Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Evidence for a Creator - the support will surprise you...

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 12:02:35 BDT
Pipkin says:
I would like you to expand ''I've witnesses God in many ways that have been inexplainable, with miracles happening all around me.''
Tell me, what miracles. Was it the lame walking. Lepers healed. The blind seeing. The dead raised. What?
I don't mean to be fasicious, but I need to be convinced as you were.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 12:07:34 BDT
Drew Jones says:
I think you're doing it wrong Pumpkin Head (as am I). You're expecting evidence to be provided to corroborate the Bible when it works the other way around, the Bible is there because it tells us how correct the evidence is.

Look again at Anita's posts and you will see we have two types of science/evidence developing, the first is 'good science' that can make evidence fit the Bible and therefore validates both, the second form of evidence comes from 'bad science' which brings forth evidence that doesn't tally up with what the Bible says ergo neither can be right or are right.

I think we may have plumbed the depths of Anita's 'good science' so are now just left with her refuting the 'bad science' which will pretty much mean Bible quotes backing up Biblical claims.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 12:19:52 BDT
Pipkin says:
Rev A Thiest.

I do find your posts to be extremely negative. That people have other opinions to you, which are a different and sometimes make you think, should not not dismiss them becasue they make you fearful and uncomfortable, and call for them to be locked up. I seem to remember someone, was it Leonardo Da Vinci, being locked up for saying that the sun was the centre of OUR solar system? The sanity of David Ike has been questioned by whom? I don't beleive all that he says but he certainly gives me food for thought. Embrace the world: there is far more out there than you know at this time. Keep you eyes, ears, and mind well open.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 13:27:22 BDT
Pumpkin Head says:

I agree. Anita doesn't put much stock into evidence in her book. She says herself that her book is not fully referenced and any that are there are to back up her opinion. The first couple of chapters are on

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 13:41:24 BDT
Hi Anita,

Thanks for replying.

You used to believe in evolution but then became religious.
Evolution had to go as it contradicts your religion.
Fair enough.

Your "Evidence for a Creator" is primarily Biblical and your supporting "evidence" consists of numerology and pseudoscience. I find mainstream science more convincing.

Each to their own.

"I plan on turning the scientific community upside down with this knowledge."

Good Luck.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 14:41:28 BDT

They are negative towards people like Anita who keeps on with her unsubstantiated claims whilst refusing the myriad of evidence to the contrary. David Icke claimed (or at least didn't deny) he was the son of God on live TV. Many schizophrenics claim they hear the voice of God. If you reread my post I said was concerned for her state of mind. I wasn't calling for her to be locked up (I am not a doctor of mental problems).
I don't recall Da Vinci being locked up - I think you mean Galileo. However, he was vindicated because eventually he was right and he had the EVIDENCE on his side. You cannot deny the evidence that the sun is the centre of the solar system. David Icke (and maybe Anita) beleives we are controlled by giant lizards. This does not give me food for thought, its just plain wrong. They have no evidence whatsoever. Its all conspiracy theories but WITHOUT evidence. Show me the evidence and I would have to change my stance but there is none. All of Anitas evidence for no evolution has been debunked time and time again.
The sanity of David Icke has been questioned by well nearly everyone - google it.
When people believe (have faith in) things but have no evidence that they are real there may be a problem. When all the evidence points to their theories being wrong because there is another explanation which is backed by evidence which mutually reinforces itself then there definitely IS a problem. Wilful ignorance of this is delusional and possibly a sign of illness.
I am a sceptic I admit but the world is explainable. I do not require Gods, ghosts, giant lizards, supernatural entities, or magic to understand it. If you think that is negative it's your prerogative. I think its realistic.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 14:54:37 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jun 2011 14:54:57 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
Anita is planning on turning the scientific community upside down with this 'knowledge'? There are no words to describe the level of ??!!??!?? that I am currently experiencing.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 15:03:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jun 2011 16:48:17 BDT
Drew Jones says:
She's hoping to turn the scientific community upside down because it the only way to reconcile it with her position that is looking at the evidence the wrong way up.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 15:03:33 BDT
AJ Murray says:
She does seem highly confident in her own ability to right the wrongs of those pesky scientists...


In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 15:13:38 BDT
stucody says:
Perhaps someone should explain to Anita that if she wants her work to be taken seriously within the scientific community then she needs to evidence her argument? Until then her book will be confined to fantasy.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 15:15:12 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Rev A Thiest,
Thank you for putting me right. Yes it was Galileo, I remember now. My memory is not all it should be.
As for David Ike. I wonder if that's was what they did to Jesus when he tried to tell the people about God. He did not say he was the 'Son of God' but that we are all sons of God. Which is correct. I think that we all have interconnected souls, to the Universe/God. That is why we are God's sons and daughters. As for the Lizards. this really put me off. But I have no evidence for or against them so who am I to disregard them. If you are able to put that aside and actually read one of Ike's books, which I did with reluctance, but having the need to experience and know everything; I did. Then I think you would find possibly lots of things there that are of interest to you.
On the matter of Anita, I am sad to say that I can no longer read anything she posts and have erased her.

Posted on 2 Jun 2011 15:19:53 BDT

If you're serious about your work overturning current scientific thinking, then I challenge you to submit that work to a suitable, reputable, scientific journal for peer review. If your work gets through that it'll be taken more seriously and there'll be a few red faces around here.
If you're unwilling to do this then please explain why.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 15:28:41 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jun 2011 15:29:16 BDT
Hi Isobel, she posted it here, about 9 posts down;;f=7;t=000151;p=0

If you fancy a very long but amusing read, check out;

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 15:30:42 BDT
stucody says:
She could win herself a £million if she took her claim to JREF?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 16:03:42 BDT
That'd work too

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 16:17:54 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
Well yes, precisely! Hence the ??!!!???!? that she imagines anyone will do anything more than laugh uproariously at all of the ridiculous assertions she insists on making.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 16:18:50 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
Cheers, will have a wander over.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 16:42:38 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jun 2011 16:43:42 BDT
Pumpkin Head says:

Thanks for the second link. It contained the part I referred to earlier (but didn't include it) re Anita's dearth of referencing:

"Additionally, I am not writing this book to quote facts, or to cite scientific references. Though I may use some in this book, they are used merely to express my opinion."

So she plans to overturn science, but not say how she acquired her 'information' to do so.


In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 16:46:41 BDT
Hi Pumpkin Head,

At least no-one can accuse her of lacking ambition.

Posted on 2 Jun 2011 19:00:02 BDT
I just came across an interesting snippet from:;f=7;t=000151;p=0

<snip>I love your enthusiasm RockGate! [Smile] But it is people like you that I truly do love... people who have challenged me to find the proof and evidence that proves otherwise. Science is built upon repeatable testing (is it not?) When test after test continues to yield the same results every time - this than becomes somewhat of an eye opener.</snip>

Funny that she doesn't love us for challenging her to find proof and evidence. She thinks we're dead sheep ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 19:09:35 BDT
I feel really unloved now. I'm thinking of taking Anita off my Christmas card list. ;)

Posted on 2 Jun 2011 19:10:10 BDT
There's also a biog at

I liked this part particularly:

"She also attended college for two years in the field of
Criminology. Though she did not follow through in this field, within her
still remained the cunning knack and burning desire to investigate and
thoroughly examine evidences of a different kind - namely for G-d's

That would explain her incredible grasp of science then!

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 19:48:56 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jun 2011 20:43:48 BDT
Drew Jones says:
What I don't understand is that Anita's book claims to give us the answers to the universe yet her publishers are still called 'In Search of the Universal Truth'. Were they not convinced?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 21:28:27 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 30 Nov 2011 23:15:33 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 21:40:28 BDT
Anita Meyer says:
John Rawlinson said: Rev, On the whale birth question: Am I missing something, but wouldn't they be umbilically attached all through birth and so wouldn't drown regardless of whether breach or head.

I now respond: The umbilical cord of a baby whale breaks automatically as its head emerges from its mother's body during the birth process. So the umbilical cord becomes detached shortly after a baby whale is born. But it could break off at any time during the birthing process.

John Rawlinson said: I'd think a whale's shape would have more bearing on this, given they taper towards the tail and there are no legs to cause issues; breach would be far easier. In addition, tail-first delivery in modern whales and dolphins would ensure the baby is facing in the same direction as its mother who is likely swimming. To keep mom and baby from getting separated, tail-first delivery would be optimal, Gingerich said. Take a look at this article:

I now respond: Firstly this categorized pregnant whale fossil was a different species altogether. There is no evidence that this creature evolved into modern whales. Additionally, this whale had short legs and was a shallow water swimmer. It was obviously more of a land animal and likewise would have given birth head first as the article claims. There is nothing spectacular about this creature. However what would be really spectacular to find is if the baby within her was somewhat different. Of course this is not the case as this creature only gave birth to its own kind and sadly died out for whatever reasons.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  170
Total posts:  8728
Initial post:  29 May 2011
Latest post:  31 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 12 customers

Search Customer Discussions