Posted on 12/18/2006 8:12:55 AM PST by SJackson
You don't understand what mumerology is.
In any system of numerology, whether Biblical, or otherwise, each number is assigned a particular meaning, and multi-digit numbers are added together to find a single number, and thus its meaning.
There's no need to; you can tell them by their comments.
"Darwinism is the best theory that science has produced to explain the diversity of species in the world, but that we don't claim that the theory answers every question, and some questions may never be answered,"
That is EXACTLY what they say. The only thing I would quibble with is the use of the word "Darwinism". There are no "isms" in science. It is THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
No one is insisting that "Darwinism" (what is that?) is a proven "fact", but EVOLUTION is as observable as gravity.
I'd hate to be wrong about something like that. Humor me. Which ones are they?
Yea, sure will.
Should be one hellova power struggle too what-with so many vying for the distinction.
Of course never ones to let opportunity pass by, Hollyweird will resurrect the old quiz show, "What's My Line".
At the end all our questions will be answered when the MC asks from among millions, "And now will the *real* Antichrist please stand up?".
...Merry Christmas, tl.
Nothing in Sherman's book strengthens the argument for the bible codes. I wonder if Sherman looked for rambling, semi-cohertent sentences that could be twisted positive messages about Allah. Because if he had looked with the same zeal that he looked for such things about Jesus, there is little doubt he would find them.
Relying on such obvious nonsense as the bible codes cheapens Christianity. It is of no surprise that few, if any, Christian organizations have adopted this "evidence". Bible codes is simply crass numerology, wrapped up in a pretty but insubstantial parcel of impressive-sounding statistics.
Only to those with a very fertile imagination.
Merry Christmas, Landru.
You obviously have not read the book.
It is scholarly in the extreme, and deals with all aspects of the question. The proof is irrefutable to any mathematician that uses statistics.
It has been observed in Fruit Flies and bacteria among other things.
How do you explain the ability of some bacteria to feed on synthetic material? (One example of many).
So, in numerlogy, there is no analysis based on enumeration of the characters, only the assignment of meanings to numbers found within the literal text itself?
If you can't tell for yourself, how can I help you?
Simple, just tell me who they are. You claim to know, as their identities are apparent to you. It should be a simple thing to do.
Where the numbers are found is up to the observer; that is why few put any trust in it.
With all due respect, in my view, the people you speak of (I think we all know who you mean) were never here for friendly discussion and debate. They seemed to descend on evo/crevo threads in packs, and in doing a search of some of these folks within FR, most of them only posted to the evolution-related threads. Despite protestations that they are "conservatives," it was curious to me that most of them never showed any interest in anything on FR other than the evolution threads. Frankly, my conclusion is that they were here to push an agenda, not to engage in "friendly discussion," and they got frustrated because the "luddites" turned out to be more knowledgeable than they assumed. They didn't make any headway, and so they beat a hasty retreat. They withdrew by their own choice, and apparently have withdrawn as a pack. I don't necessarily miss the participation of those who were here in an attempt to hijack FR into their cause. Certainly, this thread proves that the evo side has some able proponents among FR's regular participants. We don't need professional evolutionists seeking converts to their mystery religion.
Can the numbers be found by enumerating the characters of the text?
How do you explain your ability to feed on synthetic material?
I don't recall any attempt to do that, but try a google on it. People will try most anything.
My observation is that every piece of evidence is shoe-horned into the theory to make it fit. In other words, "Evolution is a fact. Every new piece of evidence must, somehow, confirm the theory. So, every new piece of evidence will be interpreted in such a way that it will bolster the theory." The theory provides an intepretation of the evidence; the evidence doesn't actually reinterpret the theory. And the fact that one cannot go back eons to check the intepretation is a convenient shortcoming of the theory. That appears how it actually works.
Okay. Is that the process by which you find these long equidistant sequences?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.