FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Science & Skepticism > Science Discussions
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-27-2005, 05:31 PM   #121
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 687
Default

Quote:
extreme improbability can show the supernatural origin of a text instead
So what are the chances of me quoting this, and does that mean it was divinely inspired?
Code:
"So there I was, it was a beautiful day. The sun was shining clear and the skies were a clear blue. I was taking a mid-day stroll through the park and I wanted to go by the old well. 
 There was a small child playing around the well, his name escapes my memory now, but I know he was acosting me and berating me. 
 I asked him kindly to cease in his insults. He refused, as you may know children are very indignant. 
I became increasingly annoyed with his antics and decided to put an end to it myself. 
I ran towards him with my arms streched out in front of me. I made contact with his chest, and with a heavy thud, he flew back. He hit the outer wall of the well and fell to the bottom. 
It felt as if it took twenty minutes for him to hit the stale, standing water at the bottom. But when he did, there was a great splash. 
So great in fact, that droplets of water came all the way to the top and danced on my cheeks like dew on a lily in the morn. 
I guffawed at my deed and proceeded to walk to the lemonade stand to quench my mighty thirst. 
And that's how Timmy fell down the well. "
Thief of Time is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 07:33 PM   #122
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,281
Default

Can I too make a groundbreaking discovery? Please? Please?

OK, here goes. We take the numbers of English alphabet and code them similarly to the traditional Hebrew coding: A = 1, B = 2, ..., J = 10, K = 20, ...

Now take the letters of some word and calculate their root mean square using the above numerical code. That's specified complexity, according to the famous mathematician William Dembsky. Well, it turns out that

The word NONOPERATIVE evaluates to the inverse of the Cosmological constant (137.036...) with the accuracy of 0.003%!

But what does this mean?!
SophistiCat is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 07:41 PM   #123
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,281
Default

And another:

The word CHURLISHNESS also evaluates to the inverse of the Cosmological constant with the accuracy of 0.003% if you take the third moment of its letters!
SophistiCat is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 07:48 PM   #124
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 5,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pmarra
no

how example you look at this link http://www.biblemaths.com/pag02/index.html

there is here something on Gen 1 1

but Gen 1 1 has a lot of other improbabilities
Demonstrate that you're not falling prey to the post-hoc probability fallacy I've described above, and you'll get our attention. Until then, you can talk about "improbabilities" until you're blue in the face and you'll convince no one.

You must predict an improbability for it to be interesting. Otherwise, it's just the case that happened.

Give us a general theory about precisely which specific "improbabilities" we should see in the Bible and that we should see nowhere else, and you might be on to something. Otherwise, you're engaging in entirely fallacious reasoning.
PoodleLovinPessimist is offline  
Old 10-27-2005, 11:52 PM   #125
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pmarra
By means of a specific analysis and by applying the relative numeric value to each letter of the text, it is possible to demonstrate that an Intelligence - infinitely superior to human beings – transmitted to divinely inspired scribes the exact sequence of the letters contained in the first five books of the Bible. For believers this infinite Intelligence is called God. For non-believers it remains an inexplicable mystery.
rofl wow. Care to demonstrate that for me?

Edit: Wow I read some of his replies. I can't believe that someone would actually believe the crap he spews... it's sad.
Eckz is offline  
Old 10-28-2005, 12:21 AM   #126
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rome, Italy
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoodleLovinPessimist
Demonstrate that you're not falling prey to the post-hoc probability fallacy I've described above, and you'll get our attention. Until then, you can talk about "improbabilities" until you're blue in the face and you'll convince no one.

You must predict an improbability for it to be interesting. Otherwise, it's just the case that happened.

Give us a general theory about precisely which specific "improbabilities" we should see in the Bible and that we should see nowhere else, and you might be on to something.
I agree with you

but first we have to analyze well the sentence that I have proposed as example

“Everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person�
Pmarra is offline  
Old 10-28-2005, 12:27 AM   #127
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 122
Default

So Pmarra at some point are you ever going to answer reddish's post?

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddish
Please define, quantitively, what you mean by "extremely unlikely".
And remember, an example is not a definition.
Lil' Jerry Seinfeld is offline  
Old 10-28-2005, 12:42 AM   #128
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Delft, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pmarra
I agree with you
but first we have to analyze well the sentence that I have proposed as example
“Everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person�
I am fully prepared to spend some time on that IF we lay out the ground rules first:

- specify very precisely what you would consider extremely unlikely.
- agree to admit defeat if I meet your requirement.

These are not unreasonable rules, would you agree?
reddish is offline  
Old 10-28-2005, 01:24 AM   #129
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rome, Italy
Posts: 75
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddish
I am fully prepared to spend some time on that IF we lay out the ground rules first:

- specify very precisely what you would consider extremely unlikely.
- agree to admit defeat if I meet your requirement.

These are not unreasonable rules, would you agree?

certainly
these are not unreasonable rules


if we consider again my demonstration on the Biblical Pi
(with two simple multiplications and a division we are able “to discover� a value of the Pi hidden inside the First Verse of Genesis which is so precise in comparison to the value known at biblical times, that it allows us to exclude any human intervention in its "insertion".)


using the same technique with this sentence “Everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person�


and with other famous sentences

we can see if we find a meaningful value of Pi or no

if not we don't find any meaningful value of Pi

this result means that the value of Pi that we have found in Gen1.1 is "extremely unlikely".
Pmarra is offline  
Old 10-28-2005, 01:46 AM   #130
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 93
Default

I'm still wondering if Pmarra will answer my prevous questions, or continue adding more irrelevancies to the trainwreck...
Blackcat is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:28 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.