Aleph Bet and DNA

[StrongWaters]

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

It is a fallacy to say something is wrong apart from the facts to demonstrate your statements. The same holds for the rest of the comments on page two. You have a vast internet at your disposal. Back your statements with context or they are empty.

[Esquilax]

It is a fallacy to say something is wrong apart from the facts to demonstrate your statements. The same holds for the rest of the comments on page two. You have a vast internet at your disposal. Back your statements with context or they are empty.

Why is it up to us to disprove the baseless assertions and leaps of logic you've made? If we spent our time debunking every airy-fairy theory that every wannabe guru has decided is factual merely because he wants it to be, we'd never get anything done.

[StrongWaters]

It is a fallacy to say something is wrong apart from the facts to demonstrate your statements. The same holds for the rest of the comments on page two. You have a vast internet at your disposal. Back your statements with context or they are empty.

Why is it up to us to disprove the baseless assertions and leaps of logic you've made? If we spent our time debunking every airy-fairy theory that every wannabe guru has decided is factual merely because he wants it to be, we'd never get anything done.

As the OP, I have the high ground as long as no valid arguments against the premise exist. The premise is that the Alephbet writes the Word. As a reflection of this simple truth, the rest of the chain rises when you pull the single link. This is your problem. You must cut the link if you expect to break the chain. My ship is anchored on truth.

It takes a higher axiom of truth to cut this ship loose. You can try. If you think there is a weak link, the set me adrift. You cannot do this by simply stating an opinion devoid of context to demonstrate your platform. You are only blowing in the wind if you try. I am anchored here in the harbor.

[Esquilax]

As the OP, I have the high ground as long as no valid arguments against the premise exist.

Two things: one, this is a blatant miscarriage of the burden of proof. You have the burden of proof, since you've made the claim; again, it isn't up to us to debunk every stupid claim you make, it's up to you to demonstrate them. We aren't going to just take your claim as true because you made them, else you'd have to do the same with my gcat claim earlier in the thread.

Two, the valid argument against your claim is that you've provided absolutely no evidence for it, and thus your claim is indistinguishable from crazy, delusional ranting. Enjoy!

The premise is that the Alephbet writes the Word. As a reflection of this simple truth, the rest of the chain rises when you pull the single link. This is your problem. You must cut the link if you expect to break the chain. My ship is anchored on truth.

Truth is demonstrated, not just asserted. If you can't show it, you don't know it, and you have provided absolutely nothing besides your demands that the things you say are true. Again, you wanting this to be true is not evidence that it is: do you have anything real?

It takes a higher axiom of truth to cut this ship loose. You can try. If you think there is a weak link, the set me adrift. You cannot do this by simply stating an opinion devoid of context to demonstrate your platform. You are only blowing in the wind if you try. I am anchored here in the harbor.

Do you get paid by the tortured metaphor? Is that a deal I can get in on?

[StrongWaters]

As the OP, I have the high ground as long as no valid arguments against the premise exist.

Two things: one, this is a blatant miscarriage of the burden of proof. You have the burden of proof, since you've made the claim; again, it isn't up to us to debunk every stupid claim you make, it's up to you to demonstrate them. We aren't going to just take your claim as true because you made them, else you'd have to do the same with my gcat claim earlier in the thread.

Two, the valid argument against your claim is that you've provided absolutely no evidence for it, and thus your claim is indistinguishable from crazy, delusional ranting. Enjoy!

The premise is that the Alephbet writes the Word. As a reflection of this simple truth, the rest of the chain rises when you pull the single link. This is your problem. You must cut the link if you expect to break the chain. My ship is anchored on truth.

Truth is demonstrated, not just asserted. If you can't show it, you don't know it, and you have provided absolutely nothing besides your demands that the things you say are true. Again, you wanting this to be true is not evidence that it is: do you have anything real?

It takes a higher axiom of truth to cut this ship loose. You can try. If you think there is a weak link, the set me adrift. You cannot do this by simply stating an opinion devoid of context to demonstrate your platform. You are only blowing in the wind if you try. I am anchored here in the harbor.

Do you get paid by the tortured metaphor? Is that a deal I can get in on?

Proof is in the OP. It's evident.

Romans 1

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made...

DNA is the Aleph Bet. God makes the claim, then demonstrates at every turn. Unless you can argue the evidence in the OP, it stands. I can give you burden of proof, but you must first challenge the points made in the OP. The fact that no one has is the fact that you cannot.

Quote the OP, then challenge. Reveal the weak link in the chain. I found this truth by this process. Atheists are good at poking holes in logic and reason, but the OP has no holes. Give it your best shot, but don't shoot the messenger. Speak to the subject.

[Bad Writer]

News flash: the Bible is proof of jack shit. Thanks for playing though.

[StrongWaters]

News flash: the Bible is proof of jack shit. Thanks for playing though.

You say this, but lack the reason for your statement. Did you use reason, logic or common sense for this denial of evidence? What do you found this logic on? Give examples of sources that can be used? Nature? Physical laws? Observable science? Give me a source you accept and I'll use it as a mirror to show you the invariant Word of God as a perfect reflection.

This is why you reject the word. It is a mirror. Eventually, the mirror on the wall told the queen the truth.

[Bad Writer]

The bible is demonstrably false. You must present facts if we are to believe you, and quoting scripture won't win you any brownie points.

[Esquilax]

Proof is in the OP. It's evident.

Your OP was nothing but wall to wall assertions, brother: all you basically said was, here's some pictograms, they're like DNA. Only you never said why they're like DNA, or how: you just leapt from pictures, to DNA, and then demanded we all take you seriously.

That's not evidence: that's you, swallowing your own bullshit. Also? The bible, if you're going to use it, is the claim, not the evidence in support of it.

Quote the OP, then challenge. Reveal the weak link in the chain. I found this truth by this process. Atheists are good at poking holes in logic and reason, but the OP has no holes. Give it your best shot, but don't shoot the messenger. Speak to the subject.

Okay, fine:

The word Mother is Aleph (Strong) Mem (Waters). The strong water is the catalyst for the combination of letters (DNA) forming Word (Proteins). The medium between the Father and Son is the Water, or catalyst bringing the two chiral halves together.

Right there: there's no connection at all between the first sentence and the second. It's just one immense leap of logic, with nothing backing it up, and no rational trail one can follow to even see where you're going with this. You haven't provided a single link between "Aleph," and "DNA:" you've just asserted that the two are connected.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

As the OP, I have the high ground as long as no valid arguments against the premise exist.

Err, no you don't. That's now how academic or logical inquiry work.

As Esquilax has already tried to elucidate to you, simply having a position does infer any sort of validity.

Some positions are so baseless and absurd that they can be dismissed outright, doubly so when do verifiable evidence is not produced to back up the assertion. Indeed, the burden of proof is entirely on you to present. Thus far your claims are irresolvable precisely because there is no evidence aside assertion. For this reason, they can be easily dismissed as nonsense until such a time that verifiable evidence can be forwarded.

Case in point. I am the abrahamic god.

Disprove my claim.

I am surprised that you didn't already understand this basic function of logic.