave him the balance of the money and said,"I don't want to see you in the mosque for 3 months .." Benz Zakar

I think I must have not been as clear as I should have been, Andrew. I did not mean that science would be significantly different, just that there would be different levels of development. Clearly, 2 + 2 = 4, regardless of the symbols used to represent the addition and how different perspectives might operate on the notion of addition. The operation of the universe is as it is, regardless of the symbols used to describe it. Relativity appears to be a reasonably good representation of at least a portion of reality. Assuming it is correct, it must be discovered, in one form or another, by any society as scientifically advanced as we. As for our standing in class, I agree we do not know and can not know, but my guess would be that we are in the upper third.

Leszek, that sounds good at first glance. But I find it to be less persuasive after giving it some thought. For example, I do not accept that unsupported opinions of scientists regarding things of science are of any more value than unsupported opinions of theologians regarding things of science. And I most certainly do not necessarily accept the authority of theologians on theological matters. (Actually, I find my own views on both to be most persuasive to me, and I am neither a scientist nor a theologian :-)

Joy, I hesitate to respond to your observations on Pitkanen's TGD consciousness model since I am totally unqualified to comment specifically, although I find what you have to say quite interesting. I might just mention that I understand that Einstein thought the "passage" of time was an "illusion." I assume it was on the basis of time being a dimension in four dimensional geometry although I do not know that that was the basis specifically.

This reminds me that I have always considered as an interesting idea, the idea of God as a four dimensional being for whom time would be an actual dimension and thus would not "pass." In that event, God would not exist just in our own time, but rather, he would exist in all time frames all at once. Of course, this might be a little confusing for three dimensional beings such as ourselves, but for God, a four dimensional being, it would be the most commonplace of things, and he would pick a time on the time line much as we would pick a position in space.

Do you think I am full of sour kraut? :-)

Sounds reasonable to me. As an agnostic, I accept that it is better to admit one does not know than to refuse to admit it and be wrong.

No argument from me there! :) though I have to stipulate that I often accept the argument from authority in scientific fields provisionally, but that's because it's impossible to be expert enough in all fields to make an informed judgement. What I rely on is the opinion of other qualified scientists through the peer-review process that the experimentally testable conclusions are valid withing their limitations. And even then, I don't take it as gospel :)

Now some religious claims are experimentally testable too... the Shroud of Turin was one though the RC church hierarchy never made the bald claim that it was the burial shroud - individual believers and clergy did that. Another might be the RC doctrine of Transubstantiation - here Catholics believe that the communion wafer or host and wine are actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ. My own suspicion is that tests would show it was unleavened dough at all times, but I don't expect the church to submit that one for analysis.

Other doctrines, such as the Assumption of Mary body and soul into heaven, are beyond the realm of scientific investigation.

My gripe rests not with differences in opinion (common) but in the difference between the way you and others tend to respond (very uncommon). To date, just you and one other out of a cast of thousands resort to these tactics to such an extensive degree.

Most people either quote the original post verbatim or accurately paraphrase it. You, however, do not. Even when you do include original material, your misstatements falsely allude points of opinion which simply never existed in my original, and were often diametrically opposed in the original, something most people find utterly deceptive.

Case in point, this very same post. Observe:

I stated: "the Bible must, by your definition, anyway, preclude even the remotest possibility of unhindered scientific inquiry, and vice versa."

You responded with "I do not consider religion irrational - I merely disagree with it."

Where did I mention anything about irrationality? No where!

Yet you allude that such was the essence of my post, when it most certainly was not.

This is what I mean about your deceptions, your putting words in the mouths of others that simply don't belong.

Instead of using sound reasoning as your tool of debate, you instead opt for deception of the lowest order, attempting to reduce the credibility of your opponents by falsly proclaiming to the world what they simply do not represent, essentially making them out to be something they are not.

I said this before, and I'll say it again: As long as you continue to use these gross and inappropriate deceptions in response to my posts, I'll call you on it, and point them out for all the world to see.

Funny, but that's my long-standing gripe with you...

and...

and...

Just thought the difference of approaches to inevitable misunderstandings of long-distance dialogue were worthy of note. Carry on... §:o)

It does no such thing, as attested to in this excerpt from the forward:

In my sole previous post on this matter, I included links to refutations written by both Rips and Gans against claims that the Bible code could be used to predict future events.

Further, I included my own disclaimer to that effect, noting the statistical evidence simply does not support this hypothesis.

Finally, the Bible Code was first "discovered" in the 1800's, and may have been known centuries, if not millennia before that.

The Bible was, and remains, valid in its confirmation of the Pentateuch, and possibly other O.T. books, as the inspired word of God.

PS: The "Bible Code" described by Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg in their 1994 paper is NOT the same code as has been known for centuries and the one to which I was referring.

Okay, clarification noted.

Ack, why would you place us so high?! :-) In the imaginary spectrum of possible scientific accomplishment, I would say we are in the bottom 1% (or some such thing). For example, it is possible that the bad Greeks (e.g., Pythagoras) would not have suppressed the good Greeks (e.g., Aristarchus). And so on and so on. Even resorting only to easily conceived alterations of scientific development, our current path comes off not looking so good. Add to this those which are possible and we start looking pretty pathetic indeed :-)

This is marked contrast to Cliff's earlier statement wherein he stated: "Most scientists are not believers."

His statement implies a percentage of less than 50%, whereas yours simply states that, per capita, more scientists are atheistic than the population at large, and would hold true if 90% of the total population were believers, but "only" 87% of all scientists fit that category!

After I accepted Christ and began attending church, I was astonished at how many of my colleagues also attended. I later discovered that most simply never spoke of it at work, primarily due to the rather vociferous and poignant backlashes from self-proclaimed "experts" who "know better." These backlashes also affects several careers, in contrast to the individual's quality of work...

And what of your impression of those who are fully qualified in both areas? Many scientists have turned theologian, and many devout, life-long students of the Bible become scientists.

As their opinions are not "outside an area of expertise," must they also be treated cautiously? If so, then the corollary is also true, that opinions within any area of expertise must be treated cautiously!

Yes, I admit that I misspoke myself in that I do tend to accept the opinion of scientists as the peers of other scientists for things mathematical or otherwise beyond my comprehension. For example, I am unable to independently verify the General Theory of Relativity. However, I tend to accept it's validity on the basis that other eminent scientists have offered the opinion that it appears to be valid. I usually assume their opinion is based on valid evidence that I would not understand were I to be presented with the evidence.

You are surprised? I am not. Actually, in many ways, the two of you are quite similar. You each are articulate, intelligent and clever, with an exceedingly sharp and expressive tongue. It is not surprising to me that you each have the same gripe against the other. You each have essentially the same capabilities of doing harm to each other :-)

Funny, Joy. I must note that it did not keep the two of us from having a major misunderstanding some time ago. Fortunately, I think we both learned from the experience. You have indicated as much in your posts, and I can certainly assure you that I did.

Mr. Resnick. I overlook your previous ad hominems as usual, and note that evidently nothing I can possibly say will satisfy you. I have no idea why I have incurred this animus on your part, except that I disagree with you. Carry on your vendetta if you must, I don't much care, I will focus on rebuttal of the substantive comments in your posts, if any.

I invite you to perform the scientific experiments that will prove Christianity to be the one true religion. Let me know when you have the results published in a peer-reviewed journal, and I'll comment. Or refer me to such existing studies. Whatever. If you want me to believe in something, show me the data, and don't fob me off with outraged cries off "I've already shown you!". You haven't.

You also complain that Mr. Beall and I are not in agreement as if this were of any significance. So what? He stated "most scientists are not believers", whereas I was content to note that I find the incidence of atheism and deism to be higher in the scientific community than in the general population.

There is nothing inconsistent between these statements. Since I have no references to studies of atheism among scientists as opposed to the general population, I can only report my personal experience, which you appear to object to. I didn't claim to be able to quantify this, and don't need to. Perhaps Mr. Beall has more precise information. (And why you think Mr. Beall meant "a percentage of less than 50%" when he used the word "most" is beyond me.)

Cliff, it's probably inevitable we accept the word of scientists in unfamiliar fields that what they say is true, because they base their conclusions, so we assume, on verifiable data independently testable by other scientists, and published in peer-reviewed journals. I don't look on this as sloppiness, just the inevitable consequence of the diversification of science.

This does mean that we rely on other scientists in each field to vet each others research, and we have to assume their honesty. Given the competitive nature of science, if the question is important enough, fraud will be found out. So basically I see no reason not to place trust in the enterprise as a whole, even if individual scientists commit errors or fraud. The scientific enterprise is designed to find them out :)

The same ones I told you about two months, seven months, and thirteen months ago, and, if I'm not mistaken, way back in the Spring of 1997.

Must we go over this again? If you have a memory problem, then it's you who have a problem.

BTW, it's "inquiries," not "enquiries," which is not a word known to the English language.

However, for those who are latecomers, you might explore the following links for such "inquiries:"

Hmmm, let me get this straight: You're asserting that despite the fact that nearly all historical references in the New Testament, who's principle focus is Jesus Christ, have proven factual, that this in no way substantiates or validates the New Testament assertions about Christ?

Serves me right for not immediately providing a link, thus having to dig it up later.

Here:

Wherein you "alluded to," if not made outright claim, to science being fundamentally opposed to Bible-based religion (fundamentalism), and inherently superior, not to mention your first paragraph in which you spoke of "when religious folk come across scientific statements and propositions that run counter to their basic (and unscientific) beliefs..."

Your insinuations, if not overt, are exceptionally strong in this area...

More: "perhaps you could suggest more appropriate tests. Objective ones, that is, not "opening myself

More: "perhaps you could suggest more appropriate tests. Objective ones, that is, not "opening myself to Jesus""

From:

Sorry, Leszek, but I didn't write the rules on how God chose to manifest himself to mankind - He did. I suspect he set things up that way because he was more interested in making himself known to those who truly sought him out than those who'd merely shrug their shoulders and say, "So that's who all the fuss is about. Big deal."

If you can't provide experimental data proving the sole truth of Christianity, I understand. But don't tell me you provided it earlier when you didn't. At least I have no recollection that you did, and besides, I'm sure I'm not the only person fascinated by the possibility of conclusively proving that your version of Christianity is true in a scientific sense. I think that is such an important claim, you would have the evidence at your fingertips. I'm all agog.

As for being "open to Jesus", I was. Turned out to be a sham.

You couldn't be more slippery if you were a salamander in a bucket of soap suds.

First you claim that theologians and scientists are worlds apart. Then you negate, out of hand and completely without substantiating arguement that scientific theologians' opinions on theology mean nothing.

Amazingly convenient, don't you think, how much you demand from me in terms of "substantiating evidence" that you yourself are so obviously either unwilling or unable to provide...

Really? How so?

Let's visit the book of Leviticus, one of my favorites, as it not only serves as the foundation for civil law in modern society, but had society followed its dictates on cleanliness and sanitation, our level of disease would be so low as to negate the need for the CDC, not to mention the bevy of doctors and hospitals in our country.

Would have done away with quite a few lawyers, as well...

I approach the Bible as both a believer as well as a scientist. When I find passages at odds with science, then one of two things are occurring: The science is immature, or my understanding of the Bible is immature. To date, much of the ambiguities have been resolved.

Some remain, however, such as how most conclusions about geological evidence seem to be at odds with the apparent Biblical view of man's lineage.

However, I'm doubtful of many claims made by geologists on the basis of a few observations of my own, such as claims that stalactites take a hundred years or so to form one inch (http://www.redmo

In the post you allude to, I said we wouldn't have the same problem with fundamentalism had science education been a priority.

This is not the same as saying that religious belief is incompatible with scientific research, which is what you accused me of. You were completely misinterpreting my meaning.

Fundamentalism is profoundly opposed to science because it cannot admit the validity of any evidence that opposes a literal belief in the bible. In other words, it operates not by evaluating the evidence on it's own merits, but on whether the evidence is compatible with that literal interpretation. If it isn't, the evidence is ignored, distorted or lied about.

This is not the same as saying that religious belief is incompatible with science at all. Fundamentalism is just one form of religious belief, one that does not accept scientific methodology. Other mainstream religious beliefs are relatively compatible.

Now true, you can be a fundamentalist ans do science in any field that has no chance of offending fundamentalist religious doctrine - say, statistics, or meteorology. But if you are trying to do biology or astrophysics, fundamentalism ties your hands behind your back, and you have to shoehorn everything into the biblical mold.

That's not science, that's voodoo. With proper scientific training, students would realise the antiscientific thrust of modern fundamentalism. And that's all I meant. You blew it out of all proportion.

However, I'm doubtful of many claims made by geologists on the basis of a few observations of my own, such as claims that stalactites take a hundred years or so to form one inch (http://www.redmoon.net/outdoor/fcsp.htm), when I've witnessed calcite stalactites that have formed to depths of five and six inches hanging off bridges less than twenty years old.

Also, I've witnessed incredible restructuring of rock-bound landscapes due to floods that many geologists said took tens of thousands of years to form.

However, Leszek, these are merely observations, not hard evidence, scientific method, etc. Nevertheless, all science begins with observation...

There is no conceivable evidence to prove or disprove religion, so i don't see why you are exercised when I can't provide you with that which does not exist. It's not a matter of convenience, just plain fact.

My goodness, you've seen geological evidence of floods? Amazing. Why do you think that localized evidence of floods, which are common even today, suggests a single world-wide one?

I'm really not going to argue with you about Noah. That story is either completely apocryphal, or is an exaggeration of a much more modest tale of a farmer saving his livestock in such a local flood.

The fossil record is wholly incompatible with such tales. They are simply absurd.

And did you measure the relative rate of water flow through a bridge as opposed to a cave? Or the relative concentration of calcium salts in a concrete bridge as opposed to a natural cave? I'm no geologist, but these seem to me to be relevant statistics if you want to compare rates of stalactite formation. Forgive me if my questions are naive.

Myself: "...they usually do so in the light of their own religious beliefs, or lack thereof..."

Hence my use of the phrase, "or lack thereof..." All systems of personal beliefs and prejudices, regardless of affiliation with, or without, any recognized religion, can nevertheless be classed as "religion" in according with Merriam-Webster's definitions:

2. a personal set... ...of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

To say that scientists have no "religion" is to deny either their humanity, the English language, or rational and logical conclusion.

Can't fool you! Of course I'm prejudiced. However, I'm now, and have always been more interested in allowing the truth to determine the position whereon I should stand, than using the truth to substantiate my position.

If absolute, objective evidence appeared proving God did not exist, I'd examine it carefully, say, "well I'll be!" and chalk up my personal experiences substantiating Christianity as dulusional in nature.

The usual response from the other side, however, is one of closemindedness, wherein the idea that God is a product of humanity, and not the other way around, is held as firmly as any religious belief, and so much so that all evidence to the contrary is never reviewed, but merely dismissed out of hand.

I dare say, having come from the other side, that my prejudices are minor in comparison.

No, as you guessed. I believe all ideas should be tested experimentally. My link to Percy's take on the scient

No, as you guessed. I believe all ideas should be tested experimentally. My link to Percy's take on the scientific method was included solely to debunk the myth that the scientific method somehow eliminates all human prejudice for those who use it. I also included it to show that most breakthroughs in science did NOT come about by use of the scientific method, but by enlightened observation, personal experience, and intuition.

However, it's conceivable you may not be aware of the geological evidence supporting the relatively rapid flooding of basins such as the Mediterranean and Black Seas. These apparently occurred catastrophically over a period of a few years, and would have been traumatic for people living in the flood plain.

One or the other or both may well have been the sources of biblical flood legends, and no surprise there. But these were natural phenomena resulting from rising sea levels, not god's plan to repopulate the world.

Neither I nor any other scientist on this board has ever claimed that science can be performed by any scientists in the absence of preconceptions or prejudice. Such a claim would be absurd.

What we do say is that the competitive nature of science tends to ensure that erroneous results get found out, whatever their source.

Science has no antireligious agenda, though individual scientists might. It can only explore what is there, and the theories that survive are those that describe the working of the world most accurately of those available.

As numerology is the study of numbers, and the occult manner in which they reflect certain aptitudes and character tendencies, as an integral part of some cosmic plan, no, the Bible Codes to which I referred are not numerology.

However, the Bible Codes to which both you and Dawn refer, namely, the "encoded listing of the names and dates of birth or death of important post-OT rabbis in Genesis," do fit that definition quite nicely ;)

No, the Bible Codes to which I referred are the ones corresponding strictly to the ELS, or equidistant letter sequences found in the first five books of the Bible.

In this approach, the Hebrew letters for Torah, "TORH," appear at an ELS spacing of 49 throughout the first two books, and its reverse, "HROT" throughout the last two books. The Hebrew for God, "YWAH," appears throughout the middle book with an ELS spacing of 7.

This is merely the simplest sequencing, makes no ridiculous references to Rabin's assisination or any other modern-day event, but is complex enough to preclude human evolvement. Compare the seemingly unparalleled work in The Great Gatsby, wherein the author wrote an entire book without using the letter "e." As difficult enough as that effort was, the idea of incorporating the Biblical codes I mentioned within the text are vastly and inhumanly more complex.

the statistical liklihood of this Bible code happening purely by chance is as previously reported, about 23 Quadrillion to one.

I repeat, this is not the proximetric approach used to find supposedly prophetic references to current events that has been soundly debunked by numerous statisticians.

Leszek:

For once, we agree, albeit only about the supposedly prohetic proximetric codes, and not the original ones which we've known for many years.

You may be referring to "The Hermanetic ObservaTory?" which forms the acrostic of THOTh. It's "a service activity encompassed within the New Group of World Servers to promote Right Observation in the Light of the most modern expression of the Arcane Wisdom tradition."

Typical New World Order nonsense, and is a compilation of a variety of religions and mythical backgrounds including Roman and Greek Gods, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, witchcraft, Masonism, and a bunch of others.

However, to whet your appetite, here's what I found:

Hardly.

Here's some more nonsense:

Sorry, but the Bible itself specifically prohibits divination (telling of the future) and witchcraft.

Despite Moses' supposed contemporarianism with Trismegistus, t

Despite Moses' supposed contemporarianism with Trismegistus, the Bible not only makes no mention of the latter, but clearly denounces all for which he stood.

At any rate, the Bible code is no product of Hermetics. It's a product of God Almighty.

Were it for any other work of man I'd have to say the former could be true. However, the concept of the latter is self-annihilating.

I'm quite familiar with the two-author proposition, but do not believe it for one reason: Genesis was written as organized prose, which often has repeating rythems, commonly known as "choruses" in modern music and poetry.

Especially if the particular thought or idea was of significant importance...

Many of the Psalms have a similarly repetitive nature.

I don't recall every having a problem with you, Cliff - you're what I'd call a "straight-shooter," and I don't believe you've ever resorted to methods of deception and subterfuge in your debates, which is commendable.

I wonder how much of the science and philosophy, such as metaphysics, that exists outside the standard model, isn't merely an attempt to understand, if not explain, the observation of phenomena such as miracles and the action of the Holy Spirit upon the heart and mind.

If so, then given that the Standard Scientific Model describes the "natural" world as that which exists without divine, or at least spiritual influence, then the "supernatural" world is that which exists under divine or spiritual influence.

...as has been done for the non-proximetric Bible codes.

Then again, it appears as if no amount of rigorous statistical analysis would ever erase your doubt, so that's hardly a fair challenge, now is it?

Your continued confusion of the proximetric coding claims of Rosin's 1991 paper with the coding discovered centuries ago is problematic. However, hopefully when you've read through these series of posts by tomorrow, you'll have realized your error.

Or was your error intentional in order that you could lump the baby with the bathwater and throw both of them out solely on the basis of the dirty bathwater?

Try disagreeing with him over the facts supporting Biblical truth, which is diametrically opposed to his own belief system, and see how long it takes him to resort to the same tactics he uses with my own posts...

See previous posts pointing out the rather significant difference between Drosnin's recent paper and ridiculous claims of prophetic encoding and the Bible codes to which I referred, whose only association with Drosnin has to do with his springboarding his book sales off their efficacy.

By George, I think you've got it!

Doah! Hopefully, you understand Rips himself denounces Drosnin's claim of proximetric fortune-telling, but remains firm in his defense of the Bible codes in general, as does Gans.

Good points, all; mild differences of interpretation of some terms.

Sigh. Hopefully you've now read through my posts pointing out the differences between Drosnin's "Bible Code" of 1991, and the one known to scholars for the last several hundred years, if not millennia.

Fine by me - I'm getting tired of having my alusion to Bible codes being mistakenly associated with Drosnin's drivel.

Getting back to Genesis... What do you suggest?

How about a scientific treatise on the Ark's ability to house the genetic gggggreat-grandparents of all living land animals, Noah's family, and enough food for more than 200 days at sea?

Given a divine flood, the assumption of divine intervention to keep animals under control, including mild hibernation, is entirely within reason, so the problem becomes one of logistics:

Is the volume of the ark as its dimensions are depicted in the Bible enough to hold two of every kind (actually seven of each kind for those animals used both for food and ceremoniously) and its food?

I fear we all fit this model in various fields of expertise!

Outstanding! This is also supported in Biblical text, in one of the Old Testament's given names for God as "I AM," implying a continual state of existance, as well as Jesus' intentional mixing of tenses when he proclaimed, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was, I AM," which not only reiterated the iso-temporal nature of God, but also claimed onenes with God himself.

Furthermore, this understanding erases the problems most Christians face with the free will / predestination problem.

I can't begin to tell you how difficult it is to explain this to others, despite the fact that the ancient Hebrews understood this without reservation, and is reflected in their language. With English, a forced mixing of the tenses is necessary to get the point across: To God, our past, present and future are all His "present."

Thanks, Joy. I truly appreciate your peace-making overatures. However, the pattern to which I refer is limited to just one individual out of several hundred. It could very well be that we're simply communicating from such different origens of understanding that...

However, as previously stated, I have no problems with Benz's translations!

Well spoken.

I have, several times in the past, and am awaiting your comment. Or is it that you believe Biblical archeologists should be peer-reviewed by atheistic geologists and anthropologists, as you've indicated in your replies refuting all evidence with which you've been presented so far?

But those are not their peers.

This is your pattern: 1. "Present the data." 2. The data is presented. 3. "Data/methods/source/etc. not valid!"

This despite the fact that said data passed peer-review, which you swear to as your guiding light, and that said subject matter is not your subject of expertise.

If it's not your subject of expertise, then you have no alternative but to discontinue your unqualified comments and accept the results of the peer-review process!

Yet you do neither. Instead, you continue to refute and denounce the experts as somehow biased simply because they are, well, experts in that field (as if being a Christian somehow disqual

Yet you do neither. Instead, you continue to refute and denounce the experts as somehow biased simply because they are, well, experts in that field (as if being a Christian somehow disqualifies one from being an expert on Biblical archeology) and refute evidence outside your area of expertise.

Why should I, when a simple statement will do? "I've already shown you."

Fortunately, it's not beyond the rest of us who understand the English language. I used "most" to describe the exclusive category, not the normative. Go back and read the post.

Oops, there I go again, referring you back to what I've written in the past...

Can't let a little thing like memory, or lack thereof, get in the way of a scientific debate, now can we...

Thank you, Leszek, for at least admitting to the possibility that you've forgotten. It's a classic case of one knows that another has forgotten, whereas the other has forgetten that he knew.

Who's right? The one who remembers.

Let's hear your story - you've heard ours.

Forgive me if you've already posted it, as I either missed it or have forgotten.

I certainly hope you're not classifying me as a fundamentalist, as I am most certainly not.

Sure would be easy for you to dismiss all my posts without peer review if I were, though...

Sorry, but I cannot oblige you - I was a scientist before I came to know and understand the Bible and the God who wrote it. And this didn't undermine science. It not only substantiated it, but provided significant insight into a wide range of disciplines, some of which modern technologies and medicines are only recently beginning to discover on their own, some 4,700 years after they were put to papyrus.

I'm not a fundamentalist. As I related to Cliff, my approach is to allow the facts decide which position I should take. When I find science and the Bible at odds with one another, then I invariably find either the science (or my understanding of it) is amiss, or my understanding of the Bible is amiss.

I'm happy to say that the vast majority of seeming contradictions between science and the Bible have been resolved either by remedial Bible study or by more recent scientific discovery.

Did I state any such connection? I don't recall stating any such connection, much less thinking it.

When will you quit distorting my words, Leszek?

I merely said, and I quote: "I've witnessed incredible restructuring of rock-bound landscapes due to floods that many geologists said took tens of thousands of years to form."

The floods I witnessed were not "common" at all. They were rare, occurring when a volcano, namely, Mt. St. Helens, blew her top in May of 1980. The rock/ash and melted snow, in an action occuring af

The floods I witnessed were not "common" at all. They were rare, occurring when a volcano, namely, Mt. St. Helens, blew her top in May of 1980. The rock/ash and melted snow, in an action occuring after the force of the explosion, carved a channel about 1/20th the depth and breadth of the Grand Canyon in a matter of minutes through solid rock.

The point is that geologists' measure of time via rock strata depth erroneously assumes steady-state conditions, which have been proven false in Earth's history. What really happens when meteors create impacts such as that demonstrated by the Haughton crater in Canada? How much water is sent into the atmosphere only to rain down West of America's Continental Divide when such a crater strikes the ocean? How much of this is channeled through an area of land that is now called the Grand Canyon?

More importantly, how much of the Canyon's depth was actually carved in this matter, and later modified through normal rainfall?

Finally, how much does this model accelerate the timing of the strata?

I do believe in a world-wide flood. However, I've no idea how God might have caused it. Meteoric impact is one plausible theory that is well-substantiated by current impact craters such as the one occurring on the Yucatan peninsula.

Then again, it may very well have been a supernatural event. Either way, same effects.

Not so. I've evidence to the contrary. However, since you made the claim of absurdity, why don't you first provide the proof you so often demand of me.

Where's your proof?

Your questions are not naive - they're right on target.

However, the relative rates of flow are erroneous in that their usefulness as a measure of time passage assumes steady-state conditions which, as I've previously stated, are not so steady on our planet.

Few, if any, Biblically-minded geologists believe this to be true.

I would agree this to be true, in general.

I've experienced otherwise on several occasions.

On one occasion, I observed an electrical engineering professor's reviews and subsequent offer for tenure, which was "in the bag" before the fact of his Christian faith become well-known, suddenly suffer from several "problems" which ultimately lead to his dismissal, despite the fact that he had one of the best records, including teaching, research, and publication.

Most of us in the department were against the actions taken againt this man and his "scientifically impossible" adherence to religion.

He was reinstated after a large group of us threatened to expose what had happened unless he was reinstated and the principle instigator was fired. While the former was accomplished, the culprit was merely relegated to the research staff.

Dave Resnick

With reference to Bible Codes, some scholars evidently think that the periodic occurrence of certain combinations of letters is statistically significant, others do not. It is notoriously difficult to know which of many statistical tests to apply. E.g. tomes have been written about the periodic recurrence of statistically significant amino acid sequences in proteins - the closest analogue to your phenomenon that I have any passing familiarity with - and there is not always agreement on the appropriateness of an analysis. And protein sequences are vastly shorter than the books you refer to.

So while the observation is interesting, I have no means of deciding for myself whether it is significant, as it becomes a battle between opposing statisticians. So when experts collide, I'll do what I always do, sit back, relax, and wait till they sort it out to their mutual satisfaction :) Besides, if it did turn out to be significant, wouldn't that point to Judaism as the one and only true faith? <g>

With respect to geological uniformitarianism versus catasrophism, I don't know of any modern geologist who believes that either one or the other phenomenon operates exclusively. It is well known that sediments can be deposited slowly or rapidly, and it is the unwary geologist who would date strata solely by the number and/or thickness of layers in any locality. Accurate dating relies on radiometric dating of volcanic deposits and then one can infer the average rate of sedimentation of the layers sandwiched between them. That average implies nothing about the rate of deposition of individual layers.

As far as stratification of fossils is concerned, any sort of flood would jumble the deposition of corpses throughout the geological column, and no sequential patterns would emerge that would be consistent in dispersed geological localities. This is manifestly not what we see - and in fact, the consistency of fossil stratification can be and is used for dating strata once the fossil sequence dates have been correctly calibrated against volcanic layers. Further, there would be no correlation between the molecular biological and biochemical relationships between extant species, and the relationships inferred from an independent consideration of the fossil record. Again, flood theories cannot account for this.

Dave Resnick

As for the alleged anti-religious bias of scientists, I cannot comment on individual cases whose circumstances I know nothing about.

It is not a shattering revelation to find out that individuals can be *gasp* prejudiced against a person or point of view, but anecdotal evidence of such a case does not demonstrate a chronic and pervasive tendency. Start collecting dossiers of many examples of such anti-Christian discrimination throughout the scientific community, excluding the standard petty academic jealousies that result in character assassination in academia, and perhaps you will develop a case. Certainly, I have never experienced any such cases, so I doubt they are common.

Dave,

Thanks for the clarification. I too classify Drosnin as drivel.

Yes, the animals could have been comotose and stacked like cordwood. No problem there. But, which account is accurate Gen 6:19-20 or Gen 7:2-3?

I judge by your posts that you consider Gen 1 through Gen 2:3 to be an accurate accounting of creation. You obviously have studied the Bible in depth and know that this introduction was added at a very late date. It unifies the tribal myths that follow. Is it necessary to accept this beautiful introduction as fact? I see no refutation of God in accepting it simply as literature. Would it be improper to add other understandings of creation? The compilers of the Bible kept all fragments of knowledge so that nothing would be lost. It would be in the spirit of the original to add our present cosmology, perhaps with an introduction by James Weldon Johnson.

The Bible is absolutely true, the history is history, the laws are laws, the stories are stories, the opinions are opinions and the ancient cosmology is ancient cosmology.

TOM

Well I shall not squander this glorious day that God has granted us. I'm off to the east mesa to scour the ancient flood plain for ammonite and cycad fossils. I will be on the look out for fossilized habitation sites.

SYL

TOM

"Dave Resnick - Sunday, 07/18/99, 2:55:42am (#4590 of 4599) Tom Harper 7/17/99 3:24pm instead I get "The Bible Code". A completely discredited commercial hoax! Sigh. Hopefully you've now read through my posts pointing out the differences between Drosnin's "Bible Code" of 1991......." BENZ insists : Make NASA and Hubble addendum ....."The Big Bang",story Nov 6, 1995 backed with a fake Quran publication and addendum "big bang" by a doctorate...in it...

I located ...this 1991 goes back to 1973 cloning research lab registn too by Baal ,when a few of my friends met the double of me and mywife Christel ..in 1974 ,the friends of Prince Talal ..MJ.. bigname loan takers.. , Walt Disney Fantasia ... NASA Saudi ..Astronaut publicized as dead in Swiss 111 flight in Canadian waters ....not too far from the site where all findings originate.

The fantasia of "birth of a star"..backed with Dead Sea scroll ,1991 Code ,my teacher giving anti Quranic lecture in Montreal with gun in his head .Since Israel ,Canada,G7 ,Prince Salman -Talal,seem to had placed my chef brother Baal in my place as top scientist... read this in their publication.......

Pharoah formed sky with spirit PERUBA then in p.74 ,they established a department of Cardinal ..then life appeard on earth

Thoth ,the God of Moon invented hierpglyptic writing..

Soul..is Nagila like Jewish song Baal is higher God than his elder brother El or Allah of muslims ,Titanium Pigment .."K" ...son of gaia earth mother and Urunous father.....

Since 1973 hijacking of me from Titanium pigment divn and subsequent findings ,publications digging in Jerusalem by Israel ,Pyramids findings,Ocean findings ,NASA -Hubble findings... ...should be verified and garbage material removed.......For 25 years ,Harvard,Princeton,Yale,Oxford ,Cambridge,London and the World are learning wrong things... But terrorizing my family of four at this magnitude.... Do you justify it ?..Benz Z

Hello all,

While scanning the messages posted during my recent vacation, I noticed one which recounted the story of one Harold Hill's presence during an apparent NASA discovery of the `missing day' God granted Joshua so that he may better slay his enemies. I knew I had seen this before, and this morning I finally got around to finding out where. I will summarise the story here as it is quite interesting.

Apparently the germ lies with one Charles Totten who in 1890 published a book describing how he had discovered a missing day - by counting backwards, he noticed that a day which was Sunday in the Bible was actually Monday according to our calendar. This he attributed to the missing day God gave Joshua, plus a few minutes thrown in from a miracle in Isaiah.

- cont'd -

- cont'd -

This story showed up again, now being attributed to Harold Hill. Mr Hill, it is said, witnessed NASA computers grind to a halt while doing computations concerning planetary orbits, and the cause of the computer glitch was ascertained to be a missing day.

Investigation by participants in various newsgroups (sci.skeptic and alt.folklore.urban) revealed that Mr Hill had no part in any such project, and was working in the diesel engine group at NASA at the time. A search of Christian webpages which printed Mr Hill's story shows their source to be a story in the Evening Star, a paper published in Spencer, Indiana. No such paper exists. However, originating in Spencer, Indiana is the so-called Urantia cult, whose founder credits his personal revelations as being delivered by an `evening star.'

Draw your own conclusions.

"Andrew D. Lewis - Sunday, 07/18/99, 10:03:35am (#4602 of 4603) Hello all, ......apparent NASA discovery of the `missing day' God granted Joshua so that he may better slay his enemies........NASA computers grind to a halt ......Urantia cult, whose founder credits his personal revelations as being delivered by an `evening star...'

Thanks ,Andrew..... you made brilliant observations! Now , you can link yourselves all the major cults of past 25 yrs from USA to Japan,slayings in tens of millions ..( Bosnia cleansings are peanuts)..,bomb attacks in US embassies...Better believe it ..two major celebrities assassinations.... Keep discussion alive ...never ending.. Benz Zakar

Cliff -

Dave, Someone who is more of a Biblical scholar than I (Joy?)can comment--but aren't there several Hebrew versions of the Pentatuech? And didn't the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the one that was pronounced as canon by rabbinical Judaism in about 1000 CE was not as authentic as the texts found at Qumran, which were much older? Do all version contain the ancient ELS?

I don't see anything particularly exciting about TORH and YWEH appearing in a simple ELS forwards OR backwards. I'd be more impressed if there was something really interesting in there, like Planck's constant or Maxwell's equations. And by the way, ancient Hebrew did not contain vowels, so it was probably TRH and YWH, or whatever the Hebrew equivalents are. It's easy to do your own ELS --just write the code first, then fill in the rest of the text to fit. (McKay shows this on his webpage, and clever kids have used it to encode secret club messages for centuries). So maybe the scribes put it in for their own purposes.

There is just one problem, Dave. You previously clearly described the Rips paper which is about the "encoded listing of the names and dates of birth or death of important post-OT rabbis in Genesis," which you here say "fits that definition [numerology] quite nicely." Further, you provide three addresses, one of which contains the full text of the Rips paper. I therefore know you were referring specifically to the Rips paper.

Please understand that it is the Rips "scientific paper," not the Drosnin book, that McKay has apparently succeeded in discrediting. Heck, the Drosnin book was easy to discredit. Even I could do that. The Rips paper published in Statistical Science was much more difficult. But McKay was able to show that it also was fallacious and published a refutation in the very same peer reviewed magazine that published the Rips paper.

Basically, as I understand it, in order to get the significance that Rips claimed, some selective choosing of rabbis had to be done. In other words, when the rabbis are actually selected randomly, there is no significance.

Yes, of course, I understand that. I understand that well having argued precisely that point to exhaustion on the Bible Codes messageboard in the fall of '97, and I still think my point was valid. Dawn introduced me to the McKay page, however, and even after the board closed, I kept up with the correspondence between Rips and McKay on the McKay page for a time until it seemed clear to me that Rips did not want an independent study to verify the results published, but instead desired to limit the scope of the McKay effort.

BTW, you are correct that this idea is not new. According to Drosnin's book, Sir Issac Newton, for example, spent a major portion of his life investigate this idea. This is probably the only significant information Drosnin's book contains. I had previously been given to understood that Newton, who was a very religious man, performed investigations of a religious nature in the latter part of his life. However, it was not until I read Drosnin's book that I found out his investigations had to do with equidistant spacing of characters that spell out messages in the Bible. Before that, I was told only that his religious investigations were "useless."

Joy, this is either way over my head or way out, one or the other, and I have no idea which.

Actually, to me, this sounds more like speculation than an actual theory based on mathematics. I would certainly defer to anyone who has a mathematical background, which, of course, I do not, but that is my reading.

Dave Resnick asked (paraphrasing here): Why does a literal belief in the bible require that most of physics, biology, astronomy, etc. be wrong?

Because it usually requires belief in a young universe, and a global flood, both of which are inconsistent with what is known from several disciplines of modern science. For example, to get around the apparent age of strata from radiometric dating, varying radioactive decay rates are often invoked. This would require that physics work very differently from how we currently understand it. Of course, this is possible, but if bible literalists want to propose this, it is incumbent upon them to propose a viable, and yes, testable, alternative. Also, our estimates of the distances to various stars and galaxies would have to be off by six orders of magnitude. This is more than can be accounted for by fine tuning, so bible literalists propose that the speed of light is not constant. Again, this would require that physics works very differently, or that god created the stars with light from them already enroute (Last Tuesdayism). Again, no testable alternative theories providing a mechanism for speed of light variation have been forthcoming. As for the flood, there are obvious questions to be answered about where the water came from, where it went, etc., that raise similar problems. And, as others have pointed out, there is simply no evidence that it ever happened, and considerable evidence that it didn't, at least within the time frame that would be required.

Dave Resnick wrote:

"To say that scientists have no "religion" is to deny either their humanity, the English language, or rational and logical conclusion"

"The usual response from the other side, however, is one of closemindedness, wherein the idea that God is a product of humanity, and not the other way around, is held as firmly as any religious belief, and so much so that all evidence to the contrary is never reviewed, but merely dismissed out of hand."

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I make no statement about the existence of god, or not, and I'm not interested in debating it. I'm talking about the belief that the bible is 100% accurate, despite the evidence to the contrary. I don't know where you get this idea that modern science is hell-bent on denying the existence of god. I'd be willing to bet that the belief rate among scientists is close to that of the general population. They just don't believe in a personal god, who talks to people and saves them from motorcycle accidents, and certainly not in biblical literalism. I know hundreds of scientists, since I am one myself, and I certainly don't recognize any one of them in your remarks.

"I also included [the Percy quote] to show that most breakthroughs in science did NOT come about by use of the scientific method, but by enlightened observation, personal experience, and intuition."

New theories may come about a number of ways, but the scientific method is how it is decided which ones are more likely to be true. The scientific method is why general relativity is accepted, and autodynamics is, so far, not.

Dave, I have looked hard for a post I think I remember seeing several months ago. I believe it was from Dawn, and as I recall, it gave numbers from a survey published in Science. Unfortunately, I opened my mouth before trying to find it, and now I can't find it. My best recollection is that I was surprised to learn that the rate of skepticism was slightly higher among physists than biologists.

In my search, I did find a post from Philip Carey on the old Cloning Board which mentioned a survey in The Skeptical Inquirer indicated that 70% of Physicist and Biologists and 40% of mathematicians are religious skeptics. However, the survey results I wanted to find was for the survey published by Science, which I think would have more credibility that a survey published in the Skeptical Inquirer.

Dawn, did I dream this? Do you remember?

"Joy Busey - Sunday, 07/18/99, 1:49:07pm (#4605 of 4608)

Cliff - "

"Check this one out..."

Joy , Instead ,I checked following ... and found missing link........... now.. Benz

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:30:18 -0700 Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness <[email protected]> Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness <[email protected]> From: gordon g globus <[email protected]> Subject: [q-mind] Blood flow and consciousness--Matti Pitkanen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Matti Pitkanen <[email protected]>

Subject: Blood flow and consciousness

Benz says Hi The Big Bang Quran with NASA's BIG BANG theory originated

continued....

in Arizona too...With World Almanac Data.. David Koresh & Oklahoma Bombing link Koresh was the tribe of prophet Mohammed ,who had given Mohammed Bashing ..That day the living God , The Gabriel , The angel of death ,the angel of Tornados ,cyclones,earthquakes ...disclosed "factors controlling heavenly help from the living God ".

Now it links them with an organization in Houston ,Texas ,Saudi ... and saudi firm ... ,Sheik/Sheika.. oil company..and an early letter by Baal complaining Hindu scientists,Indian Army in blood and Organ export business.The new twist is Michael Jackson .One moment he was black.New moment white skingrafted plastic surgeried good looking white guy on top. Is he multicoloured if naked? This also proves ,a gun pointing on my Kali Ma's head ? The group who had published a Jesus photo with my or my kaliMa's forehead ..has lot to answer..

Benz Zakar

Glad you liked it, Benz. I thought it was semi-interesting (and not too mathematical), but I’m still reserving judgment in this matter. I do not know enough mathematics to confirm any of these theories. I do believe the debate is interesting.

(link)<a href="http://www.flic.net/~saa/Layman/ADQuickHist.html">here</a>.

Great post, Andrew. That was a crackup.

It appears to be a point-counterpoint discussion that vacillates between the mathematicians and the shrinks, with position papers on "questions of the week" along with rebuttals. Sometimes it’s way out in right field (math) and sometimes way out in left field (psychology). Either way, it’s pretty way out. I’m actually enjoying the role of voyer, since this makes me not doubt my own sanity so much!

Many believers, even ones so apostate as me, would accept a Miracle at face value and never look the gift horse in the mouth. This might actually be wise. Unfortunately, it’s not me. There’s something going on here, and I’m right in the middle of it with the first all-American legally adjudged "Miracle" on record. It’s on appeal, so it’s going to get worse. I don’t mind looking in dark corners for possible answers... §:o)

In "Real-Time?" Tell ‘ya what... you go monitor the heavy stuff, and report back! Okay? ROFLOL. §:o)

I would argue the opposite, Andrew. It is often said that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Technological development is like a continuous chain. Without a wheel, and the availability of coal, a steam engine makes no sense. One weak link in an otherwise strong chain and the chain easily breaks. How long have we existed on this planet? How recent is most of the technology that drives our current level of scientific advancement? How difficult is it to make the discoveries that lead to scientific advance? How easy is it to lose then?

In our own case, starting about four hundred years ago, a series of interrelated, significant and fortunate technological developments occurred which led to our present level of scientific advancement. If any of those links (discoveries, inventions) had not occurred at the right time and the right place, the chain might have broken, perhaps lost entirely, and another thousand years--or another million years--might have passed before another series of fortunate developments of like nature might have occurred to bring about a scientific age, such as the one we now enjoy.

Very funny!

Oh, I thought it hilarious, Cliff! Sorry. I am so sincerely stupid with things mathematical that I accessed your site and didn't even bother trying to understand any of it! It's been a very long time since I cared about anything but bank book balance, and I'm not very good at that, either. Another blonde thing, no matter what the Miss Clairol color-of-the-week may be!

Cliff Beall - Sunday, 07/18/99, 7:53:08pm (#4620 of 4624) "Hey! this is simple algebra that even I can follow. I think I am beginning to like this Carezani guy, hair or no hair. It doesn't take a mathematician to see why this is elegant!"

Cliff,

In Evolution ,I wrote 2 weeks ago " all things decay and unto HIM (the Living God)returns everything for recycling "...Then I had mentioned the God of specific light...When God peeks out from window..6 billion human and trillions of insects and birds makes humming noisy demand.The God indeed provides..to all simultaneously.

NEUTRINOS (mass or not) DISCOVERED since 1972 by me:

Actually, I had told my boss Dr Graham Milne at Titanium Pigment lab(UK) in 1972, that while most neutrinos scientists are lost where Neutrinos disappear on way to earth and here I have the answer as well as the living God...I think ,Dr Milne had left the lab too in 1973 and had joined DuPont USA and can confirm it...

Even in 1999 , it seems ,scientists do not know if it reacts with D20,h20 ,cl,ca or what to give light .. They are miles away...in 1999 May be the God had helped Prince Talal to hijack me in 1973 to put my opponents 25 yrs behind in 1999..

Then I gave the Prophet's relativity ,theory and practice of Jerusalem past few days in CNN post......In fact,I have tons of data.. Do you think ,Clinton is justified .............. to say my family can sell organs for burial ..while not letting me earn any money or work since 1973..to keep me non competitive. Benz Zakar

That depends entirely upon which particular incident of Bible codes you use.

While statistics is still much of an art, much of it is not, including this particular point.

Yes, I read about their use in Nature as possible microdot-style encoding mechanism, not because of any inherent coding scheme within the sequences, but because of the huge combinations of chemicals required to properly extract any such code. One thought experiment referred to 26 such chemicals, out of a possible 120 or so. Given that they must be applied in exact sequence or the sole genetic specimen is ruined, the sequence itself provides the lock with a robustness nearly equivalent to a one-pad cypher. In the case of using 26 out of 120 possible chemicals, the odds of getting the sequence correct are 6.152x10^52 to 1.

Neat stuff!

It also alludes to the statistical unliklihood that such "simple" Bible codes are man-made, as the embedded codes are significantly more complex than the genetic encoding scheme.

Wow! From which web site did you obtain this quote? You didn't talk this purty about this subject a year ago...

No problem. I'll just work it in between my teaching math classes and my afternoon rounds of network consulting.

You also wrote, "but anecdotal evidence of such a case does not demonstrate a chronic and pervasive tendency" and "I have never experienced any such cases, so I doubt they are common."

Which is it? Lack of experience is just as relevant as the other. Both are anecdotal. Since a "chronic and pervasive tendancy" has neither been confirmed nor denied by other than anecdotal evidence, you cannot possibly reach such a scientific conclusion that they are not common, even if you merely "doubt" it.

Now it's time to walk with the animals, talk with the animals...

No, not loosing it. Merely prefacing my reply to Tom's ark post, if CNN's excruciatingly slow servers would allow it...

Joy, I must admit that you did upset me a great deal when you waltzed right past my juvenile "hair or no hair," joke without even mentioning it.

Actually, as for my use of the word elegant, I was fairly serious about the neatness of the algebraic manipulations which showed that Special Relativity should be considered a sub-set of Autodynamics. Thus Special Relativity is a subset of both Autodynamics and General Relativity.

That Autodynamics includes Special Relativity as a subset would appear to be in it's favor. I think it is also interesting that the equations for Autodynamics are slightly simpler than those of Special Relativity. That also would seem to be in it's favor.

Actually, some scholars claim to have found in the Pentateuch four underlying soruces, J (Jahweh/Yahweh), E (Elohim), D (Deuteronomic), and P (Priestly). However, this view is not supported by conclusive evidence and intensive archaeological and literary research has tended to undercut many of the arguements used to challange Mosaic authorship.

I'm not sure what you mean by "later date," but Moses is believed by Biblical scholars to have written the Pentateuch during the 40-year Exodus out of Egypt beginning in 1446 B.C. Some deny this, but their claims have not withstood peer review.

While you're at it, would you look for my hat? I seemed to have lost it somewhere between 90 and 75 Million years ago...

You don't suppose it would have been easier for Matti simply to ascribe the increase in blood flow despite quasi-steady O2 uptake to either waste removal requirements (even minute traces contaminate synaptic function) or arterial and vascular dilation due to increased chemical activity, do you?

Just a thought...

I'm a Biblical scholar, not an Rabbinical scholar. However, as for the "several versions theory," please see my previous post.

Could be. I've yet to find a credible source of information on the very tightly held "secrets" of the Dead Sea scrolls. However, wild speculation abounds.

Try writing a small, but coherent matrixed document incorporating just this one major Bible code (use any four letters you like, as long as it pertains to your subject matter).

If you successfully complete this task, try writing another, this time with three such codes. I won't say it's humanly impossible, but consider The Great Gatsby, considered a phenomenal feat of literature simply because he left out a single letter. The Bible code incorporates a multi-dimentional matrixed structure of several codes. I say "multi-dimentional" because you can organize a two-dimentional matrix of one code on a single piece of paper. Add more codes with different spac

(cont.) Add more codes with different spacings, and this is no longer the case.

This is hardly kid stuff. It's more like God stuff.

As a statistician, I'm more than impressed. I'm utterly awed!

The literary habits of the Masoretic Scribes is well known, as they invented the check sum, grandfather to CRC and other means of ensuring data integrity. If they failed to copy successive scrolls (they did wear out, you know) perfectly, as evidenced by their checksums, the copy was destroyed, the scribe severely punished, and the process begun anew.

They weren't working with the writings of men. To them, this was the Word of God!. They didn't even allow errors involving the jots and tittles (similar to crossing your t's and dotting your i's).

Here's an example of jots and tittles:

http://www2.ctceng.com/economy1/OTint.htm

Here's an interesting excerpt about strange things in the Scriptures:

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew3/D3-StrangeThingsInTheScriptures.html

Finally, a short treatise on the veracity of the Bible:

http://www.rae.org/veracity.html

Excerpts:

(cont.)

I'm tired of argueing with you, so I'll let the good doctors argue amongst themselves:

First, Brendan McKay: "A paper of Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg in this journal in 1994 made the extraordinary claim that the Hebrew text of the Book of Genesis encodes events which did not occur until millennia after the text was written."

Next, Doron Witztum: "I myself as the original researcher of the phenomenon of Torah codes, investigated thoroughly the question of predicting the future. I reached the conclusion that it is impossible. I saw this through experimentation and also as a simple point of logic. In summary, we see that predicting the future is impossible. We see that by publicizing books and works of examples of codes that have no scientific basis, it ruins the integrity of serious research. And finally, we see that the scientific phenomenon of Torah codes is a real one, and is one that deserves serious attention."

And Dr. Eliyahu Rips, Professor of Mathematics Hebrew University Jerusalem, Israel: "The only conclusion that can be drawn from the scientific research regarding the Torah codes is that they exist and that they are not a mere coincidence."

Yoav Rosenberg merely took Eliyahu's ideas and developed an appropriate computer program to carry out these experiments.

Finally, Harold Gans, Senior Cryptologic Mathematician, US DOD (ret): "The book states that the codes in the Torah can be used to predict future events. This is absolutely unfounded. There is no scientific or mathematical basis for such a statement. [However,] after exhaustive analysis, I have reached the conclusion that the only information that can be derived from the codes discovered in Genesis is that they exist, and the probability that they are mere coincidence is vanishingly

(cont.) "...and the probability that they are mere coincidence is vanishingly small."

Bottom line: All of the cited individuals refute McKay's accusations as false, not having applied to them in the first place. They also refute Drosnin's claims. All, however, maintain the integrity of the original Bible codes (ELS only, not proximetric codes) as entirely valid.

It's this fact which has withstood scrutiny, even McKay's.

You're still speaking of the proximetric ELS codes, about which I have never agreed, and not the basic ELS encoding found in the Pentateuch, which has completely withstood all scrutiny.

Actually, I was fishing for Leszak fodder, but since you bit the hook...

Several disciplines of modern science are in a state of flux over recent discoveries, such as the evidence which now seems to show the universe will not only continue increasing without end (acceptable, depending upon the amount of matter present), but that it's also accelerating, which is as yet, completely unexplained.

However, certain other anomalies exist between proposed relativistic effects on large bodies such as the planets and observed motions.

These problems between theory and reality cast serious doubt on certain constants of measured time. However, other than knowing some slower-moving planetary data must incorporate sigificant fudge factors, I've only a vague idea of the extent of these effects across the vast reaches of time and space.

Actually, it's the physicists who've made that proposal. We merely took notice.

As for global floods, it's difficult to understand why geologists allow for local floods at precisely the same time, but not a unified, global flood at that time...

Meteoric or cometary impact...

Then again, if

(cont.) Then again, if it's a Divine flood, as stated in the Bible, then God could certainly have created a little rain...

Really what evidence might that be? Put another way, "Yes, that's what they taught me in school, too."

However, there's a lot of this they taught us in school that are less than stellar...

Oh, just personal experience, that's all. Fortunately, I earn a bit more running my own consulting business than I would have made in academia. No, I wasn't the poor chap who was nearly blackballed. I left of my own free will.

You and Leszek should compare notes...

Such as? It's been my experience so far that when science and the Bible are at odds, either I (or the scientific experts within their fields) do not fully understand the science, or I do not fully understand the Bible. It's also been my experience that reconciliation, and restoration of harmony between the Bible and science, is not long in coming in the light of new discoveries in the latter, and new understandings of the former.

Case in point: The Garden of Eden, located in what is now Southern Iraq (desert). Most people thought it nonsense, as this part of Iraq is desert, and has remained relatively unchanged for thousands of years of recorded history.

This just in! Sahara Desert once tropical paradise! Rapid, not gradual, environmental changes made it a wasteland (and I

This just in! Sahara Desert once tropical paradise! Rapid, not gradual, environmental changes made it a wasteland (and I suspect neighboring Arabia and Iraq / Eden) in just a few years, in two bursts!

I can't remember the specific timeframes on the changes, but I believe they were 7,000 and 11,000 years ago. Anyone read the article / news story?

Makes sense, given the mathematically difficult, but experientially simplistic nature of physics as compared to the awe-inspiring and complex world of biology.

Interesting large spread between the Physicists and Mathematicians. I would have thought these two would be nearly identical.

That tears it for me. Autodynamics is dead; the hairball wins.

That's one of the fun things about SR and AD - even high schoolers can play around with it.

Ever watch James Burke's series? Fascinating!

They're actually, the same, merely derived from a different beginning coordinate system. At low speeds, the two are synonomous. At higher velocities, SR becomes somewhat problematic with observed data, whereas AD provides a better fit.

The one thing that really disturbs me about AD, however, is that it continues to claim that time does not slow down at higher velocities, that it merely appears to do so.

The problem I have with this claim involve several experiments with highly calibrated clocks flown around in airplanes and compared to identical clocks that were synchronized prior to departure.

The clocks did not match, the difference was within the predicted variances of SR, well outside the error rates of the clocks.

Anyone care to tackle this one?

Dave Resnick - Saturday, 07/17/99, 8:04:03am (#4527 of 4639)

Dave, interesting; seems to parallel Sanskrit proverb "Athi vinayam dhoorthalakshanam", meaning "excessive politeness is hallmark of a scoundrel", which could be a rule of thumb on road, but on these boards there seem no affected politeness; but think, you surely agree this risk is covered effectively by focussing on issues rather than how they are presented, as others have stressed before here. OTOH, so as not to underestimate politeness, it may be said "Impolite sincerety doesnt make one exceptionally virtuous". BTW, there has been no response from you to the earlier

Joy, there was your mention of a psychological time vs. classical time - if you could elaborate; is it similar to subjective vs objective, or practical vs mathematical ? Did you happen to find the location, in Dave's links, of discrete nature of time ?

More sooner hopefully,

Namaste to all.

SeS

With a claim as extraordinary as the bible code claim, I would need more information than I have before coming to any conclusions, so I'm not going to argue about it further. Besides, as someone pointed out, if someone were really determined, it would be conceptually easy to embed such a code in any text by setting it up first, then writing text to fit around it.

Why anyone would want to do that, staggers my imagination. Why god would want to do it is equally mystifying. And if god wanted to encode something, why those words? Why not something more interesting and predictive, and less repetitive? Very puzzling. That's why I have to wonder if the phenomenon is really as statistically remarkable as you think. Just my opinion and as I said, I know little about it - the slowness of the server inhibits me from trying to find previous references to it.

No rebuttal of fossil stratification and the dating of sedimentary deposits? Not an easy point to rebut, but then, if you're not wedded to the Noah flood theory, you would have no reason to bother :)

It's long been known that at least parts of the Sahara desert were once lush and green. Fossil plants and animals have been found there, and satellite imagery has revealed former river beds now buried under sand dunes. While I have no reference handy, I recall reading - or seeing in a documentary - that the expansion of the Sahara might be linked to climatological changes accompanying the flooding of the Mediterranean basin. Even the Fertile Crescent was once fertile, and cities have been excavated by archaeologists that now sit in essential deserts that could not have supported civilization - ecological changes can be profound, and they can occur relatively quickly.

Dave,

Thanks for the response, but you left out some things. I am very interested in your answers to my questions.

1....which account is accurate Gen 6:19-20 or Gen 7:2-3?

2. Is it necessary to accept Gen 1 through Gen 2:3 to be an accurate accounting of creation?

I am not a biblical scholar. It requires only an objective reading of Genesis to reveal that it is composed of fragmentary texts. There are at least 3 creation myths, each with a different perspective. Single authorship seems unlikely. Is the fragmentation and variety of style the result of tedious crafting around the codes?

Why is it necessary to back fit our entire modern cosmology into the myths of desert nomads. Jesus did not point it out as a major problem so why does it matter?

I did not find your hat. Did find lots of Cycads and too many 40-45 degree roads (tiring but fun). Also a cyclical deposition of mudstone-sandstone-gypsum series that did not occur in a few thousand years.

TOM

Rosemary,

Thanks for the interesting link.

TOM

Yeah, but I kinda like bald-headed guys and brainiac fingers (but with more hair). Now, unless you happen to be a Zappa/Beefheart fan, THAT’s obscure! §;o)

My primary problem with Autodynamics is its missing geometry. But what do I know? Maybe geometry is an interacting energy field, and I only think I live in a house with x number of "rooms" in a "forest" full of "trees" on a "mountain." I’m probably just a propagated thought-wave originating somewhere past Jupiter fooled into believing I’m alive...

I have problems with TGD as well, which also tells me my house, forest and mountain are mere illusion of sensory input, which disappears into a changeable "past" that never actually existed the moment I decide to jump into the "future" that doesn’t exist.

Gee. Back in my long-ago days physics was generally concerned with defining the nature of what "IS" instead of convincing us that nothing really "IS." The nothing stuff was reserved for gurus on higher mountains than mine!

Easier? Possibly, but not pertinent to conductivity in terms of cellular consciousness.

Still trying to figure out what the definitions are, SeS. I asked a very specific question of Pitkanen about the difference between the two times (since he kept qualifying his model with the term "psychological time"). The answer I got was there’s no such thing as time either way. Time is dimensional in a 4-D timespace that exists only so long as we’re not thinking about it. The moment we focus on it, it disappears and becomes a totally new timespace.

Bottom line? I R Cornfuzed! §:o)

Rosemary Behan - Monday, 07/19/99, 6:13:15am (#4640 of 4643) Dave, although the Sahara is a little distant from Iraq, here is a BBC link. "Once covered by grass and low shrubs" By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse Using a new computer simulation of the Earth's climate, German scientists say that the Sahara underwent a brutal climate change about 4,000 years ago".

Underneath, the desert sand is also the blood of all the Dinosaurs,human blood - consequently, I wrote " Ties of the blood -oil" Can anyone tell me where the frankenstein blood and organ laboratories or distributions centres are hidden.....

Right now ,one region has temp 54 deg C = 130 nr Ahwaz .What is flash point? Then there is a coded thief of Baghdad..Saddam or highly coded "Genie and the Alladin's lamp".. I think The God is punishing the People in the Ties of Blood (oil Sheiks of muslim,Christian,Jews,hindus,buddhists alike) . My teacher was selling $0.50 /book to survive and MM YOGI was new and in the same boat.Suddenly,he was given a $1Billion Consciousness Research centre in USA".... Then there is Arizona . big bang ... NASA ...Blood Flow links ... "Why consciousness is accompanied by huge increase of blood flow but no commensurate change in oxygen consumption?......" And Apocalyptic Pronouncements from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi TM movement leader announces imminent "genetic and biological warfare." ...... But the God is highly framing...His coded verses.. seem to be guarded ...giving surprises ...to new code people... ...... Take for instance QumIran ..the centre of Iranian Theology... The well planned current unrest in the heart of Iranian theologists for Iran oil vs ..1991 codes ..... CODED QUMRAN.. Is it Co-related? Time will tell ... I am not anti hindu ,anti jewish or anti -anybody.. just a researcher and a victim myself... Benz Zakar

Well, we shall have to agree to disagree here, Cliff. In any case, we are both really speaking out of the improper orifice on matters such as this. Okay, I should not accuse you of such, so let me restrict that accusation to myself :-)

But it is interesting to speculate on such things, is it not? I guess I tend to take a more dismal outlook than you on how we have utilised our potential.

Since the elf seems to have decided that my previous (admittedly embellished) message mentioning your factual error to be off topic, I am forced to repeat it. The text of Fitzgerald's `The Great Gatsby' contains many e's. There are two in its title, for crying out loud! You are referring to Ernest Vincent Wright's `Gadsby.'

Dave

Just thought I'd pop in a couple of bits of info.

You are right, scientific thinking is in a sate of flux - if it weren't I'd be VERY worried - means we're not doing science, just treading water.

You referred to the Universal expansion accelearating. Yes and no. There is a set of observations, surveys of the light curves of high redshift supernovae, that imply that the Universe's expoansion is accelerating. However, there are a number of caveats that need to be raised here. This is only one set of observations, the effect is small and some question the interpretation of the observations (exterior effects on the light curves etc.). It's by no means a done deal.

The current thinking to explain these observations relates back to general relativity and Einstein's cosmological constant. If the CC is large enough, then the expansion of the Universe would be accelerated. Now, this is actually good news (sort of) since it will allow for some other inconsistencies to be redressed. Recent observations of the Hubble constant imply an age about 2-5 billion years younger than the ages of the oldest stars. however, an accelerating expansion implies an age much older (whoops - so much for the literal interpretation of the Bible). It may also be more conssitent with ideas regarding inflation. The scientific jury is still out.

BTW Dave, you seem to have a very shaky understanding about how geologists interpert geological strata. The geological evidence of catastrophes versus steady state sedimentary deposition are very different and easily discerned. Heck, this was even realized in the mid-18th century by creationists. There was considerable debate in Victorian England amongst geologists over this very issue - Gould has written a very interesting essay recounting the debate. At any rate, there is plenty of distinguishing evidence between catastrophic events (impacts - shatter cones, volcanic strata - compositional, erosion patterns) and sedimenta

Arrghh

Forgot about how little room they allow for messages here.

continuing ...

sedimentary processes. Arguing that current thinking holds geological processes are "steady state" is a gross simplification at best, and at worst is a straw man. There is plenty of evidence for catastrphic events - craters, shattercones, volcanic lava plains. However, there is also plenty of evidence for gradualist (as opposed to "steady state" - there ain't no such thing) processes. Long term stability is clearly the only interpretaiotn for the precambrian rock found in Australia, Greenland and Canada. Most of the "catastrophic processses" you refer to are also superficial - they impact the biosphere or surface layers but they are definitely not global in nature, and in no way provide expalanations for other geological features - (ie mid oceanic ridges, shield volcano island formation - castrophic yet gradualist in nature).

Cheers.

SeS and anyone interested -

After the Intro on ontogeny, phylogeny, binding, entanglement, non-determinism, p-adic primes and S-matrix connections, we get into the cosmology of consciousness, the arrow of psychological time, the geometry of time, the 4-dimensional brain, quantum model of cognition, Negentropy Maximization Principle, cognitive fermion pairs, cognitive spacetime surfaces, wormholes, fermion time loops, good & evil, life and death... Whew!!!

So far, I haven’t found any mention of taxes. That’s probably in a separate paper.

Dave Resnick wrote:

"Actually, it's the physicists who've made that proposal [that c is varying]. We merely took notice."

Oh, nonsense! You are either referring to a flawed extrapolation of historical data, or to various esoteric theories about conditions in the very early universe which are highly speculative and don't give you the six orders of magnitude you need anyway.

"As for global floods, it's difficult to understand why geologists allow for local floods at precisely the same time, but not a unified, global flood at that time... "

Depends what you mean by "precisely." I haven't heard anyone arguing that local floods ocurred all over the globe thousands of years ago within the same 40-day period. I would be skeptical of such a claim, since I doubt the date of a flood so long ago could be determined that accurately. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that local flooding happens all the time, and none for a global flood, so its not really that difficult to understand. What I don't understand is why biblical literalists point to evidence of local flooding and claim that its evidence for global flooding.

"Really what evidence might that be? [Against a global flood] Put another way, 'Yes, that's what they taught me in school, too.'"

Well, first, a global flood would leave clear indications in sediments. Yes I know there are arguments that the observed layers are consistent with a global flood. I don't find them convincing. As has been pointed out, it is possible to distinguish catastrophic and gradual effects. Don't believe in sediments? How about ice cores that show that ice sheets in places like Greenland have existed for at least 40,000 years, and probably much longer than that. I don't know if submersion of Greenland for only 40 days would cause the entire ice sheet to break up and float to the top (I suspect it would), but it would surely leave evidence in any case. All of this doesn't even get into t

Goll durn it, CNN! Why doesn't the preview page have the same length limit as the final message?!

cont'd...

All of this doesn't even get into the lack of a mechanism for such a global flood. Your one attempt to address that question (comets) only raises more questions than it answers.

Devon Hamilton - Monday, 07/19/99, 11:36:00am (#4649 of 4653) "Dave, ..... - means we're not doing science, just treading water.You referred to the Universal expansion accelearating. Yes and no. There is a set of observations, surveys of the light curves ......"

Joy Busey - Monday, 07/19/99, 12:41:47pm (#4651 of 4653) "SeS and anyone interested - I printed this page - The Problem of Psychological Time....cosmology of consciousness, the geometry of time, the 4-dimensional brain, quantum minds.... loops,- good & evil for... life and death... "

Devon and Joy, Please allow me.. Kabaa ,a square solid brick block (zero space in the middle)was losely built by Abraham in the middle of 4 dimensional bottomless pit .he was floating like an astronaut.Then he removed middle bricks ,to create space in the shape of a square room . Mohammed came floating and put a meteorite inside.... creating universe and space .Since , the block is flexible in a bottomless pit fluctuating ... That is your expanding universe yes or no...NASA space craft/rockets barely goes say few miles / sec compared to speed of light.When things are millions of light years away ......This commerical hoax by NASA and associates for oil ...organ , blood , ,bank loan business of a few people should be verified .They should be locked up even if it is Clinton, Bush or King Fahd (fig of speech - innocent people need not worry)..During my World travel, I discovered this Quantum mind people simply dropping atom bombs ,nuclear bombs ,killing civilians . The Quantum groups also donates say $400 million towards reducing warm temp debris cleanup.In a seminar ,one Russian Jewish lady thought I was an Israeli and a Jew.She said in a muslim region of Russia the entire area has now been cleaned .She said ,they were past muslim nomad warriors.She said,the area has now been declard Jewish with 3 Jews with a giggle....one signed for the oil ,one signed for...

Arguments against a global flood:

The present inventory of the hydrosphere (taken from "Climate: Present, Past and Future" by H. H. Lamb, Methuen Co. Ltd., London, 1972, p. 482)

Component

Oceans - 97%

Ice - 2.4%

Fresh water (underground) - 0.6%

Fresh water in lakes, rivers, etc. - 0.02%

Atmosphere - 0.001%.

It has been estimated that the total mass of water vapor over the earth's surface in either fresh or salt water forms is on the order of ~1.36X10^21 kg. To the first approximation, water has a density of 1000 kg/m^3 yielding a total volume of surface and underground water of 1.36X10^18 m^3. The equivalent mass of water vapor found in the atmosphere is roughly 1.36X10^16 kg. This atmospheric water vapor can only be removed as precipitation or direct condensation (the formation of dew or frost) at 20% efficiency (meaning that rain bearing clouds are only able to remove 20% of their total volumes of water vapor during their lifetimes). Barring any miracles, the resulting total mass of precipitable water vapor is 2.72X10^15 kg which would displace 2.72X10^12 m^3 of ocean. Assuming a mean ocean depth of 2742 meters, the corresponding rise in ocean levels would be on the order of 34 meters or over 100 ft. Not nearly enough to submerge Mount Everest I would say. This is not to mention that an atmosphere significantly diminished of water vapor would immediately reclaim moisture through evaporation.

Thanks for the link! The same weather that affects the Sahara blows straight on through to Saudia Arabia and Iraq, and beyond.

In fact, the BBS article mentioned, "The loss of agricultural land to the desert may have been one of the reasons why early civilisations developed along the valleys of the Nile, the Tigris and the Euphrates."

If you'll recall, Eden was situated between the Tigris and the Euphrates.

Agreed, on that as well as on focusing on the issues. It certainly helps when people are willing to employ a bit of magnanimity in their posts and avoid the use of spurilous tactics.

Would you please include a link? CNN's servers are incredibly slow these days - it'd take me more than forty-five minutes to go back 150 posts!

It's out there, go dig it up! Where do you think I obtain a lot of my information, anyway? I weed through the plethora of junk on the Internet, find a few gems that actually make sense, and post 'em.

Wrong. Try it using the same 4-letter code with 49 character spacings. Now add two other codes on top of that, all prime numbers. You're now into multi-dimentional territory.

Tell you what: You be the first to write a Genesis-length paper about anything, incorporating the same

(cont) ELS sequences as Genesis, no cheating, using English Language Rules (Warriner's), post it on an Internet web site for public verification, and I'll mail you a check for $50. Deal?

Go to it, ace!

They might wish to, but can't - it's close to impossible.

Modern proof that something nearly impossible is a piece of cake for God.

The Bible code contains the word "TORH," or Torah in the first two books of the Pentateuch, and it's mirror image, "HROT," in the last two books. The middle book contains "YWAH," which is God's name.

Result: The Torah points to God.

Makes perfect sense, that God would want to tell mankind that the Torah, Pentateuch, whatever, points to Himself.

Why do you have such a difficult time understanding seemingly simple things like this?

Because God isn't interested in jeddi mind games. He's interested in using any and all available means of restoring fallen man back to a state of grace.

Posted earlier, or so I thought. Here's some ancillary information:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/12fos01.htm

E.C., Ph.D. - Monday, 07/19/99, 3:48:00pm (#4655 of 4655)

The present inventory of the hydrosphere (taken from "Climate: Present, Past and Future" by H. H. Lamb, Methuen Co. Ltd., London, 1972, p. 482)

Component : Oceans - 97% Ice - 2.4% Fresh water (underground) - 0.6% Fresh water in lakes, rivers, etc. - 0.02% Atmosphere - 0.001%.

When asked to Gabriel( the angel), DEFINE GOD . He said , to define Living God and His work is to say if the Ocean becomes liquid ink and if I write from pen ( made from trees ), the ink will finish but I will not be able to complete defining... Benz Zakar

Whoa! I have to think before I type. The actual rise in sea level is on the order of a centimeter rather than the ridiculous figure I obtained in the first post (I was rushing on that back of the envelope calculation - a tragic mistake). This is assuming that all the precipitable water vapor was removed from the atmosphere at once and that the precipitation covers every square meter of the earth's surface. Most floods are localized so that certain locales may receive as much as 30.5 cm in as little as four hours as was the case of the Big Thompson Canyon Flash Flood of 1976 which claimed 135 lives in the Colorado Rockies. Here again, the rise in sea level is not on par with the description of the antediluvian flood of Genesis.

So how did the oceans form?

Volcanoes in earth's early history were much more active and violent spewing out a mixture of gases composed of roughly

water vapor - 85%

carbon dioxide - 10%

a mixture of nitrogen and sulfur compounds - 4%

noble gases - 1%

This mixture most likely made up the bulk of our early atmosphere which upon cooling, condensed out the water vapor which makes up our oceans. It is worth noting that (a) one would need a space suit to survive in earth's early atmosphere and (b) the formation of the oceans through the condensation of water vapor would take several hundred million years.

Leszek: the expansion of the Sahara might be linked to climatological changes accompanying the flooding of the Mediterranean basin.

The flood wasn't limited to the Mediterranean basin. The Arrarat Mountain chain was as high then as it is now, and no amount of flooding of the Mediterranean basin would land an Ark near their peak.

CNN's servers...! Answer - Both. Gen 6:19,20 refers to animals used for repopulating the Earth. Both Gen 6:21 and Gen &:2,3 refer to animals used for food and ceremonial practices. Don't know why "every kind of bird" is included. Genetic fragility? More rapid repopulation?

Not sure what you're driving at... Accept one over the other, all or none, what?

Biblical scholars would disagree with you. Ever read Mark Twain? He wrote, contemporaneously, several texts with completely different use of words, idioms, language structure, etc. It happens.

Don't know! Ask God. Could be, but again, don't know.

The preceeding sentance is uncharacteristically short for my "style of writing." Yet, the fact that it appears in the same post is proof enough that I did, in fact, write it.

Lessen y'all wanna be taught 'bout things such as you might be doin'...

Excellent point! However, some would argue that the authenticity of the entire Bible rests upon Genesis. Given that's where the simple ELS code resides, I'd have to agree.

Give my regards

Agreed. The peak of Mount Ararat is 5137 meters above sea level. The crest of this mountain is so high that liquid water freezes after a short time.

E.C., Ph.D. - Monday, 07/19/99, 6:19:27pm (#4659 of 4661)

So how did the oceans form?

Kabaa of mecca was built by Abraham in the shape of a square room . A meteorite fell nearby .4 tribes of Abraham quarelled for decision making.They decided , whoever comes in decides. Mohammed as a boy walked in to become a judge.He put the meteorite in the middle of the Blanket sheet.Four tribal leaders grabbed 4 corners of the square sheet and placed the meteorite in Kaaba where pilgrims go since the days of Abraham.Benz went there too and touched it.Benz discovered the technology of going around it seven times is corelated to seven heaven.

Benz also discovered Mrs Abraham (Hagar) went up & down of Safa and Marva and found drinking water.

If you consider now , the round meteorite in Kabaa enclosure minus brick .Add :

E.C., Ph.D. - Monday, 07/19/99, 3:48:00pm (#4655 of 4655)

The present inventory of the hydrosphere (taken from "Climate: Present, Past and Future" by H. H. Lamb, Methuen Co. Ltd., London, 1972, p. 482)

Component : Oceans - 97% Ice - 2.4% Fresh water (underground) - 0.6% Fresh water in lakes, rivers, etc. - 0.02% Atmosphere - 0.001%.

you have our world .Now break round meteorite into pieces ,you get

America,Europe,Asia & Australia ,China ,Russsia and tens of thousands of Islands of Indonesia,phillipines- land of the World. In high school ,to debating society ,I had given explanation how ocean was formed,Noah thing and blue sky technology.......I think my guess by approximation was not a guess at all. After finding neutrinos and holy verses in 1972 , I had the link. Amazingly, I never came round to disclose during 1973-1999 .As the lawyer said after 23 judges ,even if they have to spend $10 m ,you will not be able to identify yourself....

Who is fallen man in disgrace ? Someone said , " they did not let you have steady career but you worked ,owned businesses,sent kids to univs ... until

contd.. 1991 ... Then my Serbian employer,ethnic cleansing and my being muslim and Clinton 's double faced policy seems corelated.......Benz Zakar

Dave,

Yours is a unique interpretation of Noah. I will reread it with your response in mind.

"Not sure what you're driving at... Accept one over the other, all or none, what?"(dave)

Sorry, I thought the question was clear. If you accept the creation myths of Genesis as true, which one do you accept as accurate. There are at least 3 and each has a different perspective. The first is a general cosmology ending in the creation of 'man'. The second has a geographic perspective and God creates people from the earth. In the third Adam is in an existing garden and God creates woman from his rib.

It is also obvious that Genesis deals with the creation of the Hebrews. Except for the added cosmology it is assumed that there are other tribes already present.

Mark Twain is an interesting point. The only Twain that is fragmentary is "Letters from the Earth" and that is because it is indeed fragments and reads somewhat like Genesis.

I fail to see why belief in God and acceptance of Jesus requires following the ancient cosmology of the Hebrews. I do not think that a substantial faith in God requires such strained rationalizations.

TOM

Not in the bible story, no, but we have to grant the Hebrew ancients some poetic license as they probably seldom ventured far beyond home to have a good idea about the actual size of the earth. However, I don't think it was the Mediterranean flood that gave rise to the bible stories, as it came earlier. So far as geologists in this field have managed to reconstruct the history, assuming their models are correct and they certainly seem plausible, the flood eventually continued into the Black Sea basin in a time frame and geographical locality that could have been the source of the bible stories. There was a recent book about that theory, but I've only browsed through it.

Obviously. What makes you think an Ark ever got there?

I know too little of the Koran to comment on it, Benz. I do know about the "Vision" of Mohammed, which I would also take to be a time-travel experience. I have seen the spiraling humanity endlessly circling the Kabaa day and night always, and it gives me chills up my spine. I know of the meteor that resides in the Kabaa, the Black Stone, famous also from "Gilgamesh." I have a neice, daughter of my brother, who is named "Mecca."

Can you explain a little clearer the metaphysical theories you have about the nature of this stone and its connection to God?

File this under the "heebie jeebies" category:

In a recent 20/20 program focusing on Christian millenialism, it was stated that nearly a third of conservative Christians belief that the rapture and/or second coming will be a 2YK event. The segment focused on a particular couple that met in Israel as they await the end of the world. These people got married and conceived within weeks to be prepared. The only problem is that the husband, who is 30 years younger than the wife also happens to be her son. I guess some conservative Christians have never been bothered by oedipal constrainsts.

It really makes me wonder sometimes as to why some Christians still persist in pointing out the sins of the "unsaved" while relegating them to the bowels of Hades if they do not mend their ways.

Joy Busey - Tuesday, 07/20/99, 12:14:36pm (#4666 of 4666) "benz zakar 7/19/99 3:10pm I know too little of the Koran to comment on it, Benz. I do know about the "Vision" of Mohammed, which I would also take to be a time-travel experience. I have seen the spiraling humanity endlessly circling the Kabaa day and night ..."

Joy, Mohammed was asleep .When Gabriel came and took him out .The door started shaking .He took him to Jerusalem at Al Aqsa - Golden Dome of the Rock .Jesus ,Son of Mary was also brought there . They performed a prayer.Jesus returned .Then Gabriel took him to seven heavens where he met Jesus again .He also met Abraham,Moses ,Isaac ... At 6th was Moses .Then Gabriel took him to be closest to the God .He was given daily synchronized ritual prayers .To me it seems directly linked with Noctilucent and Nacreous phenomenon....He was allowed to peak in hell and paradise .He also witnessed ..sequence of events related to things in Iraq and Iran when his grand children got killed .When he was brought back to his bed ,the witness said ,as if he was just taken out and brought back .The long door chain which had started shaking at departure was still moving like in short semi circular motion ..like pendulum when brought back.Benz called it, Relativity experience of Mohammed ,which Einstein must have known.But Einstein says ,Lord is subtle or pervasive by a meagre amount .Religion of the God is lame and blind without Science ...(of Einstein?)...

Then ..I wrote that apparently , I have been given the technology ..how it works.Needs to be verified along with my findings of Neutrinos .

The humanity who makes circular motion around Kabaa 24 hrs a day - 7 days a week has another twist..blackhole....it links with the universe until the other end with base calculation math formula .. In short Gabriel said..." first 10,000 years of my creation ,I was not given my job description or duties..." See the magnitude.

Then there is a K

contd.

.......a Kabaa with human birth and death ..The God's activities up there is beyond human capabilities ..The God says again and again:" I had erased Dinosaurs and can erase hopeless,worthless extreme evil humanbeings .They need me .I do not need them." Benz Zakar

Benz - There is a singularity - gravity well - in the Kabaa? Does it reside in or under the building itself ("bottomless pit" you mentioned), or in the meteor? Is it stable?

If there were indeed a naked singularity in Kabaa each pilgrim's Hajj would likely be their last.

What if it's not naked, E.C.?

Joy Busey - Tuesday, 07/20/99, 3:22:24pm (#4670 of 4672) "benz zakar 7/20/99 2:31pm ... end with base calculation math formula... Benz - There is a singularity - gravity well - in the Kabaa? Does it reside in or under the building itself ("bottomless pit" you mentioned), or in the meteor? Is it stable?" Joy & E.C., Without calculation ..how can it be evaluated ? Space in the Universe .has been described bottomless pit...with a warning to misbehaving humanbeings.. Benz Zakar

More on this subject (awaiting Benz’s reply) -

Now, the casual (but intelligent) observer would notice, as I noticed, that E.C. has modified his statement with the term "naked." In the matter of singularity, this means something significant.

The theoretical possibility that "small" singularities exist is inherant in the Relativity solutions which are the specialty of cosmologists and mathematicians. Such a "small" gravity well would have certain effects, but would not by virtue of its existence necessarily be destructive to those who didn’t venture too close.

If the well were "clothed," it would be properly veiled from direct interaction with its surroundings by its event horizon. If it were "naked," existent sans event horizon, it would be quite dangerous to anyone venturing close. With no event horizon, the well would bend time.

"Naked" singularities are theoretically unstable, so presumably would not still exist in the Kabaa. The "naked" singularity’s effect on time, however, makes instability debatable.

Merely filling in here on what I hope will be something very interesting from Benz... §:o)

Ah, but you are avoiding the direct question, aren’t you? I have heard and heeded the warnings, but I also believe things have become very much confused. Science has become mysticism, religion has become politics, physicians are talking about "Miracles" in courts of law, and I have met an angel who had something to say.

I think you have, too.

Wait, I think I've missed something. How did science become "mysticism"? I see no mysticism in science. Only concepts which are hard to grasp. Arthur C. Clark wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic. Is this what you mean by "mysticism?"

Joy Busey - Tuesday, 07/20/99, 12:14:36pm (#4666 of 4675)

benz zakar 7/19/99 3:10pm

I know too little of the Koran... comment on it, Benz.

Joy,

you could ask Seshadri Srinivan to translate ..what means ... Corn Flakes or Quran Flaks or if it is true that in Hindi it means Quran from Heaven (Flak is heaven Flaks = from heaven)... Each time I pick up Corn Flakes ..It reminds me...God given

The significance is that it reminds me that each grain is accountable ...related to haves and haves- not .When you pick up ss fork for food it almost reminds me stainlessSteal person of the past from have-not people of the past ...No kidding . Benz Zakar

Yes. Each is accountable, all of it is from God. I have heard that translations lose a lot in translation. I was hoping you would answer directly.

I grasp quite a few concepts, Bill. From here it looks like mysticism.

Perhaps you could provide us with your definition of mysticism. For I for one can't see how science fits into it.

There's a lot of science I don't understand, and much of modern physics sounds pretty counter-intuitive. But mystical?

As long it is framed in disprovable hypotheses, and is founded on observable data, I don't see how it can be mystical. Even physics is mathematically based, which is as far from mysticism as one can get. Science gets it wrong on many occasions, true, but it is correctable through application of the scientific method.

But mystical? Nah. Science at its best aims for openness and lucidity. Mysticism aims for secrets and obfuscation. They are diametrically opposed.

Gee, Leszek! I thought secrets and obfuscation were governmental concerns! §;o)

Ever met a naked singularity? Or even a clothed one? It’s a "bottomless pit" and what lives in there is not very nice. But that’s mysticism, I know. Sorry.

Joy Busey - Tuesday, 07/20/99, 7:40:47pm (#4678 of 4678) "benz zakar 7/20/99 6:30pm I grasp quite a few concepts, Bill. From here it looks like mysticism." Joy, I am still figuring out QumIran vs ..1991 code..Qumran outcome.Virtually ,no income was given for me since 1991 because my employer was a Serbian owned company in N America.I am a muslim and ethnic cleansing is on in his country.Then King Fahd and Prince Talal ...why they have double of me and my wife with cristel trademark Titantium Pigment co .Why they had hijacked me in 1973 and was not letting me work in science & engineering field anywhere in the World .Then all of them seem to be linked with quantum minds ,quantum groups of people where "consciousness is accompanied by increase of blood flow but no commensurate change in consumption"...I do not live at the moment in USA .Yet only 4 weeks ago Bill Clinton said,"family with no income can sell organ for funeral.." .Then they show TV clip of a lone muslim funeral (appeard to be mine) in Benares Hindu Ghat.( film studio made along with King fahd head dress guy leaning on a Dinosaur find ). One friendly person said.."If I were you ,I would have gone crazy a hundred times over...but you are in one piece .."

CNN readers made comments ..BENZ why can't you focus like us ? How can I ? Atleast,I tried! BenzZakar

Well, I guess if one believes that there is a high "priesthood" of science defending the standard model as doctrine against all challenges, it would look like mysticism. But, that view of science is not based in reality.

Seems to me we have just gotten started good.

Actually, Dave, I am familiar with each of those quotes and have been for a couple of years. Nothing new here. Indeed, except for the first one by Brendan McKay, I have quoted each of them, myself, at one time or another, in support of my then position on the Bible Codes messageboard.

It is like this, Dave. Two years ago, I was impressed with this array of scholarship attesting to the bible codes in Genesis. I was impressed with the Rips, Witztum and Rosenberg paper which purported to prove the existence of the codes. I had no axe to grind. It was as easy for me to believe it as disbelieve it. That is the charm of being an agnostic. I just wait until the evidence is presented and make an independent determination. At the time, it seemed to me that the evidence was on the side of the Rips, Witzum and Rosenberg paper.

It must be understood, however, that any work of significant size, such as War and Peace or the Bible, equidistant characters will exist that spell out words that may appear to have meaning. This is due to random chance and is meaningless. Even Drosnin accepted that.

But according to the Rips, Witztum and Rosenberg paper, the nearest proximity of names and dates of certain well know Rabbis found in Genesis, selected in a manner such that a calculation of the odds of said proximity of name and date would be decisive in making the determination as to whether the correspondence occurred within, or outside, the normal distribution of chance--were actually found to be beyond random chance thus proving the existence of the codes. (Note: I am aware that you believe the codes exists in the Pentateuch, and I am aware Drosnin picked code from the entire Jewish Bible. But the paper, itself, which purported to prove the existence of the codes, examined Genesis only.

Unfortunately for Rips and company, the subsequent analysis by the McKay group has shown that the paper had a number of problems having to do with specific inclusion and omission of certain Rabbis, and the use, or misuse, of appendages, all in a manner designed to increase the correspondence of name and dates. (If one picks the Rabbis in such a manner so as to have the correspondence one seeks, then correspondence will be the result.) However, if the criteria for the selection is set in an independent manner, and if the appendages are assigned in a consistent manner, the correspondence of name and dates of Rabbis in Genesis is approximately the same as found in a portion of War and Peace roughly the same size as Genesis

In short, the occurrences and correspondences for both the Bible and War and Peace are well within random occurrence.

I am speaking of the Rips, Witztum and Rosenberg paper, published in Statistical Science, that purported to prove the existence of the code in Genesis.

I thought you would see it that way :-)

I am aware of only one such experiment having to do with people taking an atomic clock and flying around the world on scheduled flights with stopover periods in airports changing planes etc.--in order to perform the experiment at minimum cost. My recollection is that I read that fairly recently, but I don't remember which book it was in. If there have been other similar tests, I would be interested in the particulars, but if there was only one such experiment, or maybe even if there have been others, I think it might be well to repeat the test using the shuttle. I mean I have a picture of Einstein in my office, and I don't plan to take it down anytime soon, but there is nothing wrong with double checking.

That could very well be, Joy.

Picky, picky, picky.

Point well taken Andrew. I think you were right the first time.

I believe in the Scientific Method. At our level of technology, we have more theories than we can deal with, but I think the truth will out. If TGD is correct, it will prevail. If Autodynamics is correct, it will prevail. If cold fusion is correct, it will prevail. If...(Maybe I have already gone too far :-)

No need to go to all that trouble, Dave. Hidden codes such as those above occur naturally in any work of any significant size. The only problem is finding all of the "hidden" messages. The way it is currently done (or, at least, the way is was done a couple of years ago) is by first choosing a book available in electronic form, selecting a word to look for and then using a computer program to find all the incidences of that word in equidistant letter sequences from the electronic text. The problem is that you first have to select the words to look for, which tends to slow progress. But it can also be rewarding. Consider the rewards Drosnin reaped.

Heck, Dave, there are "hidden messages" running all thought these messages we post on this messageboard. Think we ought to look for them :-)

Perhaps it depends on the interpretation of the mathematics. I think Joy has a point.

Pardon me? I must have missed something in this thread. Where have I attacked the Standard Model?

Yeah, well...? Sometimes my brain gets sore. Y’all are way too heavy for me to lift! §:o)

I guess the government has no monopoly on those qualities :)

The statement that one can meet a singularity, naked or otherwise, and the assumption that something lives there, are indeed mystical, in the absence of a confirmed singularity to study. At present, singularities are a theoretical construct, born of cosmology. That's not mystical, that's hypothetical, an entirely different animal.

I try not to get my mystics and hypothetics mixed up.

Science attempts to achieve clarity. Governments and mystics do not.

I’d tell you to ask at Sandia, Oxford and LA, but they wouldn’t know what you were talking about. I’d tell you to ask the Court, but judge Rambo decided she didn’t want it either. It glows in the dark, it’s very much confirmed, and yes, something lives there.

...I never bothered to ask if it was naked or clothed. I was too busy with piggy-back beta, a large excess of neutrinos, and what in the world happened to all that mass and energy...

Joy Busey wrote:

"Pardon me? I must have missed something in this thread. Where have I attacked the Standard Model?"

Well, to my knowledge, you didn't, but that wasn't what I meant. What I was referring to was that you apparently hold the idea that science is moribund, guarding its theories like religious doctrines against anyone who seeks to try to disprove them. That attempts to check or advance theories like the standard model are considered heresies. If that is not your opinion, than I apologize, but you have made several comments which sure seem to indicate otherwise. For example:

"I suspect that it can be accounted for in a natural way, though that explanation probably won’t fit well with the scientific priesthood which holds so exclusively to the Standard Model."

(I knew I shouldn't have posted, because you'd make me go back and get the quote!) From this point of view, I can see how science might appear mystical. However, my point was that this view of the state of science is incorrect. As I said before, no one believes the standard model, or special relativity, etc. is the end of physics, and no one promotes it as such.

Thanks for the stats. I do know there's permanent snow up there that's been there for hundreds of years. During very hot summers, however, some of it does melt. It was during one such summer that a former U.S. astronaught was flying low overhead Ararat and he and the others aboard the aircraft spotted something and supposedly too pictures.

I'm surprised you believe they're different. All three describe the same thing!

Ever tell a child about something? First you start with a simple description. Then you add some detail, but reiterate the original, usually with different words. Finally, you tell them more detail.

Kids understand it quite well. Usually, this approach works with adults, too. Unfortunately, if approached with the preconception that they're three different accounts, it's not difficult to see how people can bite off on this erroneous theory.

It's one account in three rounds (stanzas).

I wasn't referring to one work, but to the differing nature of different works. My point is that it's one author who may have written different portions at different times of his life.

I personally believe the apparent contradictions are more a product of the vehement, but often malappropriate viewpoints of non-scientific fundamentalists, than they are of any inaccuracies in Genesis.

Really? The O.T., even in the first book of Genesis, talks of Egypt, the Nile basin, the East to India, the Northeast to China, the North to Russia, the Northwest to Germany (to the Northern seas), and the West to Spain. The N.T. simply reaffirms these locations, and gives their evolved names, such as Cush and Put (Egypt and Libya), and Rosh (Russia).

However, as far as having an actual idea of the size of the Earth, probably not. No need.

Other than the accounts in the O.T., local legends for eons, hundreds of eyewitness accounts including that of a U.S. astronaut, several photographs...

Yep. Give's me the willies.

These individuals may call themselves Christians, and may even be Christians. However, they apparently either have little knowledge of the Bible, or pick and choose what they wish to use.

In addition to rather vehement prohibitions against incest, the Bible expressly states that no one, not even Jesus, will know that date and time, right up to the last instant; the only one privvy to that information is God the Father.

It does say, however, that we will know "the season," not as in Spring or Fall, or even a particular Spring or Fall, such as Fall, 2001, but the season in the sense of "the time is near."

It further gives rather numerous clues. For example, Israel's restoration as a nation, which occurred in 1949, unthought of just thirty years prior and since the diaspora in 70 AD. For another, the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, which is happening as we speak, again, unthought of.

For another, a massive and comprehensive peace accord between the nation of Israel and her Islam neighbors.

Enter Barak.

Yes, the season is upon us. However, Y2k is a bit soon, as the temple won't be finished by then.

Much of cutting edge science looked like mysticism to those steeped in the old models. Quite a few scientists continued to insist that the Wright Brother's were frauds for quite some time after their first flight.

Same thing happened for quantum mechanics, etc.

Some people are just more comfortable with the past, and to them, the future often appears as mysticism.

You continue to miss my point: There's two completely different codes.

The original Bible code was limited to simple ELS, had absolutely nothing to do with the Rips, Witztum and Rosenberg proximetric system, which was, as you mentioned, proven unlikely.

What you're referring to is proximetrics, not ELS. In fact, the larger the work, the less likely you'll find an ELS running throughout it.

The Pentateuch ELS's have a random liklihood on the order of one in 10^52, and as such, is hardly meaningless.

Are you aware of how unlikely this is? You'd have a better chance of finding a single, particular grain of sand on Malibu beach while blindfolded.

Still missing the point, Cliff: Two Codes.

The proximetric codes found in 1991 and involving rabbis and fortelling of the future are NOT, repeat NOT what I mean when I mention "The Original Bible Codes."

While the paper IS statistically correct, it's widely subject to human interpretation due to the nature of language itself, and is therefore rendered meaningless.

The latter is simple ELS, has nothing to do with fortune-telling, and is so unlikely that there's only ONE book on all of Earth that bears that particular pattern: The Pentateuch.

Who could resist such a picture? Except for the time-shift anomaly, I still believe Autodynamics matches experiential data with better precision than Special Relativity.

I'm aware of several, the most notable one involving a cesium clock aboard a Navy P-3 Orion.

I think that would be worthwhile, as AD and SR are nearly identical at slow relative velocities, and only diverge at higher ones. Also, the accuracy of atomic clocks has drastically improved in the last three decades, and would likely reveal the discrepancy.

One reason for the clock test in the first place was to measure relativistic effects which do, in fact, significantly affect the course of long-distance space flights, such as to the moon and back...

I find geometry useful for visulizing multidimensional figures. I ran some of the Autodynamics equations through TK Solver and viewed some 3-D results involving multiple variables.

Very interesting results! Those of you similarly equipped should do the same.

STILL missing the point, Cliff: Two codes, and you're still speaking of the proximetric codes, which can indeed be found in any volume in the world.

I'm speaking of the three ELS codes (of which we know, someone mentioned seven) found in the Pentateuch. These are NOT the same as the ones to which you refer, and are so exceedingly rare that so far, they've only been found in ONE book in the entire world.

Intriguing... Please elaborate.

Also intriguing... Please elaborate!

EC, Television New Zealand finally got back to me. The second video, that is the one showing the entry and the explosion, rather than the one of the explosion after it happened with delayed sound effects, is owned by an Indian student in this country. [In this city actually.] I rang him, and he tells me he has given a copy to local scientists, that he's working with them to help them ascertain angles, degrees etc. So if you have any contacts in that respect, try that. But otherwise he's keeping quite a strict control on who gets it and has a copyright. Darn I wish I'd used the video when they showed it on the news, then we wouldn't need all this rigmarole. Anyway, he tells me he's not after huge money or anything, but he is keen to stop the media making money out of it by selling it onwards when he's a student on an allowance. I think if you can give him some assurance that you're not the media you won't have a problem. His name is Mr. Om Prakesh, and you can fax or phone him on [03]3481426. Good Luck

Dave, here is the link that should have been provided :

[It amused to note that the posts that pertained me (on Monday) were with numbers equally spaced.]

Joy Busey - Monday, 07/19/99, 10:59:55am (#4646 of 4699)

Bottom line? I R Cornfuzed! §:o)

Joy Busey - Monday, 07/19/99, 12:41:47pm (#4651 of 4699)

Joy, thank you for both (information and link). In fact, I intend to look more closely at TGD, to understand this approach to consciousness, as well as the TEW - but in coming months. It appears that Time (of a sort ?) can be defined as being `born' with `motion against a background' - indeed, I have a `story of missing moment' in the beginning at Big Bang (planning to share with later here) - and this Time also would disappear when one shifts focus from motion. At present things about time seem to be just in the making. ?.

More sooner hopefully,

Namaste to All.

SeS

"Dave Resnick - Wednesday, 07/21/99, 3:25:16am (#4696 of 4700) E.C., Ph.D. 7/20/99 3:28pm If there were indeed a naked singularity in Kabaa each pilgrim's Hajj would likely be their last. I strongly doubt there's a singularity there, as it would tend to drop to the Earth's core, absorbing any matter in it's way, then slowly grow........."

Let,me add:

...HajJ is once in a life time act synchronized with daily rituals with NLC & NC.In Texas,according to National Enquirer ,someone tried to create a bottomless pit by drilling a 40 mile hole blowing several billion dollar govt money. They were trying to find tiny particles . As a layman myself , I have found it directly linked with a "needle hole" phenomenon... I must add boldly that science of Einstein ,NASA,all the billionaires ,nuclear and missiles energy powers and research labs without the GOD is worthless. one earthly day=50,000 years .All the wealth of the humanly world of the past ,present and future = a single needle hole .Unlike Einstein theory ...all things decay and return to the God for recycling...and a shock for NASA perhaps "the pull and push distance between Jupitor and Mass " is a yard stick in 10 humanly fingers and 10 toes and designed accordingly.Each human blinking is a computerized photographing and each step taken or transaction made using finger is a measurement and computerized recording .Each leaf of a tree is indeed a recorded deed with cassette which inturn must go through yearly recycling after yearly inventory count.Before 1973 ,I had lab data and when I used to look out and see an ufo parked up nearby in broad day light ...I had exciting ,scientific ,religious thing to give . But I don't enjoy anymore.Without the God ,Einstein's work and last 25 yrs of scientific work of NASA and Research Labs are junk in sophisticated area involving the God, the first ,the last, Master of the

Where in the book of Genesis does it refer to all of these so specifically? I'd like to know which chapters and verses you interpret thus, because I haven't noticed any. If they were that clever, why didn't they mention the Americas, Australia and Hawaii while they were on this geographical excursion? Certainly there were people in Australia 30,000 years ago, long before the OT was written, so someone must have known about it. I guess the OT author(s) didn't.

I doubt even the tribes of the steppes were calling it Russia or Rosh at that time. A coincidence between ancient and modern phonemes is more convincing than the alternative idea the future name was prophecized in Genesis. It's all too easy to read significance into pure coincidences.

contd.. .. day of judgement ,creator of everything,All things decay and return unto HIM.

Benz Zakar

All those accounts and photographs, and not a stick of it ever recovered, no successful archeological excavation... one would think with all those pictures someone would have found the hulk by now, as with the weather conditions up there, the remains would probably be pretty well preserved. Sounds like myths and hoaxes to me.

Well, we're not going to agree on that. Perhaps you might answer me this.

Both science and religion attempt to give accounts of past events, that no-one without a time machine could ever see. These historical sciences include evolution, geology, paleontology, archeology, astronomy, cosmology, and astrophysics, to name but a few. What motivates you to believe vague and widely interpretable accounts in ancient religious texts over modern and detailed evidentiary accounts? Because one way or the other you can't go back in time to see for yourself.

I won't ask how you distinguish between truth and falsehood in science, as I suspect you hold it up to the Razor of Genesis. Why that particular razor?

Dave,

The 3 creation myths were a puzzle to me from an early age. My questions are not based on predjudice.

The first, and most modern, myth is complete with the creation of people and the establishment of the day of rest.

In the second myth there is a statement of geography. The earth already exists. Eden was to the east of the writer. God makes people out of the existing earth. The story is complete.

In the third myth the garden is complete and Adam lives there. Then there is the rib story.

It looks like the editors arranged these fragments so that they fit a plausible chronology. But, they are still fragments and obviously different tribal creation legends. Paleontologists have arranged eohippus fossils according to size and paraded them as evidence of evolution. I think we have the same case here. The fragments are positioned according to fit.

TOM

Dave Resnick wrote:

"Much of cutting edge science looked like mysticism to those steeped in the old models. Quite a few scientists continued to insist that the Wright Brother's were frauds for quite some time after their first flight."

Define "Quite a few" and "for quite some time". Given that significantly more advanced airplanes were part of several countries militaries by WWI, there couldn't have been that much serious skepticism. How many people didn't believe it even after being shown movies of the flight?

"Same thing happened for quantum mechanics, etc."

It's certainly true that many didn't believe it at first, but that isn't the same thing as saying they regarded it as mysticism. QM was eventually accepted on the strength of the evidence for it, because it made definite predictions that could be, and were, tested. Mysticism, especially this new-age millenialism stuff, studiously avoids making any real useful predictions. As an aside, I hold to the theory that rather than ending in 2000 or 2005 or whatever, the world actually ended in 1916, when the Mormons orgininally predicted it, and we've been in hell ever since but we're just too dense to notice.

Wow, good job tracking quotes, David! Truth is I’m rather fond of the standard model, so neat and tidy. When science starts talking quantum geometry and time as illusion, it’s stepping on a few guru toes.

Now, I reserve the right to not be surprised if one or more of the new models turns out to be essentially correct in describing the universe as it actually exists (or believes it exists), but that won’t make it any less mystical.

It’s not all that interesting. As for piggy-back beta, there’s no such thing. It sounds awfully good for purposes of disguising alpha, though. A large excess of neutrinos is also a misnomer, as we all know they’re just a cop out for beta decay and have nothing to do with alpha. A bit more than 25 tons of mass hardly makes a dent in the fabric of time... which is just an illusion anyway.

Dave Resnick 7/21/99 3:01am

The O.T., even in the first book of Genesis, talks of Egypt, the Nile basin, the East to India, the Northeast to China, the North to Russia, the Northwest to Germany ..... Rosh (Russia). I doubt even the tribes of the steppes were calling it Russia or Rosh .."

Russia - in hindi or urdu always called Rus,roos,ruus , Rosh for Russia is a fit like mine..Corn Flakes -Quran Flaks -Quran from heaven

Now I found the link .1991 Codes and Dead Sea scroll ..is the work of Baal (superior god than big brother El or Allah or muslims)

Read their publication... Maka usa -an earth God of wakan Taka soul -Nagila like jewish song wakan i supreme had lakota pipe ..with creator...remote inyan ...rock maka .....earth wi........sun agriculture....MARS Minakshi....worshipped Shiv (sounds gay..) Nun ...primordian water..(in hindi nuni is penis) Hades-greek of underworld son of Kronos titan pigment Hammer God- celtic (sounds as if scottish person using hammer in ethnic cleansing) Hel-german and daughter of Loki Parvatti-Goddess DurgaMa Pharoah created dept of cardinal then life on earth Han-Xiangof China 907 A.D who climbed a peach tree slipped ,fell ,didnot die but became immortal.. Amitabh(india) gives unending lights...sounds like Amitabh Bachan film star and His Inc.company which just posted loss of $40m in stock exchange..

Xiang in China sounds as if Quantum minds or quantum group of companies just blew up muslim area.After Montreal meeting .NATO is giving $420 m for cleanup........

Now it also links to 1973 ..When one one G7 magazine wrote..what if they find out we are killing Russian muslim Nomads by muclear bombs,biological bombs..How can they? They are primitive people without University..just Madrasas.. .. Zoom next moment they had Baal writing dead sea scrolls and I had been taking short term employment wo

Thank you very much Rosemary. You certainly went out of your way to obtain this information and I appreciate it. I will try to get a hold of Mr. Prakesh this week.

Joy,

Seeing the latest issue of Naked Singularities, I have to concur that these gravity wells need to put on some clothing. Of course many of the male black holes standing in line at the magazine stand disagreed with my assessment :-)

That would explain the popularity of Ricky Martin.

Ugly, aren’t they? ...guess that’s where the term "Zoo" came from!

E.C. wrote:

"Seeing the latest issue of Naked Singularities, I have to concur that these gravity wells need to put on some clothing."

Indeed. Especially if they are going to Mecca. I'm no expert on Islamic law, but I doubt nudity is allowed.

David Keavney - Wednesday, 07/21/99, 2:09:40pm (#4714 of 4714) "E.C. wrote: "Seeing the latest issue of Naked Singularities, I have to concur that these gravity wells need to put on some clothing." Indeed. Especially if they are going to Mecca. I'm no expert on Islamic law, but I doubt nudity is allowed"

Indeed, Kabaa of Abraham used to have full of nudist pilgrims.Nearby newly born baby girls were buried alive .Islam begins with emigration to Medina .Religion is called Islam.Followers are called Muslims (not Mohammedans or Abrahamans).HajJ was highly upgraded by Gabriel. Islamic Quran and Law is directly related to Gabriel, the archangel who had brought it to Mohammed .That means Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" was Baal's work too.He called "Gabriel" in Satanic Verses as "Chamcha" who buttered or favoured someone else .Since I have found Gabriel ,I am convinced that Einstein's "The Lord is Subtle" was written delibrately - Relativity was explained to him when modern day Israel had just 22,000 Jews .In fact, I think I know who financed Einstein and how Israel has been implanted .This is how I am without job.Head they win ,tail they win since 1973 in my case ... Benz Zakar

Dave, to be frank, I do not know what you mean by "Two codes," but I can tell you that I am absolutely convinced that you were originally speaking of the Rips paper. On 07-17-99, you said:

Note that if one reads the above quote from your 07-17-99 post carefully, it should be clear to anyone that you were referring to the Rips paper when you said: "Statistics is my primary field of expertise, and this paper is valid..." [underlines added]

Since then you have admitted that the Rips paper is not valid, but you say that you didn't mean "that paper." Instead, you meant the ELS that has long been known to be correct. Could you please tell me precisely what that might be! Do you have an address for that?

Tom, I believe your second and third stories are merely two parts of the J document.

Note that one of the major differences between the P and the J documents is the name of the Deity. In the P document, the name for God is Elohim, and in the J document, it is Yahweh. In the KJV of the Bible, Elohim is typically translated as "God" whereas Yahweh is generally translated as "the Lord" or "Lord God." You will notice that in Genesis 1:1, it is "God" who "created" the heaven and the earth. However, in 2:4b, it is "the Lord God" who "made" the heaven and the earth.

Typically, both the P and the E documents use the name Elohim until God reveals his true name to Moses. Thereafter, both the P and E documents use the name of Yahweh. The J document, on the other hand, uses the name Yahweh from the beginning. Thus it is often quite easy to separate the J from the P & E in Genesis, since the name of the deity is different, as well as an obvious difference in form and style. (Separating the E from the P must rely on form and style, however.)

Rosemary Behan - Thursday, 07/22/99, 8:12:08am (#4718 of 4718)

Joy, can you give me any words of encouragement on this......... Resemary , please allow me !

BBC... Two long tunnels bring together matter at near the speed of light

By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse "Scientists have quashed suggestions that a £350m experiment planned for the autumn could cause the destruction of the Earth. Scientists hope to create a quark-gluon plasma, a fundamental state of matter that probably has not existed naturally in the Universe since the Big Bang"

As I wrote ..Baal published a fake Quran from Arizona and gave ref "Big bang"...Then NASA came with a BIG BANG story on Nov 6,1995 alongwith Galaxy and birth and death of star stories...Then Hubble came ..."huge black hole exists".. Then IMF gives $40-60 Billion to Suharto Nov 30,1995 ...BreX Gold robs pensioners in USA-Canada worth $6B using Suharto..While I worked in Pipe Mfg, Heat exchange mfg until 1991..Then Baal telephones me ..I narrowly escaped multiple deaths via forced Poison inhaling to push underneatrh a BUS...Then I noticed ..Mahreshi M Yogi ,Amitabh enterprises and others ..Then came instant massacres 930,000 Hutus -Tutsis 0vernight.. Bosnia -Kosovo Massacres ..Battle for Somali-Sudan pipelines .Then came 1991 codes Qumran..and constant threat to wipe out Iran and Iraq for their oil....Also I noticed they sell $1m stuff for $500m ,$500m for $1B .Then Came Bhutto .."They claim we received $2B "..Where is it? ..........It is commercial fraud by a small group of people ,who have take over.They are helping themselves from pornographic perversion to cannibalism..When Central African Rep King was overthrown ..they found cannibal kitchen ..where even French PM ,Idi Amin ,big name world leaders etc had been named as visitors (who liked their food)..They in turn had said..they may h

contd..

...have eaten ..but not intentionally. $350m Hi speed vacuum tunnel (perhaps refrigerated for instant "organ" delivery to waiting cargo plane).. They use combination of NASA - R&D - Iran ...changed side street mafia into oil and Bank signatories $50B.. cannibalism .. sex orgies...are rules of the World. Ben Zakar

This will be of no comfort, but when the first atom bomb was exploded, some scientists were privately betting about whether it would set off a chain reaction in the atmosphere :) It didn't - the chain reaction it set off was geopolitical instead.

I doubt this will either - if the physicists say the energies and masses are too low, I tend to believe them... the predictive successes of their theories give me confidence that colliding atoms are within the scope of their imagination and calculations.

Even if a two-atom black hole were possible, one has to consider the possibility that it would evaporate by quantum phenomena long before it became large enough to become a threat - even black holes lose mass and energy. Some scientists, however, think that mini black holes may be quite common. An interesting idea, but quite speculative.

However, I recall at least one science fiction story where an experiment set loose a mini black hole that orbited the center of the earth's mass within its mantle, setting off earthquakes and other entertaining phenomena - I forget the denouement, though :)

That was a long winded way of saying "dunno!" :)

Bill,

Thanks for the enlightenment. I will read it again with your details in mind. My reading was simply a reaction to what is there. It is obviously fragmentary and I cannot see why belief in God, the Hebrews or Jesus requires the acceptance of Genesis as scientific fact.

Thanks again.

TOM

Dave (are you still there?),

Please read:

TOM

Hi again, Rosemary. I know you were directing to Joy, but if I may...

I would hope that you could gain some small comfort from the fact that scientists are people who, like other people, have cherished loved ones and who cherish life. They are also responsible, as much as are others, and are aware of what they are doing. I trust that you would not kill your loved ones, never mind everything on the planet, in the fulfilment of your intellectual curiosity. What makes you think a scientist is different in this regard?

But are scientists human? Sure. And they can err. I agree this can be a tough pill to swallow.

Also, in evaluating situations such as this, it serves to look at where the doomsday predictions are coming from. In this case, the article does not really say, so this avenue, should you wish to pursue it, would require some effort.

<tongue in cheek>
OTOH, it has already been predetermined, so why worry about it? </tongue in cheek>

Sorry, couldn't resist :-)

Interesting site, Rosemary! A popular media isn’t going to have the kind of details that would tell us popular consumers what the real aims are, but I wouldn’t be too worried about singularities (clothed or indecent). So long as what results from the collision is suspended (and plasma is the stated goal) it can’t get too big.

The center of the earth syndrome when discussing things like singularities is kind of like the "China Syndrome" scenario for nuclear meltdowns. Fact is, a molten core that managed to get through the vessel and the many-footed concrete underneath would only go as far as the water table. That would produce some spectacular special effects (better than Old Faithful!), but it would not melt through the earth.

If I’m wrong and they manage to get a stable singularity that starts eating everything around it, we’ll at least have the comfort of knowing who goes first, won’t we? §:o)

benz zakar - Thursday, 07/22/99, 10:55:02am (#4719 of 4725) BBC... "Two long tunnels bring together matter at near the speed of light ....By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse ..."Scientists have quashed suggestions that a £350m ... to create a quark-gluon plasma, a fundamental state of matter that probably has not existed naturally in the Universe since the Big Bang"

Let me give doomsday news to Dr David Whitehouse,BBC Newsonline Science Editor.... related ..to PLASMA GOAL .I am glad that Joy noticed it.."plasma is stated goal"

Andrew D. Lewis - Thursday, 07/22/99, 11:20:23am (#4724 of 4725) "..... not kill your loved ones, never mind everything on the planet, in the fulfilment of your intellectual curiosity. What makes you think a scientist is different in this regard? But are scientists human? Sure. And they can err. .......... <tongue in cheek>"

Hi... The punishment of the God almighty is already on ..with < mouth in hand> via microsoft computers " Mouse" = Mou se = From Mouth " For all the thing I wrote , the News-Media , the ministers -religious or political (before 1973 ) would have made lot of fuss by their mouth now.Instead they are sitting holding their mouth in their hand..(ie.computer mouse in their hand ..using missing biblical language)... Benz Zakar

The relativistic ion collider is designed to do one thing and that is to possibly create a quark-gluon plasma. Quarks are exceedingly difficult particles to study in isolation since the forces binding triplets in baryyons or couplets in mesons are incredibly strong. Since gravity is such a weak force over subactomic distances even in the presence of a supermassive particle, it is an exceedingly unlikely proposition that a black hole will result. Strong EM fields are another matter altogether but it is more than likely that adequate precautions have been taken to shield against powerful E and B fields.

I'd guess the magnetic field generated by the super-conductors would pretty well manage the suspension of plasma (and isolate the E field at least). Otherwise their 'pooters are seriously AT RISK, as Benz pointed out...

...but maybe since it's a torus, they WON'T be neutron-activating hapless commuters. Just as well. §:o)

Okay, everyone's got actual air conditioning so they are eating actual cooked food, so I'll add a thought or three...

Theoretically, the scientists at the new atom smasher have everything down to quarks and "know" exactly what they're doing. They must believe very much that what has gone before will guide them in where they are going now.

OTOH, the scientists at the new atom smasher have a large vested interest in preserving a universal model which they already know is probably wrong. We have discussed the dangers of invested faith previously on this board.

OTOOH, we can smash atoms, boil water, use the steam to turn turbines, generate mass amounts of electricity, and these nifty machines hardly ever melt through to China (or the water table). That's some rather large points in favor of standard model manipulation, whether it's correct or not. It is, if nothing else, predictable.

Singularities are abominations, according to King Hawking Himself. In order to have an abomination that means anything relevant to the discussion, you've got to have a temple to desecrate. They haven't consecrated this new smasher, have they?

Why, thank you again, Rosemary! It really is very much coming to a head, significant to the "time" period in question (20 years). The shoulders of the old guard are getting weak, so there's nothing left to do in support of the insupportable. It's "time."

"We don't understand the origin of the Universe or why we are here,'' he added. "A complete unified theory might not bring much material benefit, but it would answer that age-old question.'' - Stephen Hawking (from the BBC story).

I believe consciousness will, in the end, have to be taken into consideration. It's the "extra" relativity of time.

...And if, as I suspect, we were to find that our own consciousness is part and parcel of the universe in its totality, that is as much "proof" of our intrinsic spiritual connection to creator/creation as would be the standard model’s Singularity at the Beginning of Time - Perfect Symmetry.

It’s particular interpretations of creator/creation which then become the problem they’ve always been... <sigh>

No matter how big the egos get, the real quest is and always has been to KNOW the nature of who and what we are. Those sciences concerned with the relativities of things which we like to believe do not effect or depend on us - evolution, cosmology, astronomy, physics... do in reality have a lot to do with who and what we are.

Things have become specialized because things have become so impossibly complex. This, like time itself, is an illusion. I get the feeling the "threshold" I perceived 20 years ago is now under our feet, so to speak. I have been looking at the work done in the years I lost, and am pleased to note my defection into exile wasn’t the end of those startling ideas, based on things only those of us involved could know. Others figured it out on their own. I think that’s wonderful.

But I’d warn the hard-cores on both ends of the spectrum - Science and Religion - to approach the truth with some humility. No one of us has all the answers, but I reserve the right not to be particularly surprised when the answers turn out to be simple. Distance is what makes it look hard, and distance is relative, timewise.

Why are we here ?

The design of our finger and toes take measurements of transactions we undertake and places we go.My research shows that we are here for our old ties of blood ,with our old friends and enemies.We come closer to people and tribes to recreate scenes of crime for a day of judgement when one day will be equal to 50,000 yrs(according to Jibreel).I was aware of this since six age 6. Benz Zakar

Joy,

A lovely post, thank you.

TOM

Benz, my friend, you speak about "why." This is religion. "Who" and "what" is science. Some of us are somewhere in between, are we not?

For whichever post you thought lovely, I thank you. I'm looking for the truth. I expect most of us here are doing that very same thing. §:o)

Joy, I am not asking why,who or what of science or specifics of anybody's crime.Someone mentioned Hawkings.I clicked BBC and Hawkings says "Does anyone know why are we here,I have spent 20 yrs looking for this answer".So, I wrote. But someone is promoting since yesterday Winners & Losers mentioning the name of Zakar ,Zachariah & so on from New York, Chicago ,London selling stocks & bonds.

One such group ,next door to my place of residence was controlling web pages - news of 43 developing countries ( incl Iran) , inter -news agencies via London where nomad tribes are missing, selling multi billion dollar stocks & bonds via suite next door to mine again and a run down computer parts retail store.It said - we are listed with Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I went to check .No body existed ,it is just linked via computers .I was working until 1991 in Pipe mfg(1/2in to 3 ft dia or more ) .When suddenly, my Hindu boss said to someone "Don't say it in front of Benz ,he is spy ".I had just given them ,"my" invention of "Pipe vacuum for specific use" which was perfect to attach only a more powerful mechanism to make it speed of light movement or transportation of even a plasma capsule or goods in pipe.During 1991 -99,I was without income in N America.So I went overseas to earn .There almost I lost my leg when someone pushed me underneath a Bus .This is CNN Science & Religion .But I had joined and took part,when I understood what ,when ,why someone is asking .Unlike Einstein, for me Science is Religion and Religion is science and our creator is incharge and running the show.The God has given criteria of help .I have discovered ufo .Apparently, they simply takes or took measurements of all the recent bombings, massacres (Hutus-Tutsis) ,(Bosnia-Kosovo ) ,Plasma flow ..., HIV tainted blood victims (USA,Canada,Japan & Israel ) without getting involved .The God or His angels do not send US /Can dollars .But prov

contd..

..provided me provision by giving me even short term employments worldwide... Benz Zakar

First I would like to say that GOD is a wonderful thing to believe in and I feel in my heart that GOD exist is some way. But I am a person of science and realise these subjects (science and religion) are two seperate entities and are really at opposite ends of the spectra.Science is based on fact and theories based on fact and observation.Religion is based on FAITH and it is not intended to explain anything other than a way for people to live a simple and happy life.Love thy naighbor does not explain love but gives moral insite.nothing in the bible explains modern day complexities, but deals with primitive issues because it was written by primitive people who are believed to have recieved their information strait from god.But If I told you I had a long conversation with god yesterday would you believe me?If not why would you believe someone you have never met or even spoken to who was told to write a book by god thousands of years ago. How do you know during the many translations(the bible was not written in english)that the new author didnt interperate the scriptures to reflect his views and opinions.The bible has great value but when you can read a sripture and say this tells me to kill an abortion clinic doctor or the end of the world is coming you have gone to far with your beliefs.I also find most people just dont get it,religious people I find are the first to point the finger,condemn and look down apon others and generally turn their backs on ones in need.Religion makes them better than others so they can do this, and if they are wrong in doing so their god will forgive them anyway.If people really understood what god was tring to say this world would indeed be a wonderful place for all life.

65 million years ago, there was a catastrophic event, a natural disaster which wiped out life which had ruled the earth for hundreds of millions of years. Was this event caused by God?

Bill,

Gosh no Bill, T. is referring to recent disasters like uhh, the Reagan administration.

Seriously T. Chase you bring focus to some interesting dates. On August 11 I will drive to the top of the resurgent dome of a local volcano and wait for a momentous event. I have been looking for an excuse to make the trip anyway - may as well do it when there is the possibility of excitement.

TOM

I must admit befuddlement with the obsession of dire predictions involving earth's destruction which are sweeping through among even rational circles.

The end of this millenium and the beginning of next holds absolutely no importance to the cosmos. I can't stress enough how insignificant we as a species are relative to the workings of this universe. It will not end on our time table or on the time table ascribed to on an ancient text. Current estimates predict that the universe may end up expanding ad infinitum. If this is the case, the few hundred thousand years in which Homo Sapiens walked on this planet to this point will seem so brief relative to the cosmic backdrop as to appear almost nonexistent.

That is your opinion, E.C., and I tend to agree with you, but Dave and Rosemary believe that the God who created this universe, is also the God who authored one particular ancient text, the Bible, and they believe that this God is their own personal God. I strongly disagree with divine authorship of the Bible for reasons I have already expressed. But while I tend to discount the idea of a personal God, I can not discount it completely--and, in my opinion, neither can you or anyone else.

Some time ago, I mentioned a study that indicated that most scientists did not believe in God. My recollection was that Dawn had indicated in a post that it was published in Science. I have never been able to locate that post, and now I have found it was actually it was published in Nature.

Back in 1916, James Leuba, a psychologist, did a survey of 1000 scientists to test the hypothesis that the more people were educated, the least likely they were to believe in God. The results of his survey confirmed that scientists as a group were significantly less likely to believe in God than the general public. Leuba attributed this to education and postulated that with better education of the general public, religious beliefs would become more and more rare.

In 1998, Edward Larson and Larry Witham published a study in Nature intended to replicate the survey performed by James Leuba. In essence, they found the same results that Leuba found in 1916. Basically, the results of the survey performed by Larson and Witham indicate that about 90% of the general public believes in God, whereas about 40 percent of scientists believe in God.

<a href="http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/god_scientists.htm">page</a>

This T Chase (writer) is god or his big angel....His presentation has everything dating back 1973.. to Reagan days ...current to future.Milosevic's Vilad to 2 brothers son of Satan .Hindu "Maneishim"as true Christ..and 666 antichrist .My son is 6 and missing members had 6 6 of family ..to Tiqson.com 9my next door guy)/ Xenon.com ( Bay St)/geocities.com ( India to Japan)/Banks' and world's web page designer, master of all recent stock exchange crash/Dead Sea Scroll /renaming streets of Calcutta.

"T. Chase - Friday, 07/23/99, 6:09:14pm (#4743 of 4748)

I think that religion is very important today, in that a series of events are occurring now that fullfill the prophecies of different religions, in particular the Biblical Book of Revelation. Revelation describes a series of catastrophic events including weather changes, wars, new diseases, and other catastrophic events. See my web site for more on this http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2360"

The owner of Geocities is called FARO/Pharo/Almanac,who came from nothing FU .He created Atum branched into Shu & Tefnet then to Osiris, Isis ..... Faro created Gla & Dya ,voice came gla gla zoo who produced foot of humanity,seed of humanity , great mother Rome -MagnaMater ,then department of cardinal and then life on earth.... FARO,Pharo,Almanac - master of Web pages linked to everything everywhere.Because of him,East Indians have snatched all software from USA local. His Presentation ...http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2360... Either he is Baal or his murderer.The magic is "geocities.com"Benz Zakar

Joy, now about those three words contained in your following posts. **

Joy Busey - Monday, 06/07/99, 11:46:47am (#3684 of 4748)

Such a question sounds strange in this system, as one concerns chiefly on individual self-progress. Incidentally, the word `brownie points' (- `bp', for short; perhaps means `karmic differential' -) helped me get a perspective for the [work vs grace] discussion; thanks. Assuming `bp' is measured with numbers, a perspective can be that this existence is a `zero-sum' game; initially, every Being comes with zero value for `bp', but this varies through the Wheel, and if succeeds in having zero value at the end of a life - gets out of the Wheel, a difficult task as `bp' is very sensitive. Another perspective is every Being comes in a life with `bp' having value of [minus infinity], and but for grace which changes it to [plus infinity] there is no hope; the latter can be seen as trasition from one end of a line (joined by grace) to the other end of line, whereas work (being of finite value) can never change the initial value of [-minus infinity]. Is this a suitable model ? In case of those of Krishna's wives, princesses who were imprisoned by evil king, they had yet to avenge the injustice and as given in my first post had to be born as a male before getting out of the Wheel. (- Logic can be stretched like this. -) Whereas in the second view, the question as to what awaits a new born, who unfortunately dies just after birth, remains. Is this ok ?

Incidentally, Krishna is very popular among weaker sex. As to the word `convert', it seems most religions dont use this avenue, whereas `re-forming' one's self

... Joy, continued ...

Incidentally, Krishna is very popular among weaker sex. As to the word `convert', it seems most religions dont use this avenue, whereas `re-forming' one's self is the recommended course - specifically, re-formation based on examples of practising precept.

Joy Busey - Monday, 06/14/99, 12:45:03pm (#3784 of 4748)

Really, hard to see how any faith be hypocritical; it can just be consistent or not. As for hypocrisy of practitioners, religion is just like any other domain of human activity - and so hardly surprising.

Hope above makes sense.

Namaste to all.

SeS

Actually, that’s the most sensible explanation I’ve ever read for a karmic concept I didn’t grasp! You have also applied it most cogently to concepts of Christianity such as grace, better than most theologians can. Thank you!

So while I understand your model because it is so logical, it explains quite well why someone like me - whose life and karma are impossibly braided into ropes to be untangled forever - would choose to take the back door off this Wheel, don’t you think?

"benz zakar - Tuesday, 07/20/99, 2:40:55pm (#4669 of 4752) ..The God's activities up there is beyond human capabilities ..The God says again and again:" I had erased Dinosaurs and can erase hopeless,worthless extreme evil humanbeings .They need me .I do not need them." Benz Zakar

versus

"E.C., Ph.D. - Friday, 07/23/99, 8:25:12pm (#4746 of 4752) I must admit befuddlement with the obsession of dire predictions involving earth's destruction which are sweeping ...... I can't stress enough how insignificant we as a species are relative to the workings of this universe".

contd..

"we dont know what to do with them ..killing nomads in our region too ."My assessment is that Genie of the Aladin's lamp is out,Geocities & Consciousness blood flowing groups ,are in the bottle .Even Saddam , the thief of Baghdad(Babylon) has contained Clinton's effort to steal iraq oil".Time will tell." Ben Zakar

"Subtle is the Lord" Einstein's faith in "Theory of Relativity". Koranic Religion of God is without Science of Einstein is blind is all about Jerusalem and Koran .Senator Hillary Clinton declaration about Jerusalem for Israel only . The concept of Israel is based upon Koran verses .The finance came from King Abd Aziz who simply went in and disregarded Koran and Islamic constitution and grabbed Islamic finance .Islam forbids gamble.The first gamble they did , they "used relativity" to recreate Israel when Jews were just 22,000 little before 1948.At the same time I was born in British Raj ,and found an UFO hovering near ethnic Albanian Mother Thresa HQ. Now all the massacre of Bosnia,Kosovo of ethnic Albanian are over, Mother Thresa dead recently.. Clearly it is Koran,UFO ,God vs Israel,Einstein Relativity without God ,Sauds Ibn AZIZ,Hilary Clinton,NATO,Milosevic & NASA .... Benz Zakar

Sorry, but CNN's goto function doesn't seem to be working properly, and I simply don't have the time to spend back-paging to a message five hundred postings ago.

However...

Herein you'll find articles under the 04.62.+v classification entitled: "Quantum field theory in curved spacetime."

And a quote: "However, such observations and the discovery of quantum theory with its discrete energy levels and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle led physicists to speculate that space-time itself may be discrete as early as the 1930's. In 1936 Einstein expressed the general feeling that ... perhaps the success of the Heisenberg method points to a purely algebraic method of description of nature, that is, to the elimination of continuous functions from physics. Then, however, we must give up, by principle, the space-time continuum ....

I like that. Kind of a modern way of stating the Bible's truth that God knows each and every hair on your head!

Agreed. Just apes with fancier tools than a chimp's blade of grass used to extract termites.

Myself: "The O.T., even in the first book of Genesis, talks of...

When you learn to ask questions in a manner that does not insinuating that which never existed in my statement, I'll provide an answer.

Whatever. Historical experts disagree with your poetic license.

It's far easier for you to think so as a means of copping out on the truth, isn't it?

Here's some fuel for the fodder:

http://www.truinsight.com/666%20USA%20GREAT%20SEAL.htm

Were one knowledgeable of their political science, one would instead rightly understand that this point of land is in hot contention between several nations, all of whom have denied numerous archeological requests; the location is usually covered in deep ice and snow and only becomes partially visible during extremely hot summers (rare); chunks of the ark have indeed been removed, been properly carbon-dated to the appropriate time frame, and identified as belonging to the family of woods known as "gopher wood" that existed in the region of the ark's origen, and NOT around Ararat.

Come on, you're a scientist! Why don't you take a journey and see for yourself!

Oh, that's right. Can't even look up a Bible verse on your own and would rather emphatically deny its existence than see for yourself.

The proof's there, but of course you won't see it with your eyes so tightly shut...

What motivates you to claim that I do such a thing?

Get real. Reality is nice this time of year. Try some.

Imagine a father explaining something to his young son. First he tells them the basics. Then he fills in a bit of detail, possibly from a complementary perspective. Finally, he emphasizes major themes and provides the foundation for later lessons.

Result: Genesis. Complementary, not contradictory.

Visit the Wright Brother's Memorial at Kitty Hawk and you'll understand. Or, you may understand "quite a few" were those who didn't believe the accounts, as they'd previously stated it was impossible. Since they "knew" it was impossible, they also "knew" the reports were false.

Quite some time means about five years, between their Dec 17, 1903 flight and their rise to fame when Wilbur toured France in 1908 and Orville sold the Army on it at Ft. Meyer (despite Lt Selfridge's demise).

cute...

It certainly is, not only in spoken language, but in written language as well. Cush and Put for Egypt and Libya are a bit more difficult. Fortunately, the written lineage is undeniably sound.

"Undeniable" by all scientists knowlegeable in this field excepting some of those here on this board, of course, who hold "special" knowledge.

Naturally, this brings up the question of gender...

I'm astonished, having explained it to you quite succinctly several times:

1. Original, involving YWAH in first two books, reverse of HAWY in last two, with ELS of 49, and TORH with ELS of 7 in middle book, as well as several others running throughout.

2. All the rest of the highly statistically likley, single-occurrence words found and given proximetric importance.

Is this succinct enough?

The first part of the Rips paper refers to the original ELS codes. The remained embellishes with the proximetric ones. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I endorse the former, reject the latter. Questions?

If a black hole were able to be created from the collision of few atoms, we'd have be absorbed long ago...

It takes several tons of matter to cross the threshold such that quantum radiation won't swiftly reduce the black hole to nothingness. The collider is working with a few atoms.

Funny stuff, Joy. And you bake cookies for your kids, too!

Dave , It is the same Geocities = Saudi stuff =Baal =the leo lion =Faro ,Pharoah bigger God than elder brother El of Allah = 1973 frame up... Good news is that there should not or will not be a final war .It is Over.Funny enough,I had been trying since 1973 to save what belonged to the UK/Germany/France / EU/USA/Canada ,because I thought Japan,India ,Korea ,Pakistan were getting for free due to expiry of the Patent Rule. When God wants something,it is "Be" whether come willingly or unwillingly .Time will tell.I have no idea if it is based upon time table for "surrender to God" maintaining current standard or will be 500 kuwait well firestyle...Mine is the real thing .. Benz Zakar

I asked you, in the spirit of genuine inquiry, to provide me with the particular instances that convinced you that Genesis referred to lands beyond the expected knowledge of the Hebrews - chapter and verse references would have done as it will doubtlessly flabbergast you to know I have an online bible - and that way I would have known exactly what you were referring to rather than having to guess. You rather rudely refused, so I conclude there isn't any that would convince the open minded, besides the phonemic coincidence between Russia and Rosh (where was Rosh anyway - one might expect some kind of latitude and longitude info).

You also chose not to address my query about how the Hebrews managed to know about places like China - with the tacit implication, as I read it, that it must have been by divine revelation - but not about the Americas or Australasia or even Antarctica, which would have been much more impressive feats.

The general conclusion I reach is that you are reading far more into the bible than any reasonable person should, beyond reasonable doubt.

Familiarity with history shows that scientists, and notably though certainly not exclusively physicists, are among the most gullible of people when it comes to dealing with hoaxes - this is particularly apparent with paranormal phenomena (Uri Geller and all manner of telepathies and metal bending), but it has also been found in archaeology (the alleged discovery of the ark, the counterfeiting of artifacts), physics (N-rays and cold fusion), and paleontology (Piltdown and Arkansas man, the Paluxy footprints). This is because scientists are necessarily honest and often rather naive in a child-like sense, and because while nature is subtle, it is consistent and not malicious. They do not expect fraud. The same cannot be said of hoaxsters, hucksters and others determined to try and convince people that cherished myths are true.

If there were genuine evidence to support your contention, the world of science and archeology would beat a path to your door, as the findings would be of breath-taking importance. But you can't even cite one peer-reviewed literature reference. Scientists are more open minded than you give them credit for. It isn't a matter of their not seeing evidence before their eyes, it's a matter of their looking and seeing that it isn't there, which is why you are in a small minority of scientists.

I won't go into the detailed explanation of why the flood-ark theory is completely unable to account for the geographical and temporal distribution of fossils and extant species, there isn't the space - books have been published on it, I can refer you to some good ones, and the literature is full of tens of thousands of papers on evolution. You will find more evidence for evolutionary theory in even the smallest natural history museum than there is for your flood and ark in all the halls of creationism. Before riding your sarcastic high horse, you might care to take a short trip to your nearest one.

Dave,

Thanks for the response. I realize that my inquiry is tedious, but I think it is important to establish some basics.

The second creation myth is important because it has a geographic reference. The garden was east of the writer. The writer was outside of the garden. This could be Moses reflecting on the past while dwelling in the tents of Jethro. But, then, why was the first myth added later?

Also we know that there were other people outside of the garden. Again to the east in the land of Nod. Were they part of a special creation that is not recorded?

TOM

Dave,

Since early childhood I have been fascinated by the Ark. I think I have read or scanned much of the Ark literature over the last fifty years or so. I do not know of any dating or identification of wood. There was a story that local farmers climbed the mountain each spring to get a splinter from the Ark. This gave them good crops. Lots of farmers but no splinters.

Actually some extensive work has been done looking for the Ark. The area is not snow bound all year and many photographic surveys have been made. The only evidence I recall was an oval mound that 'could not have been natural' according to the authors. It looked like a reasonable land form for the area. As usual in these stories it was found at the last minute and would have to be investigated later.

Do you have a reference on the wood dating?

TOM

Dave,

A question you have not yet addressed:

Why is it necessary to accept the tribal myths of the Hebrews as scientific fact? The truth of the Bible is not challenged by acknowledging that tribal myths are tribal myths. Why must I accept Hebrew mythology to know Jesus?

TOM

Dave,

The Daniel link is interesting, but I do not find the 3 planes of creation in the Genesis myths. If this is important why is it not brought out?

You threw this in for discussion. You are not really serious. Dollar bills? 666? 13? Come on Dave.

Notice that in the Post.. box the words in red:

-removed without further comment-

All 4 words have 7 letters each. 7777, Too much to be just coincidence! If you subtract 1 word and thus one from each number you get 666. Is this prophetic CNN?

TOM

Leszek Rzepecki - Sunday, 07/25/99, 3:46:03am (#4765 of 4770) Dave Resnick 7/25/99 1:29am I asked you, in the spirit of genuine inquiry, to provide me ................ You also chose not to address my query about how the Hebrews managed to know about places like China - with the tacit implication, as I read it, that it ....."

Dave , ...".M Gazette Dec 19, 1995 Forgotten Jews of China" Jan 20,1996 Shiv "Ramayana & Mahabharata" .. .....Now this links with many artifical earth quakes .... to geocities...How much money is suitable for compensation from Saudis or Prince Talal or Canada/USA for not letting us go to dentists,hairdressers. univs for 25 yrs . I had one invention before 1973 that I could have provided employment to every single educated person in contruction with food and accomodation and interpretation of Genesis to anything from Heaven..I understood since age 6.. Benz Zakar

As Schmelzer states in the above link: "In newsgroup discussions, some problems of the predecessor of GET, PG, have been discussed. These problems, (but also a widely distributed prejudice against "ether theory"), have caused the rejection of attempts to publish articles about PG in peer-reviewed journals.

"Fortunately, these problems are no longer present in GET."

Anybody any opinion on GET?

Tom, that is just simply beautiful. You cracked me up good. I thought I was going to die!

For a crime attrocities, manmade disaster or a forecast such as 666/777,usually report is written afterwards.Koran came 1400 ago talking crimes of Bani Israel, Kfors and muslim hypocrites (friends of both),NAT0 is calling themselves KFOR , Jews since 1948 (Bani Israel) ,Sauds are virtually wearing Star of David under head cover and never understood the verse of Neutrinos or anything.The three of them seem to have been adding their activities befitting crimes around Koranic verses .While believers are from muslims,christians,hindus,buddhists alike. Benz Zakar

Okay, Dave. I have a very slight complaint. When I make a statement that I believe is correct and someone questions it, I feel it to be my responsibility to either provide justification for the statement or admit that I can not find it. You may recall that from time to time I have admitted that I thought that I could find justification for a particular statement, but was unable to do so.

Also, when I make an assertion, I do not expect other people to look for the justification for my making the assertion. I consider that to be my responsibility. In the above case, you say the Bible says certain things of which I was unaware. In this case, I did not specifically ask you where the Bible said such things specifically since someone else had already asked. But I was interested and looked forward to the answer. I thought I might learn something.

But instead of being told where to look so I could judge for myself, I was told to look it up.

The thing is this. First, I am not sure those things are actually there. Second, I am not sure I would recognize them without your abundant, and ever so gracious, help even if such an interpretation might be justified. And, finally, if you are too lazy to show me where to look, I am certainly too lazy to try to determine what it is I am supposed to look for.

Cheers.

Thanks, Dave. I’m a clown by trade. No, I don’t bake cookies - way too hot in late July for that. I do paint faces, twist balloons, and occasionally juggle. I get $150 an hour for that. If you want cookies and can pay, I’ll buy one of those refrigerated logs and see what I can do...

Be careful when you say that, Leszek. Someone may wish to provide you an example such as: "In January 1906, more than two years after the Wrights had first flown, Scientific American carried an article ridiculing the 'alleged' flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. Without a trace of irony, the magazine gave as its main reason for not believing the Wrights the fact that the American press had failed to write anything about them." (Quoted from the above link.)

Maybe some do. But I had in mind folk like John Taylor, Prof. of Mathematics at King's College, U. of London, who in the 70's was gulled by a bunch of children who claimed to be able to Gellerize metal objects like paper clips "sealed" in a container... he was puzzled by the fact that they weren't able to pull the trick off unless there was a small hole in the seal and they were afforded complete privacy in which to do so... :) Uri Geller also performed in front a number of fairly eminent scientists who thought him genuine. Good scientists were fooled for quite a while by the Piltdown hoax because it presented them with features they were expecting to see. Others were not as convinced even at that time.

However, I should have been less sweeping and carried away by the exuberance of my own verbosity, and said that scientists are more easily fooled by conjuring tricks than conjurors - that point is not of course originally mine, but has been repeatedly emphasized by dedicated debunkers such as Houdini, the Amazing James Randi, and Martin Gardner, who point out that the person best prepared to uncover deceit is a professional deceiver.

So, I think I'll stick to my view that scientists tend not to be psychologically attuned to the possibility of fraud, which is why they are still shocked when it occurs among their own ranks.

But I hope that you are correct that I was exaggerating the extent of the susceptibility :)

There is no denying that. Of course, some cows are more sacred than others, and for good reason.

Scientists have to walk a line between crass credulity and stubborn skepticism, otherwise they will either believe any nonsense that comes along, or reject all new ideas. It is no surprise that many mistakes on either side of the line are made even by the best of them.

I certainly take the point that simply because something is not published about does not mean it does not exist.

However, I don't want to be placed in the situation of having to accept Melvin the Purple Unicorn on Planet Pluto simply because someone claims he exists and points out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So that's why I entertain skepticism about claims as extraordinary as claims of the finding of an ark on Ararat. This sort of claim is very susceptible to fraud because there is a great incentive in some circles to prove the story of Noah true. It is also exceedingly improbable.

Once I see that, I'll accept that a boat found its way onto Ararat. Then we can argue about whether it is the ark or not :)

I didn't mean that professional deceivers were dishonest :) far from it.

Houdini, the Amazing Randi, and other conjurers were/are completely up front about the fact that their tricks involve deception and sleight of hand - the challenge they offer to an audience is try and figure out how they did it.

However, their tricks do involve distracting the audience from penetrating the actual mechanism of the trick. That's why they are superbly qualified to identify charlatanism - both Houdini and Randi devoted much time to doing so, because they were qualified.

I see. But if you dismiss the latter, which you admit has been discredited, how do you establish the former. As the Rips paper points out in it's introduction: "the phenomenon was first discovered several decades ago by Rabbi Weissmandel," and goes on to say:

According to the paper, it's purpose was to "study the phenomenon systematically." In short, this was the paper that was supposed to show "scientifically" that the codes do exist. You say the first part of the Rips paper is the part you endorse. But actually, the first part merely recounts the problems associated with establishing that the codes exist. It was the second part that was supposed to prove the codes actually exist, and, of course, it is the second part that was found to have problems, as you admit.

Do you, therefore, agree that there is "no rigorous way of determining if these occurrences were not merely due to the enormous quantity of combinations of words and expressions that can be constructed by searching out arithmetic progressions in the text"?

Cliff Beall - Sunday, 07/25/99, 3:40:27pm (#4780 of 4782) How do I know the professional deceiver is not seeking to deceive me?

Normally,it is an offenceand highly dangerous to name somebody rich and famous ..accusing him,his company ,his gov,state(as mafia gang leader)by giving address ,phone .This situation is a last resort.When somone is saying "I am the prince and he is the pauper ,take me to my family .." In this case the deceiver ,and deceived is so obvious...The deceiver had access to block all the road or door of re-entry of the real person... When the IDs & address of the two are available-why would you like to be continually deceived one way or another ..? That is called addiction to living on deceiving ! It is time to bring two parties together - and punish one party for fooling around 6 billion for 25 yrs ,teaching all wrong things...If by chance involves me get in touch with me [email protected]

I don't think so, Benz. Keep your eyes peeled.

And I told you, in the spirit of truth and understanding, that I never made the claim that Genesis itself referred to all these lands. The claim I made was, and I do quote:

Wherein did I ever say that Genesis alone says this? No where. I said that the Old Testament, including Genesis, refers to these lands, implying that Genesis mentions some, but certainly not all, of them.

Yet you counter with one of your typically misleading insinuations, this time that I said Genesis alone refers to these lands!

Good. You've no longer any excuses asking me to look up verses when they're at your own fingertips.

First, the connection between Rosh and Russia is not "generally accepted" fact, but "well-established" fact.

In the 9th and 10th centuries it was known as Rus' (apostrophe intended). Written records from 6th Century clearly indicated modern Russia derived its name from the people of Rus, the Swedis

(cont)

In the 9th and 10th centuries it was known as Rus' (apostrophe intended). Written records from 6th Century clearly indicated modern Russia derived its name from the people of Rus, the Swedish Roslagen county. More specifically, Rus comes from the Finnish name for Sweden, Ruotsi, which came from roosmenn, men of the rowing-way, the people of today's Roslagen, the Rowing-Law, the coastal area of Swedish Uppland, originally settled by Rosh, son of Bejamin, son of Jacob. Apparently, in those lands where fishing and water travel were principle ways of life, often by rowing, the decedants of Rosh came to be known as the roosmenn.

Next time, perhaps you'd like to conduct your own research instead of foisting the burden on others and with airs of disdain claim that "it doesn't exist" simply because you're too lazy to go find it.

You're a scientist - it's called research. Try it - you'll like it!

More from Leszak:

Incorrect. I chose to tell you to do your own research once in a while instead of claiming the opposite without any proof of your own.

China: "Chinese civilization, as described in mythology, begins with Pangu, the creator of the universe, and a succession of legendary sage-emperors and culture heroes (among them are Huang Di , Yao, and Shun) who taught the ancient Chinese to communicate and to find sustenance, clothing, and shelter." Courtesy of the University of Maryland's History Dept.

Yao is a derivative of YWAH.

However, in answer to your question of how the ancient Hebrews knew of China...

I would imagine they knew of China the same way everyone else at that time knew of China: Trading. Marco Polo didn't find the trade routes. He simply followed them and made their presence more widely known to Europe.

Because of your own incredible open-mindedness (snicker), I can only assumre you must be the scientist's poster child...

Not until the arrival of Cain. "Nod" means "Wandering." Meaningful names of places was common in Hebrew culture. In this case, it refers to God's edict to Cain: "You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."

So you see, Cain's occupation of the land preceeded its name of Nod.

First, we know that neither Adam nor Eve wrote it. As they're the only two humans from Eden, your statement is hardly awe-inspiring news.

Second, as Eden was in what is now Souther Iraq, and Genesis was penned during the Israelites' desert wanderings after their exodus from RamsesII of Egypt, naturally both the writer and the readers would think of Eden as being towards the East. Again, no surprise.

Could be, although as he hadn't a clue as to his future until being sent back to face Pharoah, it's highly unlikely he wrote it then. It's far more likely Genesis was penned during the Israelites' 40-year wandering.

No, nor can I seem to find any further reference, other than it was a local who'd kept a piece of wood collected long ago during one of those hot summers, and gave a splinter of it up for dating. Results: about 10k to 18k years ago (don't recall exact dates).

However, as Arrarat was a mountain range, and not just a single mountain at the time Moses wrote Genesis, it's entirely possible the Ark didn't land on Mt. Arrarat. I've heard Josephus (ancient historian) referred to a mountain about 200 miles south of Arrarat. I've also heard that Arabic records cite the last remains of the Ark being hauled off about a thousand years ago.

Perhaps Benz can help us with this last one.

If it's indeed nothing more than mythology, then one must demarcate the point where in the OT the prophecies concerning Christ become fact. Christ has fulfilled all prophecies concerning him, except the ones about his return, of course. If some prophecies were interspersed with myth, it'd cast serious doubt on the prohecies as a whole, and thus Christ's authenticity as the Biblical saviour.

Look at the bottom of a dollar bill. It reads: MDCCLXVI which is, of course, 1776.

However, it's a well-known fact the design was masonic, down to the last detail. Taking three masonic pyramids and placing the Roman numeral dates along them in typical masonic fashion (top, lower left, lower right), we find that the foundation of the pyramids reads DC, LX, and VI, or 600, 60, and 60. In Revelation, John's Greek reading is literally six-hundred, three-score (60), and six.

Furthermore, the MCX (1000, 100, and 10) along the top forms the basis of the Arabic numbering system, which forms the basis of the masonic origens of the metric system.

I'd encourage you to read the rest of the article. While you're at it, look up some information on the true origens of the masons.

Complaint noted. Didn't mean to tick you off. I get a little testy around 4am.

Sorry. Would you be so kind as to link to the previous post or suitable recounting? I'll be happy to supply you with chapter and verse.

Ahhh, but not on the 4th of July! I remember...

Great site, Cliff! I especially like the following quote: "Some areas of scientific research are so sensitive and so jealously guarded by conventional science that anyone who dares to dabble in them -- or even to debate them in public -- is likely to bring down condemnation from the scientific establishment on their head, and risk being derided, ridiculed or even called insane."

Leszek appears to represent, almost to a "T," the current dogmatic theories in science. As such, he's often the first on this board to denounce anything out of the ordinary.

For example, Leszek would probably denounce the following as false: "High-intensity magnetic levitation is not only possible, it's been done, even on a live frog."

However, this is not false. It's true.

Another quote for Leszek: "Even more baffling is the fact that radically different genetic coding can give rise to animals that look outwardly very similar and exhibit similar behaviour, while creatures that look and behave completely differently can have much in common genetically. There are, for instance, more than 3,000 species of frogs, all of which look superficially the same. But there is a greater variation of DNA between them than there is between the bat and the blue whale."

Similarly, good scientists remain convinced that their highly cherished theories are accurate, often in spite of significant evidence to the contrary.

For example, the Leakeys, who know little of genetic testing methodologies, denounced the tests which proved that more than 80% of their tree structures were false, and declined to release any more of their extensive collection for further testing. Needless to say, their funding took a nose dive when this information was made public.

The Leakeys were so sure of themselves that they fully expected the DNA tests to substantiate their findings, thus increasing their financial support.

Their fault lie not in their scientific methods, but in their premise that bone structure and dimensions remain relatively constant throughout short-period lineages, a fact which most modern forensic anthropologists know is a bunch of hooplah, as they work with deceased families' skulls on a regular basis.

Regardless of whether the Ark is actually on Mt. Arrarat or not (I've some doubt), it's highly unlikely that the more reputable institutions will risk being accused of chasing ghosts for the remote chance of a once-in-a-lifetime discovery.

If it radio-dated to the appropriate time period and was of the same dimensions spoke of in the Bible, contained the residue of several hundred day's worth of animal dander (I assume they tossed the dung overboard) from a wide variety of species, would that be enough to convince you, Leszek?

I hope it is the Ark. However, if it's not, it wouldn't surprise me. Might even be an old wooden monestary built in a forgotten time. Then again, monestaries aren't built with keels...

Dave, all that you need do is clik on the provided link-location; thanks for the new links. The conclusion in the third here :

seems to support my earlier post :

Added to it, there are more kinds of time, as Joy presented before.

More later, Namaste to all,

SeS

The Rips paper points out both, the original as an introduction (including a pictorial representation!), and the latter along with their proximetry statistics "proving" their efficacy.

However, the former was not established by the Rips paper. Rather, the Rips paper is established (or attempts to be) by the former.

No, I do not, as you're apparently still in limbo as to the difference between the original ELS Bible code (quite simple), and the proximetric Bible codes espoused by Rips and Co. Your description is of the latter, not the former.

Once again, the original ELS codes include TORH in the first two books, and its reverse in the last two books, with a 49-space sequence, and YWAH in the middle book with a 7-space sequence.

This is exceedingly difficult (impossible with the other ELS codes) to compose, and is in no way to be confused by the common occurrence of words, even in close mutual proximity, interspersed throughout the Bible and all other books, for that matter.

As you can see, I'm well adept at providing links (cut and paste). However, your link wasn't functional, as is the one above. Instead, yours came through as:

Dave, the two links (theory and application) given in :

Dave Resnick - Saturday, 07/03/99, 10:39:28pm (#4165 of 4499)

appear intricate requiring a search.

Still convinced by phoneme coincidences, I see. Rosh=Russia. And "Yao [who wasn't even a god] is a derivative of YWAH". And then you expect me to believe, without any corroborative evidence, that "Rosh, son of Bejamin, son of Jacob" settled in Sweden? Yes, the Swedes are well known for their semitic looks, language and culture. *sigh* Perhaps the Rosh reference was actually to Prussia. Ever thought of that? As far as I am concerned, in the absence of useful information, this argument is closed.

Actually, I took a closer look at Cliff's alternative Science site - it contains some real howlers! :) Some of the stuff they list as gospel is not quite so. Other times they have point. A mixed bag.

If that claim is true, and you don't provide a reference for your quote so I have no means of checking its validity, all it need mean is that either frog DNA mutates faster than mammalian DNA and/or they contain more redundant DNA (the likelier explanations), or those frog species diverged earlier than bats and whales (theoretically possible, but I doubt it's supported by fossil evidence).

The key piece of information that you ignore is the difference between frogs, and bats and whales, which exceeds any differences within those groups and is predicted by evolutionary theory. That clearly shows that all frogs are in one group, whereas bats and whales are in another with the rest of the mammals.

Now if they'd found that some frogs are more closely related to bats, and others more closely related to whales, that would have been a disconfirmation of evolutionary expections. They didn't and haven't.

(BTW, do you notice how I manage to rebut your arguments without personal remarks?)

Dave,

Thanks for the generous response in the midst of such a busy morning. I realize my questions are not surprising they are simply the result of an objective reading.

"Not until the arrival of Cain. "Nod" means "Wandering.""

Do you mean that the other people were not created until the arrival of Cain? Why is there no record of this? It is assumed that others exist. The important story seems to be one of the special creation of the Hebrews in an existing world.

I do not see the problem with accepting the Bible at face value. The prophecies can still be prophecies and the myths can still be myths. Accepting all of Genesis as absolutely true creates unecessary problems that relate to this board.

The prophets can correctly forecast Jesus side by side with the myths. Stories of 'where does the rainbow come from' and 'where did we come from' are found in the mythology of most societies.

TOM

Dave Resnick - Monday, 07/26/99, 2:15:48am (#4788 of 4796) Perhaps Benz can help us with this last one. "Why must I accept Hebrew mythology to know Jesus? If it's indeed nothing more than mythology, then one must demarcate the point where in the OT the prophecies concerning Christ become fact. Christ has fulfilled all prophecies concerning him, except the ones about his return, of course. If some prophecies were interspersed with myth, it'd cast serious doubt on the prohecies as a whole, and thus Christ's authenticity as the Biblical saviour..."

Dave, You asked my anlysis concerning return of Christ....(authentic Christ or fit with digital glowing, meteorite white crystal dispersed cloud,or NASA's nov 4,1995, 10 trillion kn Jesus shaped gas or oil people version 1991 codes..)

As I wrote to Jesus #4 ( 10 m AHMADIYYAs),Jesus,son of Ahmed came and died.Now we have two Jesuses. 1.Jesus ,son of Mary 2.Jesus,son of Ahmed. God had created ,Jesus and Adam from the same technology (both fatherless)But Adam was motherless too.Human gets independent soul from the God on 120 th day of pregnancy .Mary, sustained Jesus until 119th day with her own soul which was reinforced with Jesus's own soul on 120th day .Was Adam in a cloning lab test tube (instead of mother) ? Then I discovered, human has link with underground earth , the God Almighty of universe as well as universe meteorites or materials ...... NASA & oil companies are trying to bring a custom made Jesus in a manmade UFO .Past few days I wrote,about the God, Gibreel and UFO and where one likely to retrieve original Jesus's body. I analysed three together -Bible ,Torah & Quran .I found the God,the Gabriel,UFO,the Jesus ,the signs of unification into one religion,neutrinos,relativity mechanism and factors controlling correct interpretation of religion incorporating the God alongwith correct method of control

contd..

controlling population,environment,food and resources.I already wrote about it in CNN that by eliminating a few individuals who have taken control of resource and flowing the bloods .But I do not understand why NATO is suddenly calling themselves Kfor,Jews- since 1948 Bani Israel ,Prince Salman /Talal/Fahds (friends of Kfor & bani Israel inducing relativity of Einstein without God & Hillary's stuff,NASA's digital Jesus while terrorizing me since 1973)... Benz Zakar

Well, looks like Dave is launching his missiles in all directions now!

Out of curiosity Dave (because I have to admit it - I haven't been following your thread too closely), these wondrous geographic references to Rosh etc. Are they present in the Hebrew original, the Greek translations or the (eventual) English translations?

You've made several references to "historians" yet haven't actually cited them by name. It's been my experience that history is even more rift with politics and revisionism then science is (or what you appear to think science is).

BTW, I personally would appreciate it if you could tone down your condescension and personal attacks - Leszek (and others) have maintained skepticism, but are still keeping open the lines of communication. Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And in your case, given your track record of claiming "established facts", you've got to pony it up up front. For reference I would remind you of your various claims (condescending I might add) about time being discrete - which as I pointed out there is no observational evidence for. You even cited experiments which actually in no way demonstrated your said discreteness (I'm not saying time is not discrete - it may be, but there is no EXPERIMENTAL evidence of it, which is what you had claimed) Enough of a digression.

I look forward to the continuing tirade of snide and personal vindictiveness....

Whoops:

There was a "smiley" at the end of the last post that got lost in the transition....

BTW, if we can introduce "alternative science", can we also do so with religious scholarship (Dave will have a conniption over this I'm sure ;)). Such as the Jesus seminar and their take on divinity? I seem to recall some work regarding authorship of Genesis concluding it was written by several people (3 or 4 as I recall) over a period of several centuries, and they concluded that one of the authors was a woman (how do the Pope and Pat Robertson feel about that? <beg> as Leszek like to say). Hhhhmmm. From what I've heard, the scholarship is just as credible as the "Bible codes". Tee hee. Let the missives fly....

ps. No, I don't have a site handy, and no I'm not going to look it up right now - i'm a little busy today - guess I'm lazy. But then again I beleive little on the web anyways...

I think , solution to the problem is within reach..Solution of what?1.Jesus 2.father ,the son,the holy ghost 3. why religion from Adam to Pharoas,Hinduism,Buddhism,Abrahamans,Jews,Christians,Muslims" 4.Jesus & Adam (fatherless) Adam motherless 5.OIL & UN religion........for which King Abds Aziz , Saudis ,came up with Einstein's relativity without God,Bani Israel (since 1948) ,NASA ...Anti Islamic banking... My experience of God,ufo,Quran,industrial work which during 1973-1999 changed $55/barrel to massacres and ethnic cleasings... Cliff Beall - Sunday, 07/25/99, 3:40:27pm (#4780 of 4802) .....But the idea that dishonesty is required to uncover dishonesty is somewhat bothersome for me."... Cliff: ... "Christian" originally meant "slave of Christ". benz zakar - Monday, 07/26/99, 9:17:48am (#4799 of 4802)"Dave Resnick - Monday, 07/26/99, 2:15:48am (#4788 of 4796) Perhaps Benz can help us with this last one. "Why must I accept Hebrew mythology to know Jesus? "............ The research materials came from .......Joy Bussey,Rosemary Behan,Cliff Beall,E.C.Phd,SES,Tom Harper,Dave Resnick,Leszek Respecki,Andrew D Lewis,Keith,CNN,BBC etc.......... If we rush and locate Baal ,MJ ,Waltz Disney ,NASA ,Talal,Salman, my DurgaMa,Clinton,Tony Blair,Jesus #4.Qadhafi,Itzhak Samir , Saddam,Geocities' ......we have solution to the entire problems of the past ,present, future ...including Adam,Eve,Jesus,mother of adam,atom & universe technology, ,Dinosaurs...... Non-efforts will result in delays, death of my mother (80), resume bombing in Iraq and setting ablaze oilfields ....nuclear threat ,driving Saudis out ,questioning USA debt of$4- $5 trillion Canada's debt of $800 B -$1 trillion ..IMF/UN massacreand theft status.. and related blood flows..God & ufo of Bible ,Torah & Quran exist ( we are suppose to find a compromise .Don't runaway ).. Benz Zakar

Deleted by CNN

Leszek you pompous a**, this is not my conclusion, but the conclusion of historians, linguists, and anthropologists who know well the lineages of many nations.

For someone who claims to be a scientist, you certainly are lacking in knowledge.

I don't doubt you're an accomplished writer, as your prose flows smoothly over the airwaves tickling the ears of those who would listen.

However, based on the evidence at hand and your continual denial of well-established facts in a wide variety of disciplines, I strongly doubt that you are an actual scientist, as you claim to be.

If so, prove me wrong! When were you published? I can find no reference in a number of comprehensive online references to volumes of published works, including the Library of Congress, unless, of course, your first name happens to be Edward.

As a "scientist" who works with protein sequences, I expected you to be well verse in the developments in your field, especially ones with so much importance that scientists would, as you claim, flock to its discovery.

They did, you didn't. Questions?

As would the fact remaining, that the difference between some frog species is significantly wider than the difference between whales and bats.

Form follows function, and not always genetic or evolutionary lines.

Until I have time to research this further, I'll concede this as a possibility, but not as a probability. I'd heard such before, yet haven't researched the rebuttals.

At any rate, the time span between Eden, when combined with the normal rate of genetic variability within our species, is more than sufficient to result in the widely varying characteristics found throughout the world.

I meant the last one prior to this statement, involving Islam, not the prophecies surrounding Christ, which was a response another's question.

KFOR stands for Kosovo FORces. It's merely a NATO unit who's primary area of responsibility involves the war in Kosovo.

Yes. Proper names are not "translated," other than the addition of vowels to make them readible, such as YWAH's translation to Yawah.

I can find quite a bit of material on the Internet, but I've also found that they're gaping holes on it, as well, and this is one of them.

However, if you're interested in persuing this further, I suggest you check out some volumes on the lineage of Russia from your local university library. Let us known what you find!

"Extraordinary?" That Rosh is Russia is not extraordinary, but well-established fact! I can't help it if your education didn't include a history of peoples and languages.

And? Did not follow the links and either verify or refute the math?

Fire a high-speed projectile and photograph it with a single stroboscopic flash. You will obtain multiple, discreete images. I provided a link to such pictures. Did you not receive them? Regardless, this is more evidence that the movement of matter is discreet, not time.

If time were indeed discreet, would we ever know it? It may be that it's progession within a local area is uniform, and therefore, to the observer, would appear to be continuous.

Despite your obvious anti-Resnickian stance, your quotes and parphrases of my posts have been accurate, not misleading, and thus completely unworthy of vindication as to your methods, which, to date, appear completely above-board and non-deceptive.

This is not only normal, but quite different than Leseck's earlier posts. I must say, however, that he's improved. It used to be as bad as the following (simulated):

Myself: The car is green and ran down the road.

Leseck: Your car obviously has little regard for things if it continues to run them down.

You laugh, yet I do not jest. His earlier responses were this far off the mark!

Yeah, bring it on.

Yeah, "obviously," as evidenced by the "plethora" of remarks I've directed against Benz whose religious views appear to be diametrically opposed to my own.

Sorry Devon, but your remarks are off track. Try again.

What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, eh? Sorry, but you can't chide me for not delivering when you yourself are so unwilling to do likewise.

Dave Resnick

I have little doubt your personal attack on me will be removed in the fullness of time. However, let me rescue a few salient points before it bites the dust. And I will do so, as usual, without personal insults :)

You completely miss the point. For all their difference - quoted from some source you want to keep secret and immune from questioning - frogs as a group are vastly different in their genetic coding from mammals. Frogs sit *here*... mammals are way over *there*. Variability within phyla is irrelevent as it is much smaller than variability between phyla. IOW, the difference in genetic coding between all frogs and mammals is greater than any difference between frogs, or between mammals.

I hope this puts the frog red herring to rest.

Once you get up to speed on biology, I hope for some fruitful discussion.

Dave Resnick - Monday, 07/26/99, 6:02:13pm (#4805 of 4807) "benz zakar 7/26/99 9:17am But I do not understand why NATO is suddenly calling themselves Kfor .."

KFOR stands for Kosovo FORces.

Thanks Dave.What I had written was that Koran came 1400 years ago talking about crimes of Bani Israel,Kfor ...With your help ,I compared my relativity with God vs Einstein's without God.Bani Isarel was created in 1948 and Kfor now..Then a few days ago ,I wrote they are planning quake using Armenian reactors alongwith other crimes befitting Koranic verses.Verse came first crime latter.Usually crime is first ,report is written later.I just heard big quake in n Iran..For this advanced forecast on JFKennedy ..,Jean Dixon had become celebrity..Mine everything(incl inventions/estate/businesses/jobs) went for free...Benz Zakar

I agree that there are some "howlers," Leszek. But, in most cases--if not all--the "howlers" are there to make a point and the main point I see is that "science" does not always follow the "evidence" trail as much as the "delivered opinion" trail. In that regard, I think the site hits the mark.

I admit that it opens itself for "out of context" quotation, and in that sense, I wish it had omitted some of the more obvious "howlers." Nevertheless, increasingly, it is becoming clear to me that scientific research comes down to who gets the money. For example, if the evidence for autodynamics is lacking, it may be because most of the money for scientific research is being used in an attempt to detect and analysis neutrinos.

BTW, Leszek, I am impressed. You actually published a paper with the title: "alpha,beta-Dehydro-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine derivatives: potential schlerotization intermediates in natural composite materials" :-) Not bad!

A valid point, but perhaps not that important in the long run. Now true, this can mean that scientific prophets occasionally aren't recognized in their own lifetime, but frequently they are. As a graduate student, I had personal experience of one who was researching in a field that no-one thought had any promise. They pooh-poohed the ideas, they wouldn't believe the conclusions that here was another completely different second messenger pathway for certain hormones - they only knew of the pathways that had been discovered before, so they were skeptical.

He persevered, proved his point through many publications in peer-reviewed journals, and eventually even the skeptics were won around. He managed to create an entire new research field, and eventually was made a Fellow of the Royal Society, with a Professorship of his own at Birmingham University. The name is Michel RH - you can look that one up too, associated with phosphoinositides :)

I agree this is a disaster in the making.

You have inadvertently advertized one of my own acute embarrassments. When I proof-read the galleys of paper you refer to, I failed to see that the printers had introduced a spelling error into the title. I swear it wasn't mine originally! :) It should be "sclerotization", not "schlerotization". As my mentor later remarked, it was a case of "schlerotization for schlepps"! I never lived that one down! :) When we sent out reprints, we didn't send out originals... we sent out photocopies that had the title doctored with a razor blade (not Occam's) to remove the error!

How easy it is to overlook mistakes, even in the most painstakingly reviewed material. Yet some are so certain that stuff casually published on the net is true. Oh well, more fool them.

The problem I had with their article on cold fusion research was that it referred to a demonstration of "boiling water" as a result of the cold fusion experiment... I never heard of this before, and frankly, I don't believe it. The most anyone ever saw, as far as I know, was a slight increase in temperature. No boiling water anywhere.

Worse, the experimental apparatus was not that expensive for appropriate labs to set up. Many did. The vast majority got negative results.

This smacks of serious misreporting to me, and leads me to doubt the entire site - their articles on "Darwinism" and other evolutionary controversies were equally suspect and biased.

I have no doubt that many of their stories are perfectly valid, and point to cases where scientists were blind to novel discoveries - scientists are human after all. But I can't help but get the feeling, with all their misreporting, that they actually have an antiscientific axe to grind. So I take it with a large pinch of salt.

Dave,

As I recall Russia was founded be Rurik the Viking in 680AD. I could be off by a bit (860?) but I think it was well beyond Moses and his folks in the desert. Before that Russia was not unified.

Yes, there was time for dispersion and evolution to the state of races today. But, there is an odd coincidence. Your assumed dates of creation ~7000BC coincide nicely with the domestication of grains and the spread of culture from northern Africa around the middle east and into Europe. It is a matter of history that the Hebrews were a part of this migration. This explosion of civilization observed no great cultures or cities that preceeded them. It was reasonable to assume that the creation was a recent event.

We now have evidence that it was not.

TOM

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Leszek. Your points were well taken as usual.

Sorry about the advertisement. It really was inadvertent. It started as an idle exercise in which I counted the words of each title that I did not know (and did not want to know, BTW), and ended as part of my post.

Don't worry about it, it's all water under the bridge now... if it is any comfort (I'm sure it isn't!), you are talking to one of the world experts on peptidyl 3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine chemistry, but I was never able to parley it into a paying position.

C'est la vie. No doubt, I was before my time :)

I'm looking forward to other challenges...

However, the exercise gave me a sound grounding in scientific methodology. Which is why I have a nose and aversion for pseudoscience when I see it. It irritates me. It does not ring true, and one of the hallmarks of it is a constant personal denigration of scientists who won't accept unsupported assertions as gospel. Especially if they actually are unsupported biblical gospel.

Dave,

I did a little research on the net. This lecturer finds 2 stories where I find 3. But, he is educated in the field. He also confirms what I assumed, the the first story is the oldest and predates Moses.

"The J story (so named because the J writer always calls God, Yahweh) is the oldest source strata, and the P story (so named because it is associated with the priestly caste of ancient Israel) is the most recent."

Dave,

I did a little research on the net. This lecturer finds 2 stories where I find 3. But, he is educated in the field. He also confirms what I assumed, the the first story is the oldest and predates Moses.

"The J story (so named because the J writer always calls God, Yahweh) is the oldest source strata, and the P story (so named because it is associated with the priestly caste of ancient Israel) is the most recent."

http://www.huntingdon.edu/las/1998-99/101/genesis.html

TOM

Dave,

Oooops! How did that happen? Oh well

SYL

TOM