Thread: God is just a part of the evolution of creation

You do not need to be a scientist to figure out this matching game: up and down, man and woman, right and left, A and Z, zero and one, yin and yang, black and white and so forth and so on. All these things can be obviously detected or interpreted by our senses. Now, we may ask ourselves why objects always co-exist with a partner - an alter pair. Is this how nature was designed? Are there natural laws that govern this duality? Maybe, in order to answer all these queries, we need to change our perspective and look at these objects that we see, touch, hear, smell and taste in a different light.

In my book Creation by Laws, I analyzed the principle of pairing, provided a lot of examples known to man and in conclusion, supported by my isodimensional morphical figures, I found out that using the Family Duality theory as a basis, I and even you can figure out and can explain how all things evolved - from the birth of our universe(the presence of something and the absence of nothing) , to the planetary big bang (mass and energy), the Darwinian evolution of organism(egg and sperm), the genesis (Adam and Eve), and the microlevel family of man-made systems exemplified by the tools system(metal and wood), the alphabetical system (A to Z), and the numerical system ( zero and one) to name a few. All these dualities, following the stages of family life cycle called Creation by Laws, created all the things we perceived.

This theory, I mnemonically coined the ‘Life Algorithmic Ways of Spontaneous Inception’, or simply called Creation by Laws, authoritatively dictates a continuous propagation of "life" (living and non-living) and exponential transformation of species (living and non-living) in a never-ending process of procreation, which is guided by verifiable empirical list of instinctive instructions, that activates gradually the natural process of evolution of anything in the universe, a process that allows even GOD to be part and parcel of the evolutionary creation.

The practical significance of this article:

My article revolutionizes the Family Age, where all living things must come together to unite in order to save the earth and to enjoy life to its fullest by introducing a new way of living. If this duality theory will be accepted by the common tao, then the reality of protecting and sustaining the world will be almost at hand. If civilization started from Stone Age, Agricultural Age, Industrial Age, Technology Age, Information Age, it is high time now to recognize and to promote with immediate attention the Family Age.

Also, within this family age, since all creatures belongs to the same family tree and ergo have the same status as all other species, each and every organisms including us must be equally treated. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and straight should not be regarded as different since all of them have the same common particle that we inherited since the birth of the universe. There are standard man-made norms that we follow, but the happiness of anybody should not be taken from them. After all, it is not only sex that makes a partnership survive, companionship and care contribute the most in order for a relationship to last. And from my book about Creation by Laws, you will be surprised that pairing is not only for man and woman in order to grow and multiply. Everything in this world can spontaneously propagate and exponentially transform by simply following the natural seven laws of creation.

On the other hand, if the leaders of every country recognize this family theory, then there will be no innocent kids or soldiers that will be killed in the line of fire, there will be no crimes since everyone is earning at their own face, and the earth will be protected since a new way of green living is being introduced. And on this picturesque, the key element of unity is not through peace but harmony. Like bees or ants in colonies who worked in harmony and protect their "Queen", human beings, with a slight gift of intelligence and not to far from other species, must worked together too to protect "Mother Earth" in order to survive, grow and flourish.

Creation by Laws: A Journal of a Creative Mind; (ISBN: 978-1-60047-217-6).

In the sub-atomic level things start to seem rather asymmetrical.

The reason religion and science doesn't mix is because of evidence. One bases its conclusions on evidence whilst the other bases its conclusions on pure personal convictions.

Physicists classified all physical objects as either matter or energy whereas Biologists classified them as living and non-living. Most of these objects experienced rigorous experimentations. They have been dissected and sliced and broken down into the smallest units possible, atoms and molecules. Atoms are further made up of electrons and a nucleus. This nucleus in turn contains even smaller particles called protons and neutrons. As scientists try to slice these sub-atomic specks to the smallest units of all, they come to never ending pairs or ‘quarks’. There are different types or ‘flavours’ of quarks with equally unusual sounding names (up and down, charm and strange, top and bottom). These colorful matched names only serve to show that particles always exist in duality. I baptized this phenomenon as “particle duality�. And to be more colorful, I named these two particles as posicles and negacles.

I provided you with some concrete observable examples of particle dualities within this forum, which are common in our daily lives. I gave this partnership a colorful name -posicles for positive particles and negacles for the negative particles. Objects like man, one, A, magnetism, black, north, body, and up are examples classified under positive particles. On the other side of the system, woman, zero, Z, electricity, white, south, soul and down are classified as negative particles.

In order to multiply in a family dual system, a particle with its alterpair should co-exist and co-operate in unison but independently in order to evolve and survive. Like the alphabet system, which begins with the letter A and ends with the alter letter Z, in between these letters are 24 more letters that creates billions of words. The numerical system, which begins with 0 and comes with 1, within these numbers, googolplexes of combinations are created. The reproductive system in general, begins with an egg and meets with a sperm to generate life on earth. The fourth generation called the Matter-Wnergy System, which is made up of matter and energy, created all the living and non-living things in this physical isodimensional universe. And in my theory, everything started from the presence of something which we called space and the absence of nothing which I coined "nabse".

if you want to learn more why things are paired, they are all explained in my literature. And all of these examples are experimentally backed up by my isodimensional morphical figures, which anyone of us can really figure out if we just only spend most of our time analyzing deeply what we already have right in front of our eyes.

Creation by Laws: A Journal of a Creative Mind; (ISBN: 978-1-60047-217-6).

Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin,

I can appreciate your efforts to expose people to your book, after all, I got involved in internet forums partly to make people aware of my relativistic space-flight simulator, not that I can boast a huge amount of success. However, if you do not want to trigger people's automatic reaction to "in your face" advertizing, you need to be a little bit more personal about it - i.e. we need to know you as a person.

So tell us about yourself. What is your educational/scientific background or interests? What is your religious background or interests? Where does your inspiration for this book of yours come from? What brings you to the science forum? What country do you live in?

Have you read Orson Scott Card's book, "Ender's Game"?

Prof. Mitchell McKain,

I do not know if this is the right place to introduce myself. But if the owner of this site will allow me, then I will be happy to oblige to your request. However, since my biography is just lying around somewhere online, you may try google or yahoo to learn more about me. Obviously, I know you have surfed the internet since you got my complete name posted. lolz

Anyways to answer some of your questions: .My family is a solid roman catholic. I was educated in a catholic school and worked for 10 years with the Society of Jesuits. During my teenage life, I always go to mass even it is not a sunday. And at that young age too, I was already engrossed in collecting chemical elements as a hobby. In one of my experiments, I found out some of my air-tighted "vacuum" vials with same different sizes of bubbles were positioned equally in pairs. And this pairing became my basis in solving the mysteries of our existence. And through the years I was always haunted by this inconclusive experiment, that in the end I decided to finish this experiment and put them in writing - Creation by Laws was created. I'm from San Francisco, California and I do believe in angels.

What brings me to this forum? Well just like those years when scientists claimed that they had discovered something new and it contradicts the teachings of the church, they were ostracized by both the church and the society. In my case, I have asked the help of some well known figures in the science community, but to no avail I have not received any response from each of them. Maybe they have not read my emails or simply they are adamant to accept my theory that might contradict their work or they just religiously follow some norms within their organization or maybe because I am just a simple tax payer. I registered in this forum with the belief that most of us here, whether our theories are accepted or not, gather together with one aim in life - we have the passion to discuss and debate - Whether it is a pigment of our imagination, a strange phenomena far beyond our existence, or a product of ones mental activity, we are here to voice out our thoughts, to exchange point of views or simply be a collections of unconventional ideas for the creative minds.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by lawsinium

You do not need to be a scientist to figure out this matching game: up and down, man and woman, right and left, A and Z, zero and one, yin and yang, black and white and so forth and so on. All these things can be obviously detected or interpreted by our senses. Now, we may ask ourselves why objects always co-exist with a partner - an alter pair.

There does not seem to be any reason to think that there is any cosmic significance to the fact that some things seem to have an opposite. Many things do not. What is the "alter pair" of a tree? A planet? A lightening bolt? A bowling ball? The number pi? The color green?

What is the opposite of an electron - a proton or a positron? You could make perfectly good arguments for either/both. And why is 1 the alter pair of zero? Why not -1? Why not infinity?

So far as I can tell, opposites (or "alter pairs" as you call them) are just a made-up idea that comes from the human compulsion to categorize things.

Originally Posted by lawsinium

My family is a solid roman catholic. I was educated in a catholic school and worked for 10 years with the Society of Jesuits.

So, you were indoctrinated into the Catholic cult.

During my teenage life, I always go to mass even it is not a sunday.

A successful indoctrination, no less.

I found out some of my air-tighted "vacuum" vials with same different sizes of bubbles were positioned equally in pairs. And this pairing became my basis in solving the mysteries of our existence.

You imagined you solved the mysteries of our existence, based on a couple of bubbles in a vial, supported by your indoctrination and your cult.

I do believe in angels.

... and leprechauns and unicorns and things that go bump in the night. That's a great statement for credibility. Uh-huh.

In my case, I have asked the help of some well known figures in the science community, but to no avail I have not received any response from each of them.

That's no surprise. Who in their right mind would take you seriously?

Maybe they have not read my emails or simply they are adamant to accept my theory that might contradict their work or they just religiously follow some norms within their organization or maybe because I am just a simple tax payer.

It's really quite simple. Scientists deal with evidence, you have none other than your imaginative, cult-driven speculations.

a pigment of our imagination

You'll fit right in with a number of other theists with similar credentials.

Your idea, while interesting as a lighthearted analogy, which in turn can serve as a different metaphorical perspective on reality, seems to contain nothing of substance: nothing that provides testable predictions, or even an improved philosophy of life, or a fresh cosmology.
At the risk of offending - which unlike (Q) I am not trying to do - it seems the sort of juvenile speculation one comes up with as a teenager. I haven't checked out your online details as Mitchell has done, but is it safe to assume you are quite young? [No harm there. Youth is something most of us grow out of. :wink: ]

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

At the risk of offending - which unlike (Q) I am not trying to do - it seems the sort of juvenile speculation one comes up with as a teenager.

The good "Sir" Lawsin appears to have been far more offensive than I ever could.

"Here is a typical example from today's wikiwoo: one Joey Ledesma Lawsin, author of a self-published pamplet called Creation by Laws: A Journal of a Creative Mind and a self-designated peer :wink:, has just registered a WP account (to his credit, he obviously isn't trying very hard to disguise his personal connection to the book in question) and promptly spammed adverts into several pre-existing WP articles on mainstream topics. A minute with a search engine will show that Lawsin has spammed other forums with links to his blogspot blog."

http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/...wikipedia.html

Originally Posted by (Q)

The good "Sir" Lawsin appears to have been far more offensive than I ever could.

Come now, you underestimate yourself.

Do you call it indoctrination when you are challenging the existence of god? How can you judge from a few lines of words that someone was successfully indoctrinated? Is that enough evidence that you can simply judge a person's character?

A lot of people believe in god, they are made up of scientists, attorneys, and all kind of very intelligent professionals. Do they have evidence that god exist. Have you seen him physically or even in your dreams? Will you believe Christ that he talked to his Godly Father? Psychotic disorder probably? What about those who believe in santa claus, leprechauns, ufo, astral projections, and those professionals to up to this moment still believe that the world is flat? Do they need evidence in order to believe? Are they being indoctrinated just like how you are being indoctrinated by the concept that you always need evidence to prove that something is true? Do you need evidence to identify who is your father or mother is?

Some (not everyone) scientists believed in the big bang theory, do they have evidence that it took place? Nasa contradicts some of its claims. How about the string theory? Are these people crazy because they do not have evidence to prove their claims but they are supported by fancy equations and formula?

Or maybe when I say that your ballpen on top of your table is moving, or that evidently all you see are nothing but black and that what you see are already in the past? To some people they need some evidence to contest such claims, but to those ordinary people like us - we do not need evidence to prove them. It is second nature. Or maybe you are walking with your head and not with your feet? lolz. You might have the answers or not, but the main point is that we are diversified. And diversification exponentially transform all sort of species - some has little intelligence, others has more intelligence and others might just be intellectually smart like Einstein (he knows the tricks of his trade). Please do your homework first, before you throw stones to a quite pond.

By the way if I tell you I am working with NASA Ames Research Center, will you change your perceptions about me?

Have you experienced to be in a playground, where a lot of kids are just having fun? They maybe multi-culture: black, white, yellow, brown and maybe green. But whatever color they belong to, they enjoy each other presence. They do not know each other and they can not even spell out their own name, but they start hooking up, running around, swinging or maybe talking about santa claus, capricorns, invisible friends. Everyone is simply enjoying life. And when they reach home with their pajamas on, they excitedly tell their stories to their mom and dad. And as they go to sleep, you will notice on their lips, a smile - a sweet innocent smile.

And to those of you who would like to ask questions about my work, I would be glad to answer all your querries but please read my book first - it serves as a helpful evidence. And before you pass judgment, please don’t just look at what you see, look at also what is behind what you see.

As the saying goes -" Do not judge a book by its cover. " And even if you have read the content of the book, it does not mean that it speaks about the totality of the author's mind and as a person.

When I autographed my book, I always write on the first page - " Always give a SMILE, after all it is FREE ". Please do likewise.

You have to understand Q's mentality (or possibly non-mentality), according to which, just holding an opinion that Q does not approve of, is sufficient proof that you have been indoctrinated. This is why he refuses to belief that any atheists have ever been converted to a religion. I know it is hard to imagine anything more irrational that this, and even harder to imagine how anyone can espouse such a dogma with straight face, but the longer you live the more you come to understand that people can and will believe anything.

And to those of you who would like to ask questions about my work, I would be glad to answer all your querries but please read my book first - it serves as a helpful evidence. And before you pass judgment, please don’t just look at what you see, look at also what is behind what you see.

Ah well that is not a universal ability. I am capable enough to know what you mean by this but I am still a neophyte as far as that goes. This is what makes human communication on religious/spiritual topics so difficult.

I constantly hear theists maintain that all atheists have been indoctrinated into the thought by their parents. That, in my opinion, is insane. It's one of those arguments that theists have come up with in response to other people arguments that people, being born into a religious family who have had that mode of thought constantly pile driven into them since they were young, are indoctrinated themselves. It's on the same level of argument that I have seen on these boards concerning the possible truthfulness of the bible and the beliefs associated with it and the believers telling atheists that they aren't allowed to use the words within it to make their point because they don't believe in it.

Richard Dawkins (Much as I hate to use something he wrote) stated "There is no such thing as atheism, there are only different levels of agnosticism" or something similar. Dawkins himself has stated that he is a level 4 agnostic on a 5 point scale. Is being born into a family of atheists who constantly drive into you when you are young that there is no such thing as God indoctrination? Yes of course it is. However the majority if non-believers are agnostic and they are being lumped into the group of pure atheists. To tell these people that they have been 'indoctrinated' into their belief of questioning the truth is absolutely hysterical.

Where are you more likely to come across indoctrination? A completely God loving family that goes to church every Sunday that lives a normal life according to their beliefs or an atheistic family that lives a normal life according to their beliefs? On one hand we have a family who goes to church every Sunday with their children to drive it into their heads that their beliefs are true and on the other hand we have a family who merely goes about their daily business without all the theistic propaganda.

Originally Posted by lawsinium

Do you call it indoctrination when you are challenging the existence of god? How can you judge from a few lines of words that someone was successfully indoctrinated?

"My family is a solid roman catholic. I was educated in a catholic school and worked for 10 years with the Society of Jesuits."

A lot of people believe in god

Correction, a lot of people believe in a wide variety of gods. That doesn't make any single one of them real, including your god. In fact, it gives very good reason they are all man made.

Will you believe Christ that he talked to his Godly Father? Psychotic disorder probably?

There is no evidence whatsoever the Christ existed. You may call your beliefs psychotic disorders, that would be relevant.

What about those who believe in santa claus, leprechauns, ufo, astral projections, and those professionals to up to this moment still believe that the world is flat?

They are clearly insane.

Do they need evidence in order to believe?

No one needs evidence to believe in fairy tales, that's why they're fairy tales.

Do you need evidence to identify who is your father or mother is?

Of course.

Some (not everyone) scientists believed in the big bang theory, do they have evidence that it took place? Nasa contradicts some of its claims. How about the string theory? Are these people crazy because they do not have evidence to prove their claims but they are supported by fancy equations and formula?

You fallaciously compare invisible sky daddies with scientific theories.

Or maybe when I say that your ballpen on top of your table is moving, or that evidently all you see are nothing but black and that what you see are already in the past? To some people they need some evidence to contest such claims, but to those ordinary people like us - we do not need evidence to prove them. It is second nature. Or maybe you are walking with your head and not with your feet? lolz. You might have the answers or not, but the main point is that we are diversified. And diversification exponentially transform all sort of species - some has little intelligence, others has more intelligence and others might just be intellectually smart like Einstein (he knows the tricks of his trade). Please do your homework first, before you throw stones to a quite pond.

Gibberish.

By the way if I tell you I am working with NASA Ames Research Center, will you change your perceptions about me?

Yes, as I would most likely conclude you're a liar, too.

Have you experienced to be in a playground, where a lot of kids are just having fun? They maybe multi-culture: black, white, yellow, brown and maybe green. But whatever color they belong to, they enjoy each other presence. They do not know each other and they can not even spell out their own name, but they start hooking up, running around, swinging or maybe talking about santa claus, capricorns, invisible friends. Everyone is simply enjoying life. And when they reach home with their pajamas on, they excitedly tell their stories to their mom and dad. And as they go to sleep, you will notice on their lips, a smile - a sweet innocent smile.

And, then the children grow up and no longer talk about Santa and unicorns, but due to their parents indoctrination into their religion, those adults continue talking about invisible friends as if they were real.

And to those of you who would like to ask questions about my work, I would be glad to answer all your querries but please read my book first - it serves as a helpful evidence. And before you pass judgment, please don’t just look at what you see, look at also what is behind what you see.

As O has already pointed out, "juvenile speculation." Only an idiot would pay money for that.

As the saying goes -" Do not judge a book by its cover. "

Your "cover" has already been blown. You've been spamming your nonsense all over the internet and are well known as a woo-woo.

When I autographed my book, I always write on the first page - " Always give a SMILE, after all it is FREE ". Please do likewise.

Do you autograph it with "Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin"? Were you knighted? Or, are you just another fraud?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

You have to understand Q's mentality (or possibly non-mentality), according to which, just holding an opinion that Q does not approve of, is sufficient proof that you have been indoctrinated. This is why he refuses to belief that any atheists have ever been converted to a religion. I know it is hard to imagine anything more irrational that this, and even harder to imagine how anyone can espouse such a dogma with straight face, but the longer you live the more you come to understand that people can and will believe anything.

No matter how fantastic, magical or mysterious the beliefs are, they'll believe. It's called ignorance and gullibility as a result of indoctrination. The gullible will believe almost anything.

I'm sure there may be the odd atheist who might convert to a religion, but they were most likely not atheists to begin with. Someone who simply cannot accept the claims of theists and their multitude of invisible gods suddenly accepts the claims?

I suspect head injuries or mental psychosis the possible causes.

Originally Posted by BumFluff

I constantly hear theists maintain that all atheists have been indoctrinated into the thought by their parents. That, in my opinion, is insane. It's one of those arguments that theists have come up with in response to other people arguments that people, being born into a religious family who have had that mode of thought constantly pile driven into them since they were young, are indoctrinated themselves. It's on the same level of argument that I have seen on these boards concerning the possible truthfulness of the bible and the beliefs associated with it and the believers telling atheists that they aren't allowed to use the words within it to make their point because they don't believe in it.

How true. Theists have no arguments to support their gods, it's all pure blind faith. Hence, they must make up arguments or turn the same arguments around that are pointed at them.

It's like a kindergarten playground with the theists bleating:

"I know you are but what am I?"

Hey Mr. Q, well at least right now, I can prove that you are a person with emotion and intelligence. I said this because since the time I posted my book in the internet you have been stalking me wherever I go. So I presumed before that you are simply nothing but a powerful bot - a computer code or virus that destroys and pollutes other minds. And you always post the same derogatory paragraph claiming that I am spamming. Well let the people be the judge who is the real spammer and I do not want to judge you since I do not know anything about you. All I know is that when you post an article (which in my case is a multi-discipline) to any site you need to list the source or reference of the said article and it just so happened that I am the sole proprietor of my book and henceforth the source. And by definition, any external link you post in any site which you are not the owner is a form of spamming, fishing, gardening and "legally a character defamation".

To my friends who belong to this forum, this will be the last time I will answer any personal questions. I believe that everyone here can balance what should be discussed and what should not be. After all since this is a science forum, let us talk about science. And to be spicier, let us talk about my new concept about the creation of the universe. Calling people brainwashed or a liar does not do further good about any arguments in this forum. But criticisms, challenges and support will be of great value to contradict my theory and rest assures I will not consider it as a personal attack. Hit me please - intellectually.

To those of you who would like to know the answers to my claims,
1. ballpen on top of your desk is moving - read about gravity, relativity
2. all things are black - read about light
3. what you see are all already in the past - slow down the speed of light
4. we "walk" with our heads - 1/f = 1/do + 1/di (pseudoscience?)
5. And if you want to learn how to find the height of the tallest building by just dropping something from the very top, we can ask Mr. Q. Please, Mr. Q will you try it! (parental guidance must be observed by children participating in this forum)

Again, please read my book first before you start throwing punches and karate kicks into my article. Thank you for your help.

We have a category called pseudoscience. It's a shame we don't have one called pseudo-religion. (No commentary on that please (Q). we can all guess what you would say.)

Now lawsinium I notice you have failed to respond to my own observations on your speculations. If you do indeed work at NASA Ames, in a position more elevated than parking attendant, then my opinion of you has changed........ you should know better than to try to pass superficial, adolescent crap off as something of scientific or philosophical value. Do you seriously contend that your speculations have any substance whatsoever. Please feel free to pm me in confidence to admit you are just trolling. I'll keep it between us adults.

Originally Posted by lawsinium

since the time I posted my book in the internet you have been stalking me wherever I go.

You clearly have me confused with someone else.

But criticisms, challenges and support will be of great value to contradict my theory and rest assures I will not consider it as a personal attack. Hit me please - intellectually.

Sorry, but juvenile speculations are not theories, they are mere speculations based on religious fantasies, hence cannot be treated as a subject of intellect.

To those of you who would like to know the answers to my claims,
1. ballpen on top of your desk is moving - read about gravity, relativity

Do you actually know anything about relativity or gravity?

2. all things are black - read about light

Gee, and I thought black was considered a color. So, is light a color?

3. what you see are all already in the past - slow down the speed of light

The speed of light is a constant. I suppose that answers my question to your question 1.

4. we "walk" with our heads - 1/f = 1/do + 1/di (pseudoscience?)

Most walk with their legs.

5. And if you want to learn how to find the height of the tallest building by just dropping something from the very top, we can ask Mr. Q. Please, Mr. Q will you try it! (parental guidance must be observed by children participating in this forum)

Step up to the plate and let me be the first to shake you by the neck.

Again, please read my book first before you start throwing punches and karate kicks into my article. Thank you for your help.

Your pathetic attempts to sell your snakeoil are thinly veiled. Can we have a soft-shoe instead?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

We have a category called pseudoscience. It's a shame we don't have one called pseudo-religion. (No commentary on that please (Q). we can all guess what you would say.)

Pseudo-fantasies? :?

Well my job there is more elevated than a parking attendant.......I worked as a security guard. It is like the astronaut who is cleaning the feces of his experimental monkeys, when from out of nowhere an Alien Spacecraft hijacks their space station. As one of the aliens pointed his laser gun to the poor astronaut, the captain of the space pirates shouted “You one-eyed beep beep beep, do not waste your time with that creature he is nothing but a pooh-disposal technician! Hurry up look for Engr. Abel Qsfrey Fraser, the Genius and tickle him to laughters.�

Anyways just like Einstein, who was labeled by some as a genius, was widely believed that he used superior intellect and complex mathematical reasoning to finally arrive at E = mc². And even today, some scientists are so amazed by this formula E = mc², that they praised it like a holy grail. And because they have proven that the formula is right, some of them have even that grand illusion that they also belong to a breed of geniuses too. Others believe, including me, that he didn't arrive at his famous equation by complex scientific reasoning. He was just intellectually smart and that he knows the tricks of his trade. And simply because he spent a lot of time thinking, weighing, analyzing and rethinking 20/7, most probably he did not need to follow the rigors of the scientific methodology. (I am not against methodology since people evolved with different levels of intelligence). Since, he was sure that he has all the facts that are just simply right in front of him that can be perceived by his senses, he did not bother to test his findings at all.

On the other hand like some concepts which are being classified as pseudoscience, does society has the right to LABEL what is what and what is so? Who we are to judge the intelligence of others? Because society sets up certain scientific norms and rules that individual must follow, do we need to adhere to these standards and be "punished" by seclusion if we think super extraordinary? Is that fair? Maybe what they need to do is try to test these pseudoscience theories with their own scientific methodology first, since some of them are used to this kind of drill, and pass judgment afterwards when a concrete conclusive results are provided. I think this human behavior will be fair enough!

One professor distinguishes science from pseudoscience on the basis of the final product, the laws and theories. He said that if the results (1) cannot be tested in any way, (2) have been tested and always failed the test, or (3) predict results that are contradictory to well established and well tested science, then that is pseudoscience. Fascinating! So my new theory about the creation of the universe will still be labeled a pseudoscience for the fact that in order for me to test and have the end results of my theory, I have to wait for another 12 to 14 billion years. Just teasing, lolz!

Hmmm, well let us go back to Einstein E = mc². I do not know if scientists have figured out how Einstein arrived at this famous formula. I have read a lot of physics books since I started to learn how to count, but never in my entire life did I encounter a book that will describe how Einstein formulated his formula. And I thought a certain PhD has figured it out. And for those readers, who have encountered how the formula was derived, please correct my claims if I am wrong.

In my book, Creation by Laws, I presented the famous equation: E = mc², which I believe was probably derived from Isaac Newton F= m x a and Giovanni Coriolis’ W = F x d, and analyzing both scientists’ equations by dimension and units of measurements, I have.

FORMULA >>STATEMENT
W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation
F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation
W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2
W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units
W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents
W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B
W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining
W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying
W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V
W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass
E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)

So for the thinkers: Is it correct if I say that work = mass times acceleration times distance (W=MAD)? Do you think I have to follow the scientific methodology to prove that this formula is right?

Creation by Laws: A Journal of a Creative Mind;
(ISBN: 978-1-60047-217-6).
________________________________________

Originally Posted by lawsinium

Well my job there is more elevated than a parking attendant.......I worked as a security guard.

[/img]

Originally Posted by lawsinium

Anyways just like Einstein, who was labeled by some as a genius, was widely believed that he used superior intellect and complex mathematical reasoning to finally arrive at E = mc². And even today, some scientists are so amazed by this formula E = mc², that they praised it like a holy grail. And because they have proven that the formula is right, some of them have even that grand illusion that they also belong to a breed of geniuses too. Others believe, including me, that he didn't arrive at his famous equation by complex scientific reasoning. He was just intellectually smart and that he knows the tricks of his trade. And simply because he spent a lot of time thinking, weighing, analyzing and rethinking 20/7, most probably he did not need to follow the rigors of the scientific methodology. (I am not against methodology since people evolved with different levels of intelligence). Since, he was sure that he has all the facts that are just simply right in front of him that can be perceived by his senses, he did not bother to test his findings at all.

You obviously haven't read any good books on Einstein. Might I recommend Einstein's Cosmos by Machio Kaku? In it you'll be brought to how Einstein came up with his many equations, where he got them from and how they are leading the way forward for modern scientific thought.

When we were young, we love to play with bubbles. We get a one foot long solid wire and started bending a loop at the end of the wire. We deep it in a mixture of soap and water, bring it up into the air, and just like a magic wand we can create wonderful colorful bubbles.

With this simple experience, scientists started to figure out how this phenomena works. They religiously followed the scientific methodology which was indoctrinated to them by the literature of science and because human beings are gullible (I agree with Q since this is the second instinctive attributes of all life form’s genetic code next to copying or aping, please read my book about Creation by Laws), they simply use their exclusive (because no one understand their fancy formulas except their own *gang) scientific digests or papers (a cult doctrines like the bible?) as their references. In their highly elaborated laboratory, scientists started the trial and error method. They tried their experiment, made a very attractive conclusion and formulated their findings. However, behind the scene, they do what I call “The tricks of their trade". After years of this painstaking laboratory work with peer discussion and debate, they figured out a solid theory, which was accepted, reproduced, and retested by the scientific community. The theory states that "We can not place a thin film of water clinging inside the wire loop without using soap or other detergents to hold the film". Everybody shouted “Eureka", clapped their hands and felt like they were new breed of geniuses! Since Mr. Q, who wrote an article about mars ice cap, is one among us in the NASA yahoogroups, he can testify that this theory is absolutely wrong.

When a scientist declares his theory, everybody believe him; but, when a security guard declares his expertise no one listens. And when a well known scientist makes a mistake, everyone just laugh as if nothing happened, but when a security guard makes a mistake, he is condemned for good. In psychology, they call it labeling.

Someone asked me what is the "alter pair" of a tree? A planet? A lightening bolt? A bowling ball? The number pi? The color green? What is the opposite of an electron - a proton or a positron? And why is 1 the alter pair of zero? Why not -1? Why not infinity?

Let us start with a premise that everything in the universe is made up of matter and energy. And we translate this mass-energy duality (a system or family) into numbers by representing them with 0 and 1. Following the set of rules of creation, which are explained in my book Creation by Laws, I can show you how these duality relationships can procreate, expand and propagate. Take note that what you see "behind" the table below are binary numbers, which is made up by 0 and 1, and translated to normal numbers human beings can understand.

To make it more visual, I placed the first ten counting numbers—0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 (which is the basis of our numerical system) in the first row. It is easier to see patterns when you organize your data in a table format. Note that the first column is set up to provide reference only, and these numbers can go beyond 10 - into infinity.

0 => 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 -7 - 8 - 9
1 => 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
2 => 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
3 => 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
4 => 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
5 => 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
6 => 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
7 => 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
8 => 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
9 => 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
10 =>

If I filled up the second row with all the first basic ten counting numbers, and started placing number 1 in front of each numbers, the group would look like this—10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. So then, after counting from 0 to 9, I have a new set of numbers, following number 9—10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. If I filled up the third row with all the first basic ten counting numbers again, and started placing number 2 in front of each number, the group would look like this—20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29. Thus, a new set of numbers again has been created. If I follow this set of rules repeatedly, then new sets of numbers will be created forever. This well-organized number system, which is made up of a regiment of numerals, is called the numerical Base-10 System (since we have ten fingers). Take note that we translated the mass-energy duality into now what we call base-10 system which in reality was made of the duality of 0 and 1.

Every number on this table can be created by a product of duality -the interaction of a row and a column. And within an intersection, a number is made up of a subset (like small bowl inside a bigger bowl within the biggest bowl) of a duality or family . Let us now say that row 4 is a specie named bowling ball and column number5 is a specie called bowling pin Within this ball-pin duality, a sub-duality of 4 and 5 is created. What is in this number4-5 intersection, I do not know yet, all i know is a family of species could evolve or stop evolving on this spot. Now let us have the visible color, which is made up ROYGBIV, as an example. They belong to a family called EMW which has a duality of short and long waves. So what is the alter pair of green. It could be yellow or it could be blue. Let us say that row7 is a yellow specie and column6 is a blue specie, then, this yellow-blue duality will create a sub duality (on this spot 76) called a green specie. On this spot76, it has a sub sub duality called green family. This green family can have orange as an alterpair and produce another subfamily of yellow. Another alterpair of green can also be Indigo which can produce another subfamily of blue. I do not know if you can visualize what I am pointing out since I can not paste a real graph with a graph inside anothe graph, and on this graph is another graph and so forth and so on. So, in conclusion, what is the alterpair of green? It can be red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo or violet. And choosing another column with another row can eventually evolve and procreate into a myriad of evolutionary frontiers including what we call HTML color codes.

Lightning is to thunder, Pi is to e, tree is to shrub, planet and galactic dust, electron-proton, electron-positron, 1 is to -1, 1 is to infinity. A horse and a deer = unicorn (a Fairytale?).

“You should know better than to try to pass superficial, adolescent crap off as something of scientific or philosophical value�…… I just love to exercise my mind….I call this child play....and at the end of the day when I go to bed , like a kid I whispery shout to myself “ Beep beep, I feel good!�.

And this is what Life should be.

See you guys, I am going to Hawaii and sip a few glass of screwdriver.

Creation by Laws: A Journal of a Creative Mind;
(ISBN: 978-1-60047-217-6).

“When I look at the children in a playground, I envy them so much, they just run and laugh and shout and just simply enjoying life. How come adults can not be like them?�....Harmony, and not peace, is the key element for all countires to unite. In science we can not prove peace, but we can prove what frequency is !....Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin.

Lawsinium wrote

When a scientist declares his theory, everybody believe him; but, when a security guard declares his expertise no one listens. And when a well known scientist makes a mistake, everyone just laugh as if nothing happened, but when a security guard makes a mistake, he is condemned for good. In psychology, they call it labeling.

When a security guard declares that he caught two robbers barehanded, everybody believes him; but when a six-year-old boy says the same thing everybody laughs. Why does it make sense?

Incredible, you make sense. Thats right Prasit, what you quoted and what I quoted do not make sense at all. It is just like the concept of labeling, who are we to judge if a concept is a science or a pseudoscience. ?

But Prasit maybe, before you contest any topics on this forum, I would suggest try to read all the threads on this forum first and so that you will pick up what is the meaning behind what I quoted. We have been here too intellectually personal just to prove where we really stand. And for me this a healthy exercise for our minds.

Good Job!

Originally Posted by lawsinium

With this simple experience, scientists started to figure out how this phenomena works. They religiously followed the scientific methodology which was indoctrinated to them by the literature of science and because human beings are gullible

You forfeit credibility.

please read my book about Creation by Laws

Continued sales pitches, the agenda.

no one understand their fancy formulas except their own *gang) scientific digests or papers (a cult doctrines like the bible?) as their references.

You fortify your ignorance.

In their highly elaborated laboratory, scientists started the trial and error method. They tried their experiment, made a very attractive conclusion and formulated their findings. However, behind the scene, they do what I call “The tricks of their trade".

You equate science with chicanery without understanding the process. Is that you, Dayton?

Since Mr. Q, who wrote an article about mars ice cap, is one among us in the NASA yahoogroups, he can testify that this theory is absolutely wrong.

Can you produce this article?

When a scientist declares his theory, everybody believe him; but, when a security guard declares his expertise no one listens.

Your brother may be lawyer, but you yourself are unable to defend someone in a court of law.

And when a well known scientist makes a mistake, everyone just laugh as if nothing happened, but when a security guard makes a mistake, he is condemned for good. In psychology, they call it labeling.

Funny, security guards fall asleep all the time, and rarely get condemned, usually promoted to managers.

Someone asked me what is the "alter pair" of a tree? A planet? A lightening bolt? A bowling ball? The number pi? The color green? What is the opposite of an electron - a proton or a positron? And why is 1 the alter pair of zero? Why not -1? Why not infinity?

Why gibberish?

Let us start with a premise that everything in the universe is made up of matter and energy. And we translate this mass-energy duality (a system or family) into numbers by representing them with 0 and 1. Following the set of rules of creation, which are explained in my book Creation by Laws, I can show you how these duality relationships can procreate, expand and propagate. Take note that what you see "behind" the table below are binary numbers, which is made up by 0 and 1, and translated to normal numbers human beings can understand.

To make it more visual, I placed the first ten counting numbers—0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 (which is the basis of our numerical system) in the first row. It is easier to see patterns when you organize your data in a table format. Note that the first column is set up to provide reference only, and these numbers can go beyond 10 - into infinity.

0 => 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 -7 - 8 - 9
1 => 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
2 => 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
3 => 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
4 => 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
5 => 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
6 => 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
7 => 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
8 => 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
9 => 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
10 =>

If I filled up the second row with all the first basic ten counting numbers, and started placing number 1 in front of each numbers, the group would look like this—10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. So then, after counting from 0 to 9, I have a new set of numbers, following number 9—10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. If I filled up the third row with all the first basic ten counting numbers again, and started placing number 2 in front of each number, the group would look like this—20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29. Thus, a new set of numbers again has been created. If I follow this set of rules repeatedly, then new sets of numbers will be created forever. This well-organized number system, which is made up of a regiment of numerals, is called the numerical Base-10 System (since we have ten fingers). Take note that we translated the mass-energy duality into now what we call base-10 system which in reality was made of the duality of 0 and 1.

Every number on this table can be created by a product of duality -the interaction of a row and a column. And within an intersection, a number is made up of a subset (like small bowl inside a bigger bowl within the biggest bow) lof a duality or family . Let us now say that row 4 is a specie named bowling ball and column number5 is a specie called bowling pin Within this ball-pin duality, a sub-duality of 4 and 5 is created. What is in this number4-5 intersection, I do not know yet, all i know is a specie could evolve or stop evolving on this spot. Now let us have the visible color, which is made up ROYGBIV, as an example. So what is the alter pair of green. It could be yellow or it could be blue. Let us say that row7 is a yellow specie and column6 is a blue specie, then, this yellow-blue duality will create a sub duality (on this spot 76) called a green specie. On this spot76, it has a sub sub duality called green family. This green family can have orange as an alterpair and produce another subfamily of yellow. Another alterpair of green can also be Indigo which can produce another subfamily of blue. I So, in conclusion, what is the alterpair of green? It can be red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo or violet. And from one spot to another these color can evolve and procreate into a myriad of evolutionary frontiers including what we call HTML color codes.

Lightning is to thunder, Pi is to e, tree is to shrub, planet and galactic dust, electron-proton, electron-positron, 1 is to -1, 1 is to infinity. A horse and a deer = unicorn (a Fairytale?).

So many words, so little content.

See you guys, I am going to Hawaii and sip a few glass of screwdriver.

Try a hammer, instead.

Creation by Laws: A Journal of a Creative Mind;
(ISBN: 978-1-60047-217-6).

How many times are you going to advertise your snakeoil?

I have come to notice the hottest topics are those where people bicker with no real subject tight in grip fully understood by everyone involved.

There is lots of quick scanning through large ammounts of words and explanations only for the opposition to quote and nail the person in his or her wounds of script.

There is no real understanding of each other here.

Simply because no man has ever defined God to another man. If you want to know the truth about god, you must search your own reality, express your own reality, not pick at anothers.

If you look at Mr. Q' story board, the animation shows you how a person uses his intelligence. If I want to open the door, I will either push it or pull it. To Mr. Q, he will try his sword, a bomb, a mallet, his magic powers, his laser beams, his telekinesis and probably his girlfriend. To others they will just use a key. So with these three personalities, who among them is the most intelligent?

When a newbie starts reading our forum transcripts, the first thing that gets into their minds is the notion of bickering or trolling. Well obviously to some it looks like that. But if you just get deeper to every word, every line and every paragraph, and listen to what we are saying, you will see the beauty and profundity of our conversations.

Let me give that hilarious situation as an example when I asked Mr. Q to measure the height of a building by simply dropping something from the roof.

1.To a regular mind, this is just a simple sentence with an accompanying doubt that it will not work. (elementary intelligence)
2.To a malicious mind, this is labeled as bickering or trolling and sometimes the word “something� could be translated to “someone�. ( common intelligence)
3.To an intelligent mind, this observation becomes a challenge for proof. ( the visionary)

Different beings have different levels of intelligence. As I said somewhere in this forum, when you look or read something, do not just look at what is just in front of you, look at also what behind these words, what it is being conveyed and how it is related to the main issue.

"The best journeys are not always in a straight line"…..by Dayton.

lawsinium wrote

But Prasit maybe, before you contest any topics on this forum, I would suggest try to read all the threads on this forum first and so that you will pick up what is the meaning behind what I quoted. We have been here too intellectually personal just to prove where we really stand. And for me this a healthy exercise for our minds.

Your suggestion is noted. But I will not follow. Whether I make sense or you make sense is for other readers to judge.

The greatest of all conclusions have never been longer than a few centences and can be understood by the most common minded to the most intellectual minded persons. As is the same with speech.

Simply because no man has ever defined God to another man. If you want to know the truth about god, you must search your own reality, express your own reality, not pick at anothers

You obviously haven't read any good books on Einstein. Might I recommend Einstein's Cosmos by Machio Kaku? In it you'll be brought to how Einstein came up with his many equations, where he got them from and how they are leading the way forward for modern scientific thought.

Please read previous posting about indoctrination by Q.

The greatest of all conclusions have never been longer than a few centences and can be understood by the most common minded to the most intellectual minded persons. As is the same with speech

I agree with you. Please read how Einstein formulated his iconic equation.

W = MAD
since Q = W
then Q = MAD

See! with a few simple simple letters, you have defined the greatest iconic equation, but also you have defined someone's personal iconic character too. (behind mc2 is the word MAD, the atomic bomb was created and destroyed millions of properties and beings. STUPID Human Beings!)

Originally Posted by lawsinium

Please read previous posting about indoctrination by Q.

Translation: "I don't read books, I only read the bible."

Originally Posted by lawsinium

Simply because no man has ever defined God to another man. If you want to know the truth about god, you must search your own reality, express your own reality, not pick at anothers

You obviously haven't read any good books on Einstein. Might I recommend Einstein's Cosmos by Machio Kaku? In it you'll be brought to how Einstein came up with his many equations, where he got them from and how they are leading the way forward for modern scientific thought.

Please read previous posting about indoctrination by Q.

The greatest of all conclusions have never been longer than a few centences and can be understood by the most common minded to the most intellectual minded persons. As is the same with speech

I agree with you. Please read how Einstein formulated his iconic equation.

W = MAD
since Q = W
then Q = MAD

See! with a few simple simple letters, you have defined the greatest iconic equation, but also you have defined someone's personal iconic character too. (behind mc2 is the word MAD, the atomic bomb was created and destroyed millions of properties and beings. STUPID Human Beings!)

As I stated, before you begin calling Einstein out for being wrong or for stealing his ideas you really should read up on him in depth. If you refuse to then you are no better than those types that merely state their truths from hearsay.

Can someone please define to me exactly what people are discussing here in one short centence.

Someone asked me in this forum if my pseudoscientific pamphlet has substance: and if it provides testable predictions, or even an improved philosophy of life, or a fresh cosmology.

The Family Duality theory does not need any testable predictions since they are all over the places. When a human egg and human sperm cells meet, I assure you that I do not need to predict that the end product will be a chicken. And, since my theory about creation has not been conceptualized before, I can call it a fresh cosmology since it talks about creation which obviously the universe is a part. And what about an improved philosophy of life - “Life is basically like an innocent smile of a child�

Mr. Q and I were probably indoctrinated by our teachers and with all the books we read.

Religious people were probably indoctrinated by the teaching of their church and their bible. And some people even grow long beard to imitate god. Or was it Moses?

The scientific community could probably indoctrinated by their scientific methodology and their scientific evidence. And some people even grow gray hair to imitate Einstein.

If I do not believe in science and religious doctrines, where do I stand? Will my credibility be on stake? Oooops! Mr. Q and I are engineers and I love numbers more than words. And mathematics usually start with a “thought experiment�, and even Einstein used it likewise. Introducing a never-heard-before concept does not need science and even religion to prove if it is right or wrong, it simply needs some mathematical intelligence.

In science, a theory can not be accepted unless there is mathematical proof - a formula or an equation. So science is useless without mathematics. In religion, they do not care about this nonsense, they just believe in their Faith (well for me at least faith is better, because science destroys the world and the evolution of mankind, while religion simply destroys the evolution of “mind-kind� sort of thing, brainwashing probably?)

But is our intelligence really the basis of life? Or human beings are just ignorant and stupid specie in the animal kingdom! I do not need to define life here in the first place, since obviously it is something that needs to enjoy and nothing more.

Do you think we will enjoy life if we only work 1 to 2 hours everyday? And the rest of the day will just be for fun - beaches, cruises, parties, and all those FUN things you can imagine that you want to do for the rest of your life. And what more if today you are in Europe, the next day you are in Asia or the following day you are in America. And you do this everyday. I do not know about you, but I call this life? And this scenario can easily be achieved if people will just think and unite.

Why can not we learn from our “animal ancestors�? Most of these animals have been here before us. Do they know the secret of life already and they have been telling this to us ever since then. And because we presumed we have the highest intelligence, we just ignore these low life forms. Remember that velcro and every tools that we have, all these ideas were copied from them. We might not have "fly" to the moon, or "swim" in the deepest ocean, if these animals were not present in the first place. And as we replace the evolution of mankind by technology, there is no more chance that our leg muscles could evolve like a kangaroo's leap, or like a cheetah's run or our back muscles to become wings. Maybe it is high time now to appreciate them, or simply observe them and think about life the way they see it.

But Human beings are stubborn. They prepare war, they prepare killing each other, they prepare famine, they prepare innocent children to die, they prepare cancer, and they prepare to poison the world. And because of their beliefs - God, Science and Politics - they prepare to destroy life.

If we can only prove that “God is just part and parcel of the evolution of creation� maybe we can change the minds of those who believe and chances are we can achieve life to be fun.

The whole duality thing is, to me, quite interesting... simply because as I have progressed in thought; have become aware that society tends to polarize itself.

If we are to assume that as eons of evolution occur (chance willing) that, on a large scale, our entire living system will be similar to a positive and negative force(does not mean good and bad); than a true duality will be present.

It is an interesting thought but I will even admit that it is just that and nothing more.




If I may ask are you a believer in intelligent design.

Originally Posted by Dlrow

The greatest of all conclusions have never been longer than a few centences and can be understood by the most common minded to the most intellectual minded persons. As is the same with speech.

Lawsinium has a theory that the everything in the universe can be explained by the duality of nature. Yes-No. Here-There. Matter-Energy. Yin-Yang. Nothing-Everything.

Several other posters have pointed out flaws in his thesis, but he chooses to ignore these and continues repeating the same tired old ideas. As a metaphor that describes many aspects of the Universe his proposals are of passing interest, but are neither original, nor fundamental. As a valid hypothesis to explain the universe they are about as useful a wombat's feces in a Greek Orthodox monastery.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Dlrow

The greatest of all conclusions have never been longer than a few centences and can be understood by the most common minded to the most intellectual minded persons. As is the same with speech.

Lawsinium has a theory that the everything in the universe can be explained by the duality of nature. Yes-No. Here-There. Matter-Energy. Yin-Yang. Nothing-Everything.

Several other posters have pointed out flaws in his thesis, but he chooses to ignore these and continues repeating the same tired old ideas. As a metaphor that describes many aspects of the Universe his proposals are of passing interest, but are neither original, nor fundamental. As a valid hypothesis to explain the universe they are about as useful a wombat's feces in a Greek Orthodox monastery.

Indeed there is nothing terribly new here. It is a major theme in the Chinese philosophy, the works of Hegel, and the moonies too. In fact, the conjunction of this emphasis on duality as a theory of everything and this talk about the family quickly made me suspect that there might be some connection between lawsinium and the moonies (who now call themselves, "The Family Federation for World Peace"), which is one reason I did an internet search on the book he was pushing. I suppose my curiosity also prompted me to probe for more personal information, though I might have warned him that this would likely expose him to viscious attack by someone here who loves to use personal information for the pupose of ridicule.

On the other hand, everything doesn't really have to be terribly new. Sometimes expressing an old idea in a new way has its value as well. You could even say that this is part of the advance of the science of education. Physics is somewhat crippled by the difficulty it has in getting students to learn the skills it is trying to teach. Talking to people I find that it is quite often their nightmare class. Students always complain about the text and maybe some of this is the fault of student expectations but it is always the goal of the educator to find better ways to teach the subject if such ways can be found.

To those of you who are still barking on the same tree, please read my book. All that you want to know about my theory are backed up by formulas, models and 50+ pages of data that you can extract using an excel spread sheets.

To those of you who are claiming about originalities of my work, I would be very happy to read any articles that will support my theory whether it is from Hegel (kidding aside this is the first time that I heard his name) and even that chinese family federation (kidding aside this is the first time that I heard this group). After all, if this work of mine were published before I have conceptualized Creation by Laws, then at least I will have a contemporary to work with my theory since we have the same idea about evolution of creation. Please provide me the name of the book or any link that will support my theory. And by the way the family duality theory is just the tip of the berg. Have you ever wondered why the title of my book is not Particle duality or the theory of everything and instead Creation by Laws?

Do I believe in intelligence design? No, but I believe in instinctive design or simply called natural design that started from the duality of space and nabse. And the first instinctive intelligence that came to the first specie's "mind" is to copy its parents. That is why I classified everything natural to have "life". Yes and No, Here and there and everywhere falls under artificial or man-made. However, even though they are artificial, since men are the creator of all these artificial stuff, they can also adapt and evolve using the principle behind Creation by Laws.

Finally, I will be out for at least a month. If you still need more proof, I will be happy to invite everyone especially all the moderators and contributors in all the forums on this site to sign up in this forum by providing your handle and maybe a description of your interest whether is it true or farfetched for as long it describe you and your thoughts. If I gather at least 50 signatures, then we will ask the owner of this site to make sure that his chatroom will not "brain-freeze" when all of these 50 participants will sign in. Every participant will have a first hand experiment on my isodimensional morphical figures which is my basis for my theory about the evolution of creation.

Take note I need 50 participants before I will share to you how did I arrived on my theory about Creation by Laws. If I do not get that quota, then maybe just read my book.

Originally Posted by lawsinium

read my book. ... if this work of mine were published before ...I have conceptualized Creation by Laws, ...Creation by Laws.

Finally, I will be out for at least a month. ...just read my book.

tafftard.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

[ Sometimes expressing an old idea in a new way has its value as well.

I agree fully. However Lawsinium is not presenting the idea in a new way, nor is he accurately reflecting the old idea, and above all that he applying an absolutism to the concept that has been clearly demonstrated as false by other posters.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

You have to understand Q's mentality (or possibly non-mentality), according to which, just holding an opinion that Q does not approve of, is sufficient proof that you have been indoctrinated. This is why he refuses to belief that any atheists have ever been converted to a religion. I know it is hard to imagine anything more irrational that this, and even harder to imagine how anyone can espouse such a dogma with straight face, but the longer you live the more you come to understand that people can and will believe anything.

And to those of you who would like to ask questions about my work, I would be glad to answer all your querries but please read my book first - it serves as a helpful evidence. And before you pass judgment, please don’t just look at what you see, look at also what is behind what you see.

Ah well that is not a universal ability. I am capable enough to know what you mean by this but I am still a neophyte as far as that goes. This is what makes human communication on religious/spiritual topics so difficult.

I am coming into this conversation a bit late... *been doing other things with my life like getting promoted and getting a new girlfriend*
But anyway, you say that it is hard to believe something irrational like what Q does? I'm pretty sure over 75% of the population believes in something irrational called, "God" and the belief in creationism is the most irrational thing ive ever heard of.

Think of it this way. If I told you that if you jumped off of the empire state building, you would live... would you believe me? Why not?
If I told you to drink a vial of acid and you will gain eternal life, would you believe me? Why not?
If I told you that someone created you in a lab, would you believe me? Why not?
If I told you that some unknown entity from god knows where created each of us and if you don't follow god, your a heathen and are going to hell, why believe this and not the rest?
If they came from the same "source" would you believe it? Some stranger on the side of the road or in a building with no credibility whatsoever. You don't even know the guy who is talking.

What Lenin says is true. "If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes truth."

EDIT:
This blind faith is what made Jim Jones cult kill itself. They believed what the bastard was saying, and look where they ended up!

How this article will differ from previous related topics on creation:

The article about Creation by Laws is absolutely unique since the principles behind this theory especially the particle duality, instinctive intelligence and the algorithm of nature can appropriately be used as a concrete basis to explain all other existing theories about the evolution of creation. Also, all concepts about creationism have been either based on religious beliefs or scientific ideologies. My theory is based on isodimensional morphical figures that always provide the same results – a mathematical factuality. It is like dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter, the end result is always a pi. Pi which is equal to 3.1415+ is always constant and is the basic fact of life for all circles. Not like other scientific results which usually changes overtime and are only good in certain controlled environment, Pi will always be true even if you take it out of space and beyond.

Any major benefits that the theory will contribute to the world:

All of the theories in my book Creation by Laws were based from the isomorphical figures that I have experimented in my “laboratory”. The number six is so dominant that I considered it as a perfect number and thus must be given special attention. Its structural configuration can be used in buildings for stability purposes during times of earthquake. It can also be used in designing new faster aircraft that might break time travel. And like carbon which can be formed with a host of other compounds, it can be used in skin grafting, material hardening and other form of structural strenghtening (e.g. a space elevator connecting earth and the international space station).

To all of you guys who have been with me in this enlightening experiences, thank you very much for your time and brilliance.


“The universe evolved from nothing and something, and has most of this duality until now.”....Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin

Originally Posted by lawsinium

Mr. Q and I were probably indoctrinated by our teachers and with all the books we read.

That's strange, I don't ever recall my teachers telling me to accept uncritically the books put in front of me. Is that what did to you? Did they force you by strapping you to a chair, forcing your eyelids open and injecting you with drugs?