Aleph Bet and DNA

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Do you guys remember the guy who saw cows and moons in everything?

[StrongWaters]

There's a bull's head in your pictograms. Your argument is invalid.

That's the Aleph. It means strong, like an OX. I know you meant Ox there. Thank you for noticing the Ox. By invalid, you are saying you have trouble seeing the connection. The strong nuclear force heels the weak. Give it time. By heel, I mean authority. Two are better than one. Three is ideal. Read Ecclesiastes 4. There are three strands of DNA there.

---

The Hebrew word for 'father' is 'av' or 'aba'.

The Hebrew word for 'son' is 'ben' (as in David ben Gurion).

The Hebrew word for 'mother' is 'ima'.

(source: My brother-in-law, a rabbi.)

You're an ignorant wretch.

(source: The OP.)

Boru

AV is Ab, or AlephBet. It is the word Father. A simple Google search can clear it up for your brother-in-law. Ben is BEtNun. BEN. Bet is House and Nun is seed. Again, Google gives more detail than your brother-in-law. Mother is Aleph Mem. Again, Google will clear it up when you look. ET is Aleph Tav, but you will only know this if you do a quick search before calling someone an "ignorant wretch."

Get back to me after you do a search and let me know who was ignoring truth. You can apologize later after you search the facts.

By the way, Ad Hominem is a fallacy used by those who fear truth. Speak to the subject. It's the only way to gain the high ground.

---

Are you trying to say that people back then knew anything about DNA? They didn't even know about germs until like the 1800s.

They had no idea what God was saying through them. This is the enigma. It is an artifact that should not be there. I present a very simple truth. So far, not a single person has bothered to answer the subject of the thread.

Do some research. See that what I show is actually there in the letters and words. If God says Word is the primary mechanism for creation, and the science demonstrates it, then we have a starter for conversation regarding truth. Pride blinds. Keep an open mind. This is a mystery worth following and gives us a context to question our answers. Why deny the possibility with a closed mind? Atheism is presumption before the facts are presented. Hold off on that conclusion until ALL the answers have been questioned.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

By the way, Ad Hominem is a fallacy used by those who fear truth. Speak to the subject. It's the only way to gain the high ground.

I did not commit an ad hominem fallacy. Had I done so, I would have made the claim that your argument is invalid because you are an ignorant wretch. Your argument is invalid because it is wrong.

You are an ignorant wretch irrespective of the value of your argument.

What I did was called 'insult direct', not 'ad hominem'.

Boru

[StrongWaters]

By the way, Ad Hominem is a fallacy used by those who fear truth. Speak to the subject. It's the only way to gain the high ground.

I did not commit an ad hominem fallacy. Had I done so, I would have made the claim that your argument is invalid because you are an ignorant wretch. Your argument is invalid because it is wrong.

You are an ignorant wretch irrespective of the value of your argument.

What I did was called 'insult direct', not 'ad hominem'.

Boru

Abusive fallacy.

[Darkstar]

I did not commit an ad hominem fallacy. Had I done so, I would have made the claim that your argument is invalid because you are an ignorant wretch. Your argument is invalid because it is wrong.

You are an ignorant wretch irrespective of the value of your argument.

What I did was called 'insult direct', not 'ad hominem'.

Boru

Abusive fallacy.

Ad hominem

Abusive
Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy. Mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.

Eh, no.

[Minimalist]

There's a bull's head in your pictograms. Your argument is invalid.

I don't think that's a bull's head. I think it is a jock strap.

You know how hung up these fuckers are on genitalia.

[Esquilax]

I think that link is about as thin as I can make it for you. Tell me why you don't get it and maybe I can clear it up.

The problem, just as I predicted, is that you aren't actually saying anything with content, you're just spouting deep-sounding nothings into the ether; merely asserting a connection between this Aleph whatever and DNA doesn't mean there is one, it just means that you desperately want to see one, and so you do.

Give me something I can measure and test, give me something that can be evaluated, give me the science. All you've produced so far is free association, and I can do that too: guanine, thymine, adenine and cytosine spell gcat, and therefore every cat whose name begins with a g is the originator of DNA.

Do you believe me?

[Cyberman]

Oh great, another snakeoil merchant with all the answers who opts to demonstrate how magnanimous he is by sharing his revolutionary, revelationary insight here on an atheist forum instead of - say - publishing academic papers and actually adding to the body of human understanding.

On reflection, that's probably not accurate. At least with snakeoil you actually get something of the snake. And if you are truly experiencing insight, that usually just means your eyes are in backwards.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

An academic, this guy is not.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Abusive fallacy.

Again, no. While I did offer abuse AND a personal attack, these were not fallacies, as the abuse was not intended as a disproof of your argument. I'll try again:

If I had said, 'Your argument is invalid BECAUSE you're an ignorant wretch', that would be a fallacy.'

What I actually said amounted to, 'Your argument is invalid because your phoenetic translations of Hebrew words is wrong. In addition to this, you are an ignorant wretch.' Stated this way, there isn't any possibility of a logically fallacious statement on my part. Come to think of it, I don't see any logically fallacious statements on YOUR part, either. You've simply got your facts wrong.

Happy to be of help.

Boru