Review and Confirm The Mathematical Proof of God

And if you add them together you get 12.

Digital Root:
The single digit and ultimate unit number derived by the iterative process of summing the individual digits of a number.

Checkmate!!!

There are 27 letters in the alphabets.
A [1]
​
B C D E F G H I J K
L M N O P Q R
S T U V W
X Y Z
​
&[27] (3 3 3)

Percy has already shown you that Christ's cross does not fit on your clock at 3 or 9. With the whole image of the cross on the face it's 10 and 2. So you have no clock, sorry.

Message 32 says otherwise.

Percy writes in Message 32:Your belief doesn't change what is true.
​
There is no unification of math and the Word of God. There is no proof of God, no proof of a universe constructed with intent that math be ingrained, no revealed truth of any ingrained nature nor of a Trinity, and no evidence that the Bible is anything but the words of men. Conflating the evolution of homo sapiens with the solar system and the number 9 is just numerology.
​
There is no Trinity of numbers in Revelation 13:18, nor anything about the cross and a time clock in Romans 5:6.
​
Someday you will understand that it isn't what you yourself have become convinced is true, but what you can convincingly demonstrate is true to others. It is clear that you sincerely believe you have happened across a deep truth (you are not alone in your specific beliefs - many very similar numerological claims litter the Internet, but you probably already know that - the only thing original on your webpages is the images - the same numerological claims can be found at many websites), but it is clear to everyone else that you have fallen into the very common trap of thinking that certain numerical coincidences have religious meaning.
​
--Percy

dwise1 writes:Looks like it's worse than we thought.I thought that RenaissanceMan's website looked too familiar, so I searched for it and found it in this Message 2929 (09-Apr-2024): Ironically, he was replying to himself, self-identifying as suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.And that is the exact same URL for the website claimed by RenaissanceMan, meaning that RenaissanceMan and ChemEngineer are one and the same. It was also the topic, The Miserable End of Darwinian Evolution, which he proposed but which was never promoted for the same reason that his current attempt won't be promoted: he only "argues" through quotes.ChemEngineer disappeared after 18 posts. I predict that RenaissanceMan will not last as long and will likewise disappear only to reappear months later in a different guise.ChemEngineer gave his location as Irvine, CA, and his date of birth as 28 Oct 1946. From his email address we deduce that his name is John Jaeger. On amazon.com we find that John Phillip Jaeger self-published a book, Brilliant Creations: The Wonder of Nature and Life, like other Dunning-Kruger sufferers we've seen here have done. ChemEngineer make all kinds of unsupported assertions which were repeatedly refuted and ignored repeated admin admonitions to support his claims, etc, which he ignored. ChemEngineer last posted on 09-Apr-2024.Now he has reappeared as RenaissanceMan with an even more unreadable message style. This time he gives his location as Anaheim (about 8 miles from Irvine), has a different email address which does not reveal his name, and has withheld his date of birth.Basically, it looks like some superficial efforts to cover his tracks so that he can post his nonsense anew. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if he were to employ his two identities as sockpuppets to engage in a "discussion", especially for one to end up profusely agreeing with and praising the other -- I've seen that done before. Why do creationists have to be so crassly dishonest? Sorry, I forgot: they have nothing else.

Theodoric writes:Well that is against the rules. He breaks a lot of rules. A Liar for Jesus.

dwise1 writes:What is conspicuously missing is any reference to his academic and professional experience or anything else that could possibly have any bearing at all on his claims of expertise. When we add his unbridled use of quote mining which he effectively tries to justify/defend (Message 870), he has offered no reason at all for us to take his claims seriously but rather the exact opposite.For his profession and training, our only clue here is his former member name, ChemEngineer. So a chemical engineer? In any applications that have any bearing at all on the subject matter?If we go to amazon.com's page for his self-published book, we finally find this in his autobiography:

quote:

---

... California, where I earned degrees in chemical engineering and business administration, MBA.

---

Four paragraphs, 12 lines, and that's all we get for his education. I assume that that was a BS Chemical Engineering, but there's no indication that he had ever applied it (eg, my son earned his BS Forensics but never practiced it directly having become a police officer and now a lawyer). Instead, the only hint of a profession is "licensed commercial real estate broker, and residential investor/developer" (what better experience to make him an expert in protein evolution?). And he is currently doing a patent search for his tennis racket invention "with the simple modification of perimeter weave stringing". Nothing screams "biology expert!" like that!Interestingly, he says:

quote:

---

While I penned the draft of Brilliant Creations over twenty years ago, I put it on the shelf after being discouraged by a dear friend and former professor.

---

What reasons did they give him for their discouragement? I have no doubt that he will never tell us, but his errors are so obvious to those not in his choir. It's like when in 1975 Drs. Henry Morris and Duane Gish gave a presentation to scientists at the US Geological Survey and got a lot of feedback from those scientists mainly trying to correct those creationists' severe misunderstanding of thermodynamics; it appears that that experience convinced the creationists to not ever talk to scientists again (except in highly controlled situations like creationist "debates").He is truly a legend in his own mind.

dwise1 writes:And with the emphasized phrase in that statement and making your calculations and conclusions dependent on it you demonstrate that your conclusions are invalid (since they are based on false assumptions) and that you don't know what you are talking about.Many, if not most, amino acids in proteins are not strictly specified such that many loci can be occupied by either any of the 20 amino acids used or any of a particular type of amino acid (eg, hydrophilic, hydrophobic). Hence, there are a very large number of possible amino acid sequences that would still be the protein, titin.For that matter, titin is found in very many species, even fruit flies, and the amino acid sequences of titin in those other species are different. The fact that the same protein in different species have different amino acid sequences forms the basis of the construction of phylogenetic trees which map out how closely and remotely species are related to each other based on the differences between the amino acid sequences of their proteins. Indeed, around 1980 creationists made many claims of protein comparisons which show humans and unrelated species being more closely related based on the comparison between certain proteins; they no longer use those claims when it blew up in their faces, like when Dr. Duane Gish lied on national TV (PBS counts as national -- see my webpage, The Bullfrog Affair or when their opponents exposed those claims to be completely false as in the Creation/Evolution article, A Closer Look at Some Biochemical Data that "Support" Creation (Frank T. Awbrey and William M. Thwaites, Creation /Evolution, Issue VII, Vol.3 No.1, Winter 1982 -- also cited in my webpage).So here again we have two creationist claims which contradict each other. One says that proteins can have one and only one highly specific sequence such that any change would make that protein nonfunctional (your assumption), and the other says that many different sequences can produced the same functional protein. Which is it? And why can't creationists get their stories straight? It's almost as if they're making it all up.There's also the problem of your misunderstanding of the origin of particular proteins. Your math model (assuming you ever bothered creating one) assumes all proteins just having fallen together randomly in one single attempt by blind chance, whereas a more accurate model would be based on them having evolved (which, despite your gross misunderstanding of evolution (ie, actual evolution, not whatever strawman you call "evolution") is not the same thing as blind chance). Since you claim to have read Richard Dawkins' books, I recommend that you re-read Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker where he discusses the difference between single-step selection and cumulative selection -- those two types of selection use completely different math models, which I discuss in my Monkey Probabilities (MPROBS) (MONKEY is my version of Dawkins' WEASEL).Which brings us to the most basic questions that terrify every creationist: What do you think evolution is and how do you think it works? That is included in my question already asked of you: What are you talking about? I have no doubt that you will also flee those questions in stark terror.It's getting late.Though another question would be why are you intent on bludgeoning us non-experts with a lot of technical-sounding bullshit? If you really have questions you want answered, then why do you avoid asking the actual experts whom you can find at Cal-State University, Fullerton, Cal-State University, Long Beach, or University of California, Irvine? Instead, you engage in typical dishonest creationist bullying of your audience. Curious minds want to know.

Percy writes:Actually, the human body produces a number of alternative forms of titin which range in length between ~27,000 and ~36,000 amino acid residues. The DNA for titin contains exons coding for 38,138 amino acid residues, but no actual titin protein contains this many amino acids residues. See Titin - Wikipedia. Science does not hold the view that there was ever any "first, original synthesis" of titin. Rebutting this view, as you go on to do, is pointless since it is not a view science holds. A random mutation's effect can range from strongly deleterious to neutral to strongly beneficial, and selection operates on the effects of any mutations. Selection also operates on the effects of the genetic mixing that occurs during sexual reproduction or bacterial conjugation.Your time and effort would be better spent if you focused your attention on viewpoints science actually holds.--Percy

Taq writes:How is that a problem? Yes, it is. All life uses the same codons and transcription machinery, and many metabolic pathways are shared. How is that a problem?

Taq writes:Where did you show that titin requires a precise sequence? In fact, it is difficult to detect disease causing mutations in titin because of its high variability in the human population."However, not all TTN variants detected in cardiomyopathy cohorts can be assumed to be disease-causing. The interpretation of TTN variants remains challenging due to high background population variation."
Exploring TTN variants as genetic insights into cardiomyopathy pathogenesis and potential emerging clues to molecular mechanisms in cardiomyopathies | Scientific ReportsThe following page contains a database of over 15,000 known human titin variants:https://databases.lovd.nl/shared/transcripts/00001778 That's not how evolution works. Recombination can add thousands of amino acids in one fell swoop. Titin itself is known for being the product of recombination. A comparison of titin across different species reveals its evolutionary past:

quote:

---

The protein titin plays a key role in vertebrate muscle where it acts like a giant molecular spring. Despite its importance and conservation over vertebrate evolution, a lack of high quality annotations in non-model species makes comparative evolutionary studies of titin challenging. The PEVK region of titin—named for its high proportion of Pro-Glu-Val-Lys amino acids—is particularly difficult to annotate due to its abundance of alternatively spliced isoforms and short, highly repetitive exons. To understand PEVK evolution across mammals, we developed a bioinformatics tool, PEVK_Finder, to annotate PEVK exons from genomic sequences of titin and applied it to a diverse set of mammals. PEVK_Finder consistently outperforms standard annotation tools across a broad range of conditions and improves annotations of the PEVK region in non-model mammalian species. We find that the PEVK region can be divided into two subregions (PEVK-N, PEVK-C) with distinct patterns of evolutionary constraint and divergence. The bipartite nature of the PEVK region has implications for titin diversification. In the PEVK-N region, certain exons are conserved and may be essential, but natural selection also acts on particular codons. In the PEVK-C, exons are more homogenous and length variation of the PEVK region may provide the raw material for evolutionary adaptation in titin function. The PEVK-C region can be further divided into a highly repetitive region (PEVK-CA) and one that is more variable (PEVK-CB). Taken together, we find that the very complexity that makes titin a challenge for annotation tools may also promote evolutionary adaptation.
Evolution of the Highly Repetitive PEVK Region of Titin Across Mammals - PMC

---

Apparently, you don't understand how RNA transcription and protein translation work. Perhaps you could start there. Ribosomes make proteins in cells. Proteins don't form from random connection of individual amino acids. Only L-amino acids are charged on transfer RNA's, so that isn't an issue.Translation: DNA to mRNA to Protein | Learn Science at Scitable Apparently you aren't aware of neutral theory either. The vast majority of variation in the human genome is due to neutral drift, not natural selection.Also, are you saying that none of the DNA differences between humans and chimps are beneficial in humans? If so, could you please explain?

Atheists are nothing if not arrogant, condescending and rude.

I submitted this to a professor of biochemistry who agreed with me completely.

Admin writes in Message 306:Can you please confirm that you are RenaissanceMan aka ChemEngineer so that I can merge your accounts?