Self-Published Genius #19: Epic Discovery

Once again, dear reader, we bring you important news of an author with a vanity press book. As with others who have made paradigm-shattering discoveries, today’s proud author has announced his work by hiring a press release service.

This one is issued by an outfit we’ve encountered before. It’s called PRWeb, which “gets your news straight to the search engines that everyone uses, like Google, Yahoo and Bing.” Their Pricing page reveals that their “Basic Package” costs $159. We assume that’s what we’re dealing with here.

The press release is titled Creationism vs. Evolution: Ground-Breaking Discovery by Physics Engineer Solves Vital Facet of Origins Debate. We’ll give you some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

A new book by North American Physics Engineer, Daniel Friedmann, could be about to settle long-held differences between devotees to Creationism and Evolution. By connecting the dots that reconcile science and religion, ‘The Genesis One Code’ provides concrete answers to the origin of the Universe and life on earth.

This is fantastic. A “physics engineer” has not only reconciled science and religion, he’s also solved some of the greatest problems in science. Here’s a link to his book at Amazon: The Genesis One Code. It costs only $9.99, so it sounds like a bargain. The publisher is something called Inspired Books. We can’t find a website for them, so we’ll assume they’re a vanity publisher. Let’s see what else the press release tells us:

This epic discovery uncovers a highly-accurate way to convert ‘Bible Time’ to Gregorian years and thus the age of the Sun, Earth and the Universe as a whole. In fact, without any modifications, the formula consistently produces results that match scientific estimates.

That’s truly an epic discovery. Let’s read on:

“The argument between evolutionists and creationists often heats up when timelines are discussed. For example, every word in the 6 Day Genesis describes the origins of the Universe. However, scientists have their own timeline of when the world came to be, in apparent direct contradiction to Genesis,” says Friedmann, who works as the CEO of a large aerospace company.

He’s “the CEO of a large aerospace company”? We Googled around to see what that might be. We found a Wikipedia article on the guy, Daniel E. Friedmann, but were surprised to see that the aerospace company isn’t named. Editorial notes at the start of the article indicate that Wikipedia’s editors aren’t certain about its contents. They suspect that Friedmann wrote it himself. If so, that’s a promotional technique we haven’t encountered before, and we’re very impressed. Let’s continue with the press release:

At its heart, ‘The Genesis One Code’ explains how Friedmann developed the formula – 1,000 X 365 X 7,000 — from references in religious texts. Multiplying these numbers shows that each Creation day is an epoch of 2.56 billion Gregorian years. Using this formula to calculate the age of the Universe gives 13.74 billion years, almost an exact match to science’s latest estimate published December 21, 2012 after 9 years of satellite observation.

The formula is far too advanced for us. We’ve been struggling with it, but when we multiply 1,000 times 365 we get 365,000. And multiplying that by 7,000 gives us 2.555 billion. What are we supposed to do with that? Somehow it works for Friedmann:

In Genesis alone, Friedmann’s formula produces about 20 Bible/science matches for events related to the development of the universe and the appearance of life on earth described within its text.

We’re hopelessly lost, and it’s probably our fault. We are not a “physics engineer.” Here’s more:

This makes the formula a discovery of truly monumental proportions. “I hope that it fills in some of the grey area between science and The Bible, while serving as the inspiration to unravel further mysteries between both sides of the debate,” Friedmann said.

There’s no doubt that this is what the world has been waiting for. One last excerpt:

With the book expected to see high demand, interested parties are urged to secure their copy before it’s too late.

Very good advice. There’s more information in the press release, and the Amazon listing has 18 reviews so far — almost all give the book a 4 or 5-star rating. We’re confident that they’re from impartial readers, because no one can slip phoney reviews into an Amazon listing.

Well, dear reader, what are you waiting for? Hurry up and get a copy of this book.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

22 responses to “Self-Published Genius #19: Epic Discovery

  1. Charley Horse

    Born Sept. 19, 1956, in Chile.
    Moved to Vancouver with his family as a teenager.
    Father was an engineer turned businessman, mother was a homemaker.
    Masters in engineering physics, 1979, University of British Columbia.

    Started at MDA in 1979 right out of university. After two failed interviews, pleaded by letter with founding CEO John MacDonald to give him a chance. Impressed with Mr. Friedmann’s academic work, Mr. MacDonald told the head of engineering to hire the 22-year-old.

    Became manager of systems marketing in 1985.
    Promoted to executive vice-president/chief operating officer in 1990.
    Appointed president in 1993.
    Became CEO in 1995.

  2. From Wikipedia:

    MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (TSX: MDA) is a Richmond, British Columbia–based Canadian aerospace, information services and products company — as of 2006 employing over 3000 people throughout Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom — under the MDA brand name.[1][dated info].

    The article lists Daniel Fierdmann as CEO.

  3. Charley Horse, that’s the aerospace guy, but the article doesn’t mention his esoteric writings. Are we dealing with two different men who have the same name?

  4. From the Biblical math I’m getting that the universe should be 17,885,000,000 years old. That’s about 4 billion off. I guess what’s a few billion years between friends? It seems like a lot though, especially when the 1,000 and 7,000 could have been anything.

  5. Plants appear on day 3 of 7 (Gen 1:11-13). At 2.56 billion years per creation day, that means they appeared between 8 and 6 billion years ago. “Consistently produces results that match scientific estimates,” indeed.

  6. eric says: “Plants appear on day 3 of 7 (Gen 1:11-13). At 2.56 billion years per creation day, that means …”

    When was Eve created? If not on the same day as Adam, that means he was billions of years old by the time she showed up.

  7. Charley Horse

    Yes, its the same guy. You can see and hear him if you can get
    the video to play in this link:

    I read through the comments at Amazon. The last had this
    final comment: (the only one star review I saw there)
    QUOTE…”Though, I should have read it in the Foreword, and this quote taken from it will automatically disqualify this “Research” on the platforms of the National Science Academy and the Nobel Prize:”

    “No attempt is made herein to present why they are either compatible or incompatible by providing arguments that, although potentially powerful, cannot be proved conclusively.”

  8. Charley Horse

    ….When was Eve created? If not on the same day as Adam, that means he was billions of years old by the time she showed up.

    Wish I had thought of that….maybe I’ll use that at Amazon…

  9. Wasn’t the rubber ruler concept already covered in “Starting Your Own Cult: For Dumbies”? I think the idea was covered in chapter three “Making stuff up for fun and profit”.

  10. Well, that means God rested for 2.56 billion years after creating humans.

    Maybe it’s just me but that might just be a tick off. Either that, or God will be taking a vacation for the foreseeable future.

  11. Charley Horse says: “maybe I’ll use that at Amazon”

    I see that you did.

  12. doodlebugger

    Is this the outfit making the batteries that catch fire in the Boeing 787?
    Did the engineer substitte a Genesis year variable for resistivity in the software code? Or is it a miracle?
    I predict several hundred of these gems of a research book actually get sold. Ken Ham is buying ten right off the bat.

  13. Off topic, but I just learned the PBS series Independent Lens will present “The Revisionaries” beginning Monday, January 28th:

    You’ll have to check your local listings for the exact air date, time and station. The film is a 2012 documentary about the Texas state board and Don McLeroy’s attempts to undermine science education in 2009:

  14. What this site needs is More Bacon!!!

  15. If this loonie is still CEO of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (MDA), it’s time to think about selling some shares short.

  16. This Daniel Friedmann is moving in on Herman Cumming’s territory. If they fight it out, my money is on Herman.

    @DocBill: Everything is better with bacon.

  17. docbill1351 says: “What this site needs is More Bacon!!!”

    How did you do that?

  18. @TA & docbill, you just need to find some lettuce & toast — time for lunch!

  19. retiredsciguy says: “you just need to find some lettuce & toast”

    Why would you ruin the bacon by mixing it up with junk food?

  20. Curmie writes: “How did you do that?”

    You start with a hot griddle, and some bacon …

    RSG writes: “… you just need to find some lettuce & toast — time for lunch!”

    I prefer cucumber instead of lettuce. SO much crunchier!

  21. It’s the prefix site, and you add the URL at the end.

    Good looking piece of bacon, I might add, better than Curmie’s hairy ass.

    Ooops, just tripped the moderation filter!

  22. TA says, “I prefer cucumber instead of lettuce. SO much crunchier!

    That looks good! I’ll try that. I bet it would also be good on that Hoosier specialty, the deep-fried breaded pork tenderloin. I’ve always liked mine with lettuce and mustard, so your idea of a cucumber sounds good.

    See how far you’ve led us astray off-topic, docbill?