Not only Intelligent Design - but DIVINE DESIGN!

HI Anita,You certainly seem to have led yourself up the garden path on this one... Are you? You are aware that the Book of Enoch explicitely describes the Earth as flat, right? Or that in the Book of Enoch, the sun moves in relation to the Earth, not the other way around?I have read the BoE and all I can say about it is that it is one of the few things I've read that is even crazier than your thesis.You remind me of a former member here, a lady named Brenda Tucker. Brenda was a very nice person, with a lot of outlandish ideas. She could never understand why her rambling theses failed to convince anyone at EvC. She accused us of being closed-minded.I suggest that you take a look at some of Brenda's output, such as in Raising Standards. Notice how clear it is that Brenda is a little bit crazy. Notice how oblivious Brenda is to this fact. Then take another look at the responses to your messages. See any similarity?The truth is that you are pursuing a crazy idea. You have brought it here, only to be hailed as the latest internet crazy to bring their crazy thesis to EvC. We've all seen it before, doubtless we'll see it again. I urge you to stop playing silly games with wire and dump this nonsense. It's wrong. You are just getting over-excited about a few vague similarities in shape, that's all. No-one is ever going to take this seriously, because there is nothing to take seriously and if you insist upon banging your head against this particular wall, you are only going to cause yourself harm.Mutate and Survive

Score one for Anita, in the sense that we can't pinpoint the individuals or their initial attempts. We can't say how many times writing has been invented, because we don't know how many writing systems arose, died out, and vanished without a trace because they were implemented only on perishable media.We are only aware of the ones that have been in use fairly recently, and/or have been recorded on durable materials such as clay, stone, bone, shells, etc. As for these, we actually do know a fair bit in terms of when, where, and which language.I think it's no coincidence that the oldest writing samples we are aware of came from agrarian cultures with fairly well established practices of creating durable architecture and maintaining fairly elaborate social structures (trade, hierarchy, etc). Accurate preservation of statements has appreciable value in such cultures. Um, sorry Anita. Postulations about the relative ages for the oldest known writing systems are based on very solid, physical evidence. Methods for dating the extant examples of writing are quite robust now, and considerable care has been taken by many researchers to reduce uncertainties and margins of error. In case you are one of those people who doubt these methods, there's a whole forum here at EvC about dating, and I commend especially the threads initiated by RAZD, about age correlations among different methods.Anyway, based on the evidence, Phoenician was the first known alphabetic writing system, and its relationship to the descendent alphabets of Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, Latin, Cyrillic, Armenian, etc, is reasonably well established. The wikipedia page on Phoenician is a good place to start, as it is based on (and consistent with) several very good reference works on the topic. Okay, let's agree not to talk about any writing of the world that wasn't written... How big is that chapter? How many references do you cite? {AbE: Can you mention at least one reference that you cite? Apart from the Bible, I mean.} Would it ruin your commercial success as an author to share with us, in this forum, at least one piece of evidence for this assertion? Maybe just something like this: Describe any one observable fact showing how Chinese (or Korean, or Japanese, or Sumerian cuneiform, or Egyptian hieroglyphs) constitutes "a form of the same Hebrew letters" (whether or not these letters "came down with Moses" -- no need cloud the problem with irrelevant impossibilities). It's not hard to make a case that all the letters in Hebrew are formed from "one prototype" -- they are just lines on a flat surface after all, and there aren't so very many basic shapes to start from. Indeed, it's an admirable but uncomplicated feat of economy to keep the overall design of the character set fairly simple and consistent. Which "natures law"? Oh, the thing about Fibonacci and Pi and Phi and binary digits and all that? I'll defer to lyx2no's reply on that. (But I can elaborate on it a little: you left out the equally important relationships between Hebrew and: Tarot cards, shapes of constellations, the movements of the planets (whether around the sun or around the earth), and the human female menstruation cycle -- which brings in the moon's orbit as well!! I'm sure I'm leaving something out... {AbE -- Oh yeah: if you can factor in the natural exponent e, the gravitational constant, and/or the speed of light, then you'll really have something.}) Yes, I think this isn't amazing. But wait: you said just a few sentences before this one that all the other alphabets in the world today (and apparently all the non-alphabetic writing systems as well) are based on Hebrew -- you said you had a whole chapter about this. And now you're saying that these other writing systems don't derive all their letters (or whatever they have) from one form, just like Hebrew did?It looks like you have a self-contradiction there, Anita. Are both of these mutually-exclusive assertions in your book, or is it just that your book says one thing, and here in this forum you say the opposite?Oh, maybe your point is that all the non-Hebrew writing systems are "defective" or "fallen", and so have lost all the magical, mystical, spiritual, universal and cosmic attributes of the Hebrew alphabet from which they were derived? I'm not sure how best to respond an argument like that.I mean, if you actually do make such an assertion, what good would it do for me to point out things like "independent invention" (applying to Chinese ideographs, Japanese Kana, Korean Hangul) and "phonological differences among languages" (applying to all non-Hebrew languages that adopted other variants of the Phoenician alphabet), to explain why it's absurdly ignorant to speak of other writing systems as "fallen" versions of the Hebrew alphabet?I almost hesitate to ask: what is your position on the relevance of the Tower of Babel story to the history of human languages? I suspect that watching paint dry would be more informative than reading your book (though the book is bound to be more amusing).Edited by Otto Tellick, : (as indicated in text)Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor spelling fixes, another addition: asking for one reference about history of writing

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

Look, I don’t have all day to rehash the Bible with uninformed people - obviously that is why I wrote a book. I have given you ample enough evidence already, and thus I will give it again:http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...nation.pdfI came here to talk peacefully and amicably. If anyone here is truly interested in conversation, instead of trolling and disrespect, I am here to discuss it, otherwise I will choose not to respond.If you choose not to believe what I write that is your prerogative, but please keep the sarcasm to yourself. Coyote, you are incorrect about this. Geologist know that the entire earth was covered by marine flood sedimentation (salt water from the sea) consisting of marine fossils which are found in all rock strata. However, except for places that have risen due to plate tectonics places like Yosemite. Since these places were obviously under the ground at the time of the Great Flood and have recently surfaced.Additionally, rocks that are exposed to water for a length of time (such as the great flood) can cause the elements to leak out do to solubility. Such as salts of uranium and other radioactive elements which are quite capable of dissolving in water, making all the age measurements flat-out USELESS! The proof of how water can effect radioactive dating can be found when the Hawaiian volcano Kilauea was recorded to have erupted less than 200 years ago and the lava from this eruption was submerged under water. It was later dated to be 22 million years old. Other samples come from Hualalai which erupted in 1800 were dated to be 300 thousand million years old. Granny Magda, you are incorrect, perhaps you are a selective reader to entertain your fancy contemporary perspective.Enoch created what is called the henge which has evolved into our modern day calendar of 365 days. Not only was he the first scribe, but he was also the first calendar maker.In addition to this, the Hebrews clearly knew that the earth was round Luke 17:34-36 - I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed, the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together, the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field, the one shall be taken, and the other left. Therefore, when the Lord was describing the manner of His coming to set up His kingdom. In that night, there will be people doing the following three things: (1) sleeping (2) grinding (3) working in the fields. Now the obvious questions to ask oneself is:When do people sleep? - At night...When are Eastern women grinding food? - Early morning...When are men working in the field?- Broad daylight...This means that at the same moment that G-d comes, it will be night some place on earth, early morning somewhere else, and broad daylight in yet another place. One can easily see that in order for that to be true, THE WORLD WOULD HAVE TO BE ROUND. Theodoric, now as to the validity of the Bible... please cite for me what you have discovered is incorrect. As far a Noahs Ark goes no we have not found it yet, but the allegory found in the Bible which includes mathematics has not been discredited. If the biblical math is correct, this helps lend hand to the story. What I am getting at here Theodoric is that you claim the Bible is incorrect, when (as it appears) it is not!For instance since you bring up Noahs Ark Noah made the ark 300 cubits (450 feet) in length. It was 50 cubits (75 feet) in width, and 30 cubits (45 feet) in height. People believe that back in Bible times a cubit was a man's arm from elbow to fingertips. So normally a cubit was about 18 inches.People also used math to build King Solomon’s Pool. It was 10 cubits in distance, 5 cubits in height, and its circumference, or distance around, was 30 cubits.The Ark of the Covenant used math too. It was 2.5 cubits long and 1.5 wide and high. The temple the ark was in was 500 cubits by 500 cubits.If you want to cite other things in the Bible and continue to try and discredit its authenticity - bring it on! Now back on the subject of the Hebrew letters What I have given you here is more proof than the theory of evolution will ever provide!The Bible is the best selling book of all time - this should tell you something. Edited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given.

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

You have not refuted any of the evidence in my post #28.Try again?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This is absolutely untrue. May I suggest that you study geology before you start talking about it? Now, if only creationists had some experimental evidence for this. After all, if it was true, they'd just have to get a real scientist to date a rock, keep it underwater for a year or so, and then get the scientist to date the rock again. If its measured age had increased by several billion years, they'd have proved their point.Funny how no creationist ever does this, isn't it?Instead, they concentrate on trivial misunderstandings like the following: This, of course, has nothing to do with uranium salts leaching out, and everything to do with the fact that the K-Ar method can't be applied to pillow basalt, as you'd know if you'd taken a moment's interest in the subject you're talking nonsense about. Evidence? Clearly not all of them. But perhaps by the time the Gospel of Luke was written, the Roman Empire had brought the Jews into contact with Greek learning --- the Greeks, of course, discovered that the world was round centuries before the Gospel of Luke was written. I don't see the point. Yes, some ancient manuscripts talk about the sizes of things. Why do you mention it? What you have given us is an unclear argument substantiated by no evidence whatsoever. That there's one born every minute?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The theory of evolution (ToE) has nothing at all to say about Hebrew letters or any other writing system, because it's about biology, not about linguistics. In fact none of the claims you've been making in this thread have anything to do with the ToE, so I wonder why you even mention it. Do you allow peaceful and amicable conversation to include me pointing out the errors you are making? I for one tend to appreciate it when someone takes the trouble to point out my mistakes, because I'd rather not repeat them. It's especially helpful to me when I get objective evidence that makes it clear where I went wrong, so I can make a suitable correction.Or would you rather just limit the interaction to me saying stuff like "Oh, okay, I see where your position may have some merit"? That would be somewhat dishonest on my part, and it doesn't do you any good either.I realize that my first reply in this thread contained some sarcasm and ridicule, which many people would consider disrespectful. I apologize. Let me try to be frank without rancor.Asserting that the design of Hebrew letters has anything to do with mathematical constants such as the Golden Ratio, Pi, etc, is nothing more than idle and groundless speculation. Showing pictures of seashells and pipe-cleaners bent into odd shapes does not constitute proof of anything having to do with Hebrew letters.Any assertion you make about Hebrew being the first writing system has no direct or even circumstantial evidence to support it; instead, there is rather a lot of very solid evidence, involving much older writings from other languages, to refute your claim, which you base solely on your own particular interpretation of (and implausible extrapolation beyond) one or another story as told in Bible.You are starting with an unshakable belief that the Bible is inerrant, and that your own peculiar interpretation of it is correct. You then decide that there must be something profoundly divine about the Hebrew language and writing system. From there, it's just one gaffe after another as you try to sustain these ideas in the face of both real-world evidence and what the Bible actually says.In trying to refute Coyote, your notion of what geologists know is simply too confused, and too far off the mark from what geologists have actually said about sedimentation, marine fossils and strata, to be taken seriously. Yes, all sedimentary strata were underwater at some time or another -- that's because sediments are laid down in sea beds, the particles having been eroded from higher ground by rain and flowing water, and deposited at the point where the water enters the sea. But there hasn't been any single point when all ground was covered by sea water at the same time. That is what geologists know.In order to refute Granny Magda's point about the Book of Enoch describing a flat earth, you cite the NT book of Luke, on a completely unrelated matter, and extrapolate a meaning from the latter passage which the original author surely did not intend.Your attribution of meaningful "math" in the OT includes the description of Solomon's Pool, which, if it was intended to be circular, was described with an arithmetic error of over one part in 30: if it really was a circle with a diameter of 10 cubits, the circumference would have had to be about 31.4 cubits (not 30). It's not that the margin of error in the passage is a terrible flaw -- it's an okay approximation for people who didn't have a well-formed system of fractional numbers, and who weren't trying to write a math textbook. The terrible flaw lies in your own rationale of using this as evidence for some sort of "special truth" that really doesn't qualify as truth.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

Anita,First you say this: and then you contradict yourself with this: What am I to make of that?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Mathematic patterns in letters does not prove divine design. Weird nonsense. I guess you have very low thoughts about nature itself.I have not study the history of alphebet but I am pretty sure hieroglpyhs came before Semitic languages (including hebrew) and also it is very debated whether there was any written language before hieroglyphs.but one of the thing I wonder mostly about (beside from your very extreme claims); tell us what's your academic background and please, for god sake, give us some sources of your claims - that is not of the bible. Probably, we cannot use the bible as reference since it has been awfully manipulated (ref. J, E, P, RJE, D, and R authors of the five first books in the bible).And to be clear;Your academic background:
Kind of sources (maybe the list in your book would be helpful):

There is no contradiction here.She said that no credible linguistic scholar could determine the origins of writing. But clearly she is neither credible nor a linguistic scholar, so there's nothing to stop her from doing so.

If by "best selling" you mean "having been crammed down people's throats the most", then, yes, the Bible would be a real blockbuster.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

So What? I have copies but I don't in any way believe that the Bible is any thing more than a group of epic myths. I have a copy of the Illiad too and place it in the same category. Just bccause a book sells doesn't put any credence that it is historical.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hello Otto, Otto, Phoenician writing is nothing more than ancient Hebrew, the same goes for cuneiform which is Samaritan (the oldest thought language and writing). All that cuneiform is, is the Hebrew letters (illustrated by arrows/cuneiform) turned to the left which is just a sideways view of the Hebrew letters. For instance the Hebrew letter G (Gimel) is the same as the Phoenician letter G as well as the cuneiform letter G. The Hebrew letter D (Daled) is the same as the Phoenician letter D. as well as the cuneiform D. The Hebrew letter H (Hey) is the same as the Phoenician letter H, as well as the cuneiform H. the same goes for the Hebrew letter V (vov) which is the same as the Phoenician letter V as well as the cuneiform V. This is also true of the Hebrew letter S (Samech), which matches the Phoenician letter S as well as the cuneiform S. This also follows with the Hebrew letter S (shin) which matches almost like a glove to the Phoenician letter S. as well as the cuneiform S. I could go on and on I have studies the comparison in letters for years already. There are also clear matches in Chinese and Mayan, additionally Egyptian hieroglyphs are just a form of the Phoenician letters in some phonic/illustrative way.For example here is what the Hebrew letter S (Shin) looks like:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:r74iicw4EP5Q8M:http://...A clear similarity can be seen in both the cuneiform S and Phoenician S, which look like a letter W. Research this for yourself, a simple Google search should suffice. I think your trying to get at something here that even you yourself do not even truly understand, but perhaps you are looking for answers on. Yes, I will give you the answer to this! Firstly, take out those false Tarot cards and the shapes of the constellations. Lets focus on the movements of the planets (the Sun and the Moon) and the human female menstruation cycles. This my dear friend leaves us with something very important for sure! What that is, is G-ds signature that He has left on all living things. The 7th day of rest! For it was on this day that G-d finished all things and rested. This day was so important that He made a commandments for it (which is one of the 10).The number 7 also corresponds to us BIOLOGICALLY! It does so (in part) by the MOONS LUNAR CYCLE. Miraculously, as it turns out, this time period is the most ideal time for the human body (including all other living things) to rejuvenate itself and its cells. Not only seven DAYS, but every cell in the human body is replaced and renewed within a period of seven YEARS. The 7th day pause (for resting and rejuvenating) occurs biologically in nature for none other reason other than G-d making it so. Genesis 2:2-3 - And on the seventh day G-d ended his work which He had made, and He rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And G-d blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all his work which G-d created and made.The moon has four phases (or quarters) lasting about seven days each. The first two quarters are during the waxing (or increasing light), between the new and the full moon. The third and fourth quarters are after the full moon when the light is waning, (or decreasing).Interestingly the number 7 also becomes confirmed for us when we observe the gestation periods of living things in nature. For instance ALL bird eggs hatch in multiples of 7 day periods from laying. The hen sits three weeks (which is 21 days - 7x3), while the pigeon sits two weeks (which is 14 days - 7x2). Ducks 28 days, other ducks 35 days, Eagles also 35 days, Owls 28 days, Penguins 49 days, (these are multiples of 7).And the list goes on Additionally, most animals have a gestation period of multiples of 7. For instance the mouse 21 days (3x7). The rabbit and rat 28 days (4x7). The cat 56 days (8x7). And the dog 63 days (9x7). Again as you can see all multiples of 7.Nothing, perhaps, is more remarkable with the number 7 then the period of gestation (or pregnancy) in humans. This corresponding period is 280 days or 40x7. Well if indeed as the linguists suggest that language was derived from genetic evolutionary means. What becomes intriguing is that it can be shown geographically how one language was derived from another.The evolutionists incorrectly think that if the Tower of Babel event mentioned in the Bible would have resulted in a random and unrelated distribution of tongues, it would not be a distribution that can be so closely tied to linguistic evolution. In other words, the evolutionists think that there WOULD NOT be any relationships at all between languages. But this assumption is quite wrong. Edited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given.

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

Hello again Otto, Numbers have everything to do with the Hebrew letters. Numbers (or should I say units of growth) that are found in all of the natural world ALL REVOLVE AROUND THE GOLDEN MEAN SPIRAL - which is a microcosm of the spiral arms of our Universe. Now what I have clearly shown is that that the Hebrew letters (spiraled with this mathematical unit of growth that is found in nature) forms one particular form that in turn forms all the other 21 Hebrew letters. Divine Design my dear friend! If it is so groundless as you say, then you have to specify in what way? Because there is something clearly here that science has no rationalization for. I know explicitly what the Bible has to say about this it tells us in Exodus 31:18 that the Hebrew letters that were written on the tablets of stone (10 commandments) were inscribed by the finger of G-d! There is lots of strong evidence that points to a Great Flood! And as I said in an earlier posting WATER throws all dating methods off, whether water happened at the time of creation or at anytime during the Earths history of flooding! I clearly made the connective affirmation that Enoch was the first calendar maker. He created what is called the henge similar to Stone Henge. In fact archeologists have found several of these ancient henges in the Middle East. Basically the henge was the very tool that Enoch had employed, which was taught to him by G-d since he was taken up and shown how the planetary system works (it which he would have seen that the Earth was round and how all the planets revolved). It is a misinterpretation when thinking that the book of Enoch was referring to a flat Earth. The henge was used to determine when to plant seeds and harvest based on this very knowledge, basically it was all about the science of the seasons for survival purposes. No, its not by flaw of interpreting the math of the Bible incorrectly, and it is sure not the flaw either of the biblical writers. There is no margin of error here if one truly understands ancient math.It has to do with Pi (3.14), the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, which state the ratio of 3:1, a very rough estimate of Pi which is partially calculated as 3.14159. (The digits keep going forever without any known pattern). It's a given that the ancients did not use the number symbols we use, called Arabic numerals, these symbols didn't become popular until the 10th Century. But the Hebrews had words for numbers and used the letters of the Aleph-Bet in place of numbers. And of course they were no strangers to the concept of infinity.Additionally King Solomon's pool had a lip, which would add a bit to the 3, not quite one seventh which is needed to be a fairly accurate Pi, but nonetheless intriguing.Another overlooked source is in the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Eruvin 14a. The statement is made that for every circle the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is 3:1 regarding King Solomon’s pool.And if you understood your high school math, I'll tell you something very important regarding Pi. Remembering just what it is that makes Pi unique is that it can't be described in a fraction it is irrational. 22/7 is approximate. Through Gematria, we find a more exact version of Pi based on a fraction. Gematria is the numerical system of the Hebrew letters. In the verses describing the math of King Solomons pool the word for diameter is kav - spelled kuf vuv, which would have the numerical value of 106. But instead, in this passage it is spelled with an extra hey, - kuf vuv hey - which makes it 111.Now if you notice that if the value of 111/106 for the diameter is multiplied by 3 for the circumference the result is 3.1415, a much closer approximation to Pi than the simple reading of the text.Conclusion: The ancients knew their math - maybe even better than we do today! Edited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given.

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

You may have said it, but that doesn't make it true. In fact, it is totally wrong.Just one example:Radiocarbon dating is not affected by water, and in fact marine shells make fine dating samples. I have probably obtained about 500 dates using marine shells. (How many have you obtained?)You have been reading too many creationist websites and too few scientific papers.So as to not clutter up the thread I refer you to any of several threads we have on radiocarbon and other radiometric dating methods.But I doubt you will research the subject. Creation "science" doesn't seen to need research; dogma and scripture suffice.I provided you with other reasons we can say the flood never happened about 4,350 years ago: archaeological research shows no flood at that time period, and mtDNA shows continuity across that time period. You have ignored those points, just as you will probably ignore your mistake on radiocarbon dating.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Anita, I'm sure others more knowledgeable than me will be along to address your other points, but I thought I should point out that this is untrue, as a quick look at the British Trust for Ornithology's Birdfacts site - http://www.bto.org/birdfacts/index.htm - will confirm. This site holds data gathered from decades of field research. I just looked at a few common British species beginning with C and found:Cetti's Warbler - 16-17 days
Collared Dove (pigeon family) - 17-19 days
Common Scoter (a duck!) - 30-31 days
Cuckoo - 11-13 daysNote the variation within each species too.It's also not correct to define incubation period simply as the time between laying and hatching, as consistent incubation (and thus development of the embryo) in many species does not begin until the clutch is complete - several days after the first egg is laid. This ensures the eggs all hatch at about the same time, despite their differences in 'age'.ETA - sorry, this was supposed to be a reply to Anita, not bluescat48...Edited by aiki, : replied to wrong message, somehow...