Charles Darwin

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 11 2010,19:11)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 11 2010,15:31)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 11 2010,04:16)

You yourself said that you have not statistically analysed your codes for their probabilities. Therefore your numerology actually contains no facts at all.
You have never explained how you calculate all these numbers either.

I have dismissed nothing, because there is nothing to dismiss.

Stuart

Quote (Stu @ Jan. 05 2010,16:59)

“Gullible” = 23
“Numerology” = 46

You are exactly twice as gullible if you believe in numerology.

That's a proven fact.

Stuart

Hi Stuart

Have you lost you memory?

Ed J

You have never explained to me how you calculate your numbers.

If you have, instead of replying with a quote of ME making up a calculation, why don't you quote the post where YOU showed me?

I'll tell you why: there never was such a post.

It is not my memory that is at fault here.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

You are using a senseless argument, that unless I prove the data the data is not reliable?
This premise is false and you know it is, so why use it?

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

February 12, 2010 at 4:39 am#177350

Participant

Ed you can live under whatever delusions you wish.

However, if you wish to convince me, then you will have to meet much higher standards than you are.

Stuart

February 12, 2010 at 4:43 am#177351

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 12 2010,15:39)

Ed you can live under whatever delusions you wish.

However, if you wish to convince me, then you will have to meet much higher standards than you are.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

The high standards of Stuart remain undefined!

February 12, 2010 at 4:50 am#177352

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 12 2010,15:43)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 12 2010,15:39)

Ed you can live under whatever delusions you wish.

However, if you wish to convince me, then you will have to meet much higher standards than you are.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

The high standards of Stuart remain undefined!

Quoting myself…

Quote

You yourself said that you have not statistically analysed your codes for their probabilities. Therefore your numerology actually contains no facts at all.
You have never explained how you calculate all these numbers either.

Then explain the evidence for a causal link.

Stuart

February 12, 2010 at 10:00 pm#177461

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 12 2010,15:50)

Then explain the evidence for a causal link.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Here is the explained evidence in a casual link >Click Here< <–
\
The significance of: the “One Hundred Seventh”… |
PRIME NUMBER has a link at the bottom of the >Click Here< Link. |

February 12, 2010 at 11:16 pm#177476

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 10 2010,21:18)

ccording to real fossil and DNA evidence, this is NOT the genealogy of the first people, because there never was a time of just a few humans.

Interesting comment. Did humans kind of explode on the scene? say 120 at the very beginning.

February 13, 2010 at 3:49 am#177512

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Participant

Quote (t8 @ Feb. 13 2010,10:16)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 10 2010,21:18)

ccording to real fossil and DNA evidence, this is NOT the genealogy of the first people, because there never was a time of just a few humans.

Interesting comment. Did humans kind of explode on the scene? say 120 at the very beginning.

It was a whole population changing slowly over time that came to a point where they had the characteristics that people generally associate with the word human.

It is a matter of opinion whether you say humans began 100,000 years ago, or 185,000 years ago or 250,000 years ago, or even 1,000,000 years ago. A case can be made for each of these times, depending on the similarity with modern humans you require for your definition of human.

It is a classification problem, related to the so called 'species problem' which you can read about here:

If you start with a single breeding pair then the expected result in virtually every case would be extinction.

Stuart

February 13, 2010 at 3:52 am#177514

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 13 2010,09:00)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 12 2010,15:50)

Then explain the evidence for a causal link.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Here is the explained evidence in a casual link >Click Here< <–
\
The significance of: the “One Hundred Seventh”… |
PRIME NUMBER has a link at the bottom of the >Click Here< Link. |

You did indeed give me such a casual link that I have no clue what two ideas you are linking together in that post.

Give me the causal links, not the casual ones!

Stuart

February 13, 2010 at 4:16 am#177524

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,14:52)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 13 2010,09:00)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 12 2010,15:50)

Then explain the evidence for a causal link.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Here is the explained evidence in a casual link >Click Here< <–
\
The significance of: the “One Hundred Seventh”… |
PRIME NUMBER has a link at the bottom of the >Click Here< Link. |

You did indeed give me such a casual link that I have no clue what two ideas you are linking together in that post.

Give me the causal links, not the casual ones!

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

I'm sorry; I thought you wanted the casual Links, when all you really wanted the causal Links.

The reason for these Theologically associated Ideas through
“number valuations”: is to offer Scientific PROOF of God's existence
by the means of non-randomized specific Theomatic number signatures.

Ed J

February 13, 2010 at 4:19 am#177527

Participant

OK, so what characterises a “non-randomized specific Theomatic number signature”?. How do you distinguish numbers that are non-random from ones that are?

Stuart

February 13, 2010 at 4:44 am#177537

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,15:19)

OK, so what characterises a “non-randomized specific Theomatic number signature”?. How do you distinguish numbers that are non-random from ones that are?

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

These non-random number valuations are characterized by their relevancy associated to the Creator's Name within the Creators Book.

These are the Main Five non-randomized number signatures…

יהוה=26 (God's Name: pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
God The Father=117 (Representing God's Name and title GOD: יהוה האלהים)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's English Name: “Joshua”).
YHVH=63 (God's Name: יהוה transliterated into English)
HolySpirit=151 (“The word”: structure of “GOD” indwelling in us believers!)

Ed J

February 13, 2010 at 4:57 am#177544

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 13 2010,15:44)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,15:19)

OK, so what characterises a “non-randomized specific Theomatic number signature”?. How do you distinguish numbers that are non-random from ones that are?

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

These non-random number valuations are characterized by their relevancy associated to the Creator's Name within the Creators Book.

These are the Main Five non-randomized number signatures…

Ed J

Quoting myself:

Quote

How do you distinguish numbers that are non-random from ones that are?

Stuart

February 13, 2010 at 6:07 am#177560

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,15:57)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 13 2010,15:44)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,15:19)

OK, so what characterises a “non-randomized specific Theomatic number signature”?. How do you distinguish numbers that are non-random from ones that are?

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

These non-random number valuations are characterized by their relevancy associated to the Creator's Name within the Creators Book.

These are the Main Five non-randomized number signatures…

Ed J

Quoting myself:

Quote

How do you distinguish numbers that are non-random from ones that are?

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

This is not a question of the frequency of occurrences as you might easily expect it to be.
This data is more a matter of relevant Theological Ideas associated to their matching number signatures.

For example…
The “Divine=63” “Deity=63” of “The Bible=63” is “YHVH=63”!

The non-randomness frequency of occurrences issue: would be as follows…
How many English words can be used to describe God.
and of those matches what would be considered within the range of “Normal occurrences”?

But this is NOT the non-randomized issue I'm speaking of here.
In this particular example it would be defined as…

What are the odds that God's Name [יהוה] Transliterated into English as “YHVH” would match
precisely the same number signature (63) as “The Bible”; the Name of the Book regarding this Entity.
This calculation can be shown to be far outside the probability ratio; PROVING it to be a non-random Number signature!

In each case: The Number signature's of…26, 63, 74, 117 & 151 can be defined within a set of
specific parameters, then calculated, PROVING them to be non-random occurrences as well.
So far I have “only” defined “One” such parameter: That of the number 63.

Ed J

February 13, 2010 at 8:44 am#177578

Participant

I think the only way I am going to get through to you that your numerology is a load of bollocks is to not make the mistake of replying to you again on the subject.

Got anything interesting to discuss?

Stuart

February 13, 2010 at 8:51 am#177580

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,19:44)

I think the only way I am going to get through to you that your numerology is a load of bollocks is to not make the mistake of replying to you again on the subject.

Got anything interesting to discuss?

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Don't worry, if you don't want to believe in God nobody can make you!
But you can't discredit THE ROCK SOLID PROOF; because…
“God is real”=90, it says so in the “Holy Bible”=90!

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

February 13, 2010 at 10:00 am#177587

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 13 2010,19:51)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,19:44)

I think the only way I am going to get through to you that your numerology is a load of bollocks is to not make the mistake of replying to you again on the subject.

Got anything interesting to discuss?

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Don't worry, if you don't want to believe in God nobody can make you!
But you can't discredit THE ROCK SOLID PROOF; because…
“God is real”=90, it says so in the “Holy Bible”=90!

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

I'll take that as 'no' then.

Stuart

February 13, 2010 at 11:45 pm#177710

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,21:00)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 13 2010,19:51)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,19:44)

I think the only way I am going to get through to you that your numerology is a load of bollocks is to not make the mistake of replying to you again on the subject.

Got anything interesting to discuss?

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Don't worry, if you don't want to believe in God nobody can make you!
But you can't discredit THE ROCK SOLID PROOF; because…
“God is real”=90, it says so in the “Holy Bible”=90!

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

I'll take that as 'no' then.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

You don't find talking about God interesting?

Ed J

February 14, 2010 at 12:14 am#177711

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 14 2010,10:45)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,21:00)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 13 2010,19:51)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 13 2010,19:44)

I think the only way I am going to get through to you that your numerology is a load of bollocks is to not make the mistake of replying to you again on the subject.

Got anything interesting to discuss?

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Don't worry, if you don't want to believe in God nobody can make you!
But you can't discredit THE ROCK SOLID PROOF; because…
“God is real”=90, it says so in the “Holy Bible”=90!

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

I'll take that as 'no' then.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

You don't find talking about God interesting?

Ed J

Obviously there is nothing to say, because there is no such thing, but your god concept is interesting.

Why would you take so seriously the emperor's new clothes?

Stuart

February 14, 2010 at 12:43 am#177716