Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DNAunion · 03-16-2002, 08:37 AM

Quote:

DNAunion: I think the lack of civil discourse is THE reason the ARN board was shut down. Perhaps other things played minor roles too - I don't know.

But about the double identity issue. Someone (Scientiae? I can't check now) said in one of his posts - about a week ago - that he was Braur: another poster at ARN. I don't know if he was kidding or serious: his intent was not clear (at least not to me).

Quote:

Scientiae: LOL, here we go again. First it was pangloss (Scott Page), now it's Braur.

Braur: I apologize that your good name is smeared by my own.

DNAunion: Huh? I am not spreading gossip - things I heard someone else say that were not documented. Neither am I spreading my personal views of others.

I referencing what someone actually posted at another forum. It is documented. It is fact.

What I don't know is:

1) the actual two aliases (though I am very sure that Braur was one)

2) whether the person who made the statement was serious of joking

Principia · 03-16-2002, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:


DNAunion: Huh? I am not spreading gossip - things I heard someone else say that were not documented. Neither am I spreading my personal views of others.

I referencing what someone actually posted at another forum. It is documented. It is fact.

What I don't know is:

1) the actual two aliases (though I am very sure that Braur was one)

2) whether the person who made the statement was serious of joking

All I know was that leonard was superstitious that I was pangloss. Then, as a joke, I made a post in RealityCheck's claim that he was a newbie, that I was RealityCheck (because I was a newbie).

OK, I don't know who else was impersonating Braur, but so long as we get that clear, then fine.

Myrmecos: I do accept some responsibility for goading people like Leonard. But, well before, my spat with DNAUnion and Douglas, people like nobody and mturner were already spamming with links and sarcastic remarks.

SC

Nic Tamzek · 03-16-2002, 06:49 PM

Looks like there's a bit of flow from ARN across the net, eh? My 2 cents on that briefly is that comparisons to baptistboard etc. & similar implications are inappropriate -- the ARN UBB has been reasonably well run discussion forum overall, I've certainly learned a lot in discussions there, although most of it has been through being provoked to go look things up, which has generally given me even better reasons to think that the current ID project is no more valid scientifically than UFOology etc. But in at least some cases, some of the ID discussants at ARN would actually understand what you were talking about even if they disagreed -- mostly I'm talking about the few 'ID-lite' types, e.g. Mike Gene, who advocate positions significantly weaker than those advocated by the mainstream ID movement.

I do agree, however, that based on my limited observations recently, the overall level of discussion had gone down considerably. Lots of frivolous / just plain wacky posters. Perhaps instead of their topical discussion folders, they could divide things up like this, and require people to post accordingly in each section (I could suggest specific posters but that would be undiplomatic)

- incoherant ramblings, weird punctuation
- YECs, biblical literalists, prophecy
- rages against materialism and other -isms
- common descent deniers (have to have several sub-groups, e.g.:
-species
-genera
-families
-orders
-classes
-phyla
-kingdoms
-domains )

- mainstream ID (several categories here too)
- ID-lite
- vague notions of guidance
- people of random Lamarkian persuation

Later, nic

DNAunion · 03-16-2002, 07:24 PM

DNAunion: I am glad to see that some people who posted at ARN - from "both sides" of the debate - have expressed their belief that ARN is not closing down because the "Creationists were getting their butts kicked", but because the participants had started - and then continued - not following the rules. In my opinion (based on experience), the moderators at ARN have bent over backwards to NOT be biased in favor the Creationists/IDists. Let's put blame where blame is due: on the posters, not on the moderators or administrators.

Principia · 03-16-2002, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:
DNAunion: I am glad to see that some people who posted at ARN - from "both sides" of the debate - have expressed their belief that ARN is not closing down because the "Creationists were getting their butts kicked", but because the participants had started - and then continued - not following the rules. In my opinion (based on experience), the moderators at ARN have bent over backwards to NOT be biased in favor the Creationists/IDists. Let's put blame where blame is due: on the posters, not on the moderators or administrators.

Yes, let's.

SC

Douglas J. Bender · 03-16-2002, 10:10 PM

Aside from a couple of those who have posted in this thread, for the most part you are all quite pathetic in your gloating over your imagined "victory". And Scientiae is an absolute liar, and slimy to the core. (And I'll be able to back that up if he does not edit his posts here, before the ARN board comes back online.)

faded-Glory said:

Quote:

Douglas, known to us here from a 'KO in round 1' by scigirl in our FD&D Forum, turned out to be a complete screwball with an elaborate mathematical construction to prove the bible true.

Gee, what a nice thing to say about me. By the way, no one has disproved that "elaborate mathematical construction", and the attempts to show how "mathematically" it is merely the result of the flatness of ln(t)/t are not "explanations", but merely observations - they prove and explain nothing. Aside from a couple of Jesse's points (which I hope to address once the ARN board gets back online), there was nothing of any real substance in any of the arguments against the "Biblical Equations". Oh, and I am not a "screwball", but thanks for the backstabbing ad hominem.

Lastly, thank you also for your confidence in why I did not post for some time in the "Formal Discussion" - I suppose I must now explain it to you. For your information, right around the time I posted to scigirl saying that she might like to specifically address the issue of how evolution would explain "hooks" in bird feathers, a series of events transpired in my "real", 3-D, life that caused me to view Internet discussions, particularly the "Formal Discussion" here, as a complete waste of time - it was like getting hit over the head, and suddenly realizing that what you thought was a very important endeavor had actually been playing with tinker toys, all the while a life and death struggle had been taking place outside in the yard. I made a promise to myself, at that time, that I wouldn't use the Internet for any purpose, that I was completely through with it, except that I would complete two email conversations I had with two non-Christians, for their sakes. Unfortunately, that kept me tied to the Internet, and I read some at ARN, and then posted some, then became more "involved" there (as I had been before), eventually deciding it would be a good idea to start a thread about the "Biblical Equations", so that I could "test" their "designedness". All the while, I had little or no motivation to engage in any "heavy-duty" debates or "research" (I was still cynical about the fruitfulness of such things, especially as it seemed to me that it was getting nowhere here, and as it seemed that these discussions had been, and were, taking place all over).

I suppose I should have posted in the Formal Discussion saying "I don't feel like playing right now", but I kept telling myself that it'd only be a little while and I'd have the heart to get back to the debate. It was NOT because I felt that I had "lost" the debate, nor that I felt that I was "losing" the debate.

Quote:

I guess faith on its own doesn't cut it anymore?

You show your own ignorance of what faith actually is with this statement, fG - faith is based on evidence, and any evidence which strengthens or supports faith is a good thing (speaking of "true faith", of course). And, the "Biblical Equations" are clear examples which (would or should) do so.

Quote:

It is actually a shame ARN is down...I'll miss it for entertainment value, if nothing else.

Perhaps if you would deign to be a little less arrogant, you might actually learn some things from reading some of the posts at ARN. It's attitudes like yours, fG, that give evolutionists the stereotypes as smug, arrogant, undiscerning and prejudiced individuals that they (for the most part) so richly deserve.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]

Douglas J. Bender · 03-16-2002, 10:34 PM

Scientiae said:

Quote:

*sniff* I miss Douglas, already. There was a touch of irony and tragedy to see him storm off after the Moderator at ARN closed his thread about his equations.

Sure you do - and I am deeply touched (ouch). By the way, you really aren't very discerning, and are prone to hasty judgments, if you think I "stormed off" the ARN Board simply because the Moderator closed "The 'Biblical Equations'" thread - it was not that it was closed, particularly (though that was not something I enjoyed), it was the manner in which it was done. All the Moderator said was that there had been some "complaints" about the thread, but did not explain the nature of the complaints, nor say who it was who complained; nor was I given an opportunity to explain my view about the complaints, nor give a "defense" of the thread against the "complaints". For all I know, Scientiae and the "Infidel Infiltrators" all buried the Moderator in a flurry of complaints, and the Moderator decided it'd be best to just close the thread, and maybe move it to the "Philosophy/Theology" section. For your information, Scientiae, I "stormed off" ARN because people with mocking attitudes like yours were allowed to mock, deride and goad decent and sincere people like Leonard (and myself, though I'm not claiming to be "decent", particularly), and especially because of the manner in which some anonymous posters or lurkers and their anonymous complaints were able to get what I considered a very relevant "ID" thread closed.

Quote:

I miss the entertainment too.

Yes, it's quite well known that your primary purpose in being at the ARN Board was to stir up trouble just for the fun of it. Insincerity masquerading as a seeker and defender of "truth". Hypocrisy at its finest. Bravo.

Quote:

After getting over the initial frustration at seeing him [Douglas - me] completely distort a mathematical argument, it was even more fun to destroy it.

I did no such thing, and you most certainly did not do what you claim. Besides, you seemed to be quite gleeful in attacking my "scholarliness" (saying that I was a very poor scholar simply because I got a "C" in one Statistics class), and boasting about how great a school you attended, and in mocking leonard, and in pretending that 20% is hundreds of times more impressive than 30%, in the context of a particular mathematics exam.

Quote:

After a while, I guess, I just stopped reading his [Douglas - my] posts and jumped to the conclusion that it was going to be wrong anyway. That's probably when the whole thing blew up.

Ah, so a vague and slight admission of guilt on your part. You "guess" that you might have "jumped to a conclusion", and perhaps this caused the "whole thing" to "blow up"? Careful, the water's awfully cold - just dip your toe in it, and see if it's not too painful.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]

Pomp · 03-16-2002, 11:01 PM

I don't usually post in E/C, and I know I'm going to regret asking this, but what on earth are "Biblical Equations?"

Principia · 03-16-2002, 11:04 PM

<If anybody feels a need to throw this thread to Rants, by all means.>

I see no reason to continue my debate against Douglas here, after the thorough treatment I gave it over at ARN. In case any of you are curious what this is all about (since Douglas claims to be arguing Design) here it is, in Douglas' very own words:

Quote:

Originally posted <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001938.html" target="_blank">here</a>

(Since this keeps coming up in certain conversations I have with certain individuals [and since I like to keep bringing it up in certain contexts], I thought it would be best to start a whole thread "devoted" to this. I don't expect a lot of discussion about it, but I figured this would be a "safe" place for me to hash out the "ID"-ness of the equations. So, here goes.)

The "Biblical Equations" are:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) 36.5 - (1/24)(1/360)x = x
2) 365.242189170970(ln[x]) = 360((1/10)[x])
(where the solution to both equations is x = 36.4957759518574) .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I've determined, at least roughly accurately, the probability of these equations arising purely by chance (or equations which reflect similar "attributes", basically). Here's how I went about trying to get a rough idea of the probabilities.

For the second equation:

I assumed that the "Tropical" year value in the second equation is accurate to 7 decimal places (which it is), and I assumed that choosing a "Tropical" year to 7 decimal places of accuracy would be choosing from all numbers less than 1000 (but greater than 0) which had that degree of accuracy (for example, 988.0000380, or 5.1110473, etcetera) - a total of 10^10 possible choices (of course, this is completely ignoring all the possible choices greater than 1000).

I further assumed that the value of "x" is accurate to 13 decimal places (it is a very specifically "chosen" number [chosen with such "exactness" due to the first equation]), and that it reflects with "exactness" a specific moment in Jesus' life - I assumed that this would be choosing from all numbers less than 100 (a nice round number, and people generally don't live to be 100 years old) which could be "exact" to 13 decimal places (for example, 82.4333549132765, or 11.2011000000000, etcetera) - a total of 10^15 possible choices.

I also assumed that there are only 10^3 functions in Nature (an incredibly low estimate, given all the polynomial functions, etcetera) (examples of such functions would be: ln, e, sin, cos, tan, ax, ax^2, ax^3, sqrt(x), cbrt(x), sinh, cosh, tanh, invsin, invcos, invtan, etcetera); I further assumed that the only possible values for "a" in "ax", "ax^2", etcetera, would be integers ranging from 1 to 100, and quotients ranging from 1/100 to 1/2.

I also assumed that out of all possible "equations", the likelihood of choosing one which had only three terms on each side was about 1 in 10^4 (I assumed that equations could have only at most 100 "terms" on each side) (equations could have 1 term on one side, and 1, 2, 3, 4,..., terms on the other side; or 2 terms on one side, and 1, 2, 3, 4,..., terms on the other side; etcetera) (the three terms on each side is significant because it reflects the "Trinity"); I further considered all possible numbers of terms on the sides of the equations which might reflect some Biblically significant relation (1:3, 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 1:9, 1:10, 1:12, 1:30, 1:33, 1:40, 1:50, 1:60, 1:66, 1:70, 1:77, 1:80, 1:88, 1:99; 3:3, 3:5, 3:6,...; 5:5, 5:6, 5:7,...; etcetera) ( a total of 231 possible choices), and divided 10^4 by 100 (231 rounded down to 200, then taking 100 for ease of terms) to get a likelihood of 1 in 10^2 for choosing a "Biblically" significant number of terms.

I also assumed that, given an equation with three terms on each side, the likelihood of getting a "symmetrical" equation (one in which each term on one side is "paralleled by" a term on the other) was 1 in 10^28 - I arrived at this figure by assuming one side of the equation had all three terms determined, and then using the above likelihoods for choosing the following (to "parallel" the already determined side): a particular number less than 1000, accurate to 7 decimal places; a particular function; and the exact moment of someone's life (accurate to 13 decimal places) (choices totalling 10^10, 10^3, and 10^15, respectively, which, when multiplied, equal 10^28)...since there would be a fair number of choices which might "parallel" the opposite side, I arbitrarily chose what I consider a more-than-optimistic estimate of the number of such choices as being slightly more than a third of the power-of-ten total choices - 10^10, leaving the likelihood as 1 in 10^18, instead of 1 in 10^28.

Thus, the likelihood of the result of the first equation would be: 1 in (10^10 * 10^15 * 10^3 * 10^2 * 10^18), or 1 in 10^38.

For the first equation:

I further assumed that choosing a particular age of a person, using half a year increments (and assuming possible ages of 0.5 to 100.0) would be 1 in 10^2.

I also assumed that choosing the correct number of hours for an event in a person's life, accurate to 13 decimal places, was 1 in 10^15.

I also assumed that choosing the particular fraction, 8640/8641 (which results from the first equation, in assuming that Jesus was dead for the same number of hours as the number of "Biblical" years He was alive - the [1/24][1/360] fraction), has a 1 in 10^7 likelihood of occurring by chance (using 8641 as the denominator, one could have the fractions with numerators ranging from 8640 down to 1; with 8640 as the denominator, the numerators could be 8639 down to 1; etcetera, down to a denominator of 2 and a numerator of 1) - with a denominator of 8641, there are 8640 possible numerators; with a denominator of 8640, there are 8639 possible numerators; etcetera...thus, using the formula for the sum of the integers from 1 to n, with n being 8640, the total is 37,329,120 possible fractions to choose from; rounded down to 10,000,000, this is roughly 10^7; since some of the resulting fractions would be equivalent (4320/8640 = 2160/4320 = ...), I arbitrarily assume that the number of "repeated" fractions is 1/10th of the total number of possible fractions; so, the total number of possible non-repeated fractions is 10^6.

Thus, the likelihood of the result of the first equation would be: 1 in (10^2 * 10^15 * 10^6), or 1 in 10^23.

Combining the likelihoods of the two equations arising strictly by chance, the result is: 1 in (10^38 * 10^23), or 1 in 10^61. So, the likelihood of the "Biblical Equations" arising strictly by chance would appear to be roughly (and probably at a rather low estimate) 1 in 10^60. The exact "specificity" and "pattern-matching" of the "Biblical Equations" are not adequately reflected in this estimate, in my opinion, but this is probably due to my own inadequacy in determining the "exact" probabilities.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]

Pomp · 03-16-2002, 11:11 PM

I was right. I'm sorry I asked.

This assumes, of course, that Scientia posted that in response to my question. If this assumption is incorrect, then I'm not sorry I asked, I'm just sorry I wasted five minutes of my life reading that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-16-2002, 06:49 PM	#33
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	Looks like there's a bit of flow from ARN across the net, eh? My 2 cents on that briefly is that comparisons to baptistboard etc. & similar implications are inappropriate -- the ARN UBB has been reasonably well run discussion forum overall, I've certainly learned a lot in discussions there, although most of it has been through being provoked to go look things up, which has generally given me even better reasons to think that the current ID project is no more valid scientifically than UFOology etc. But in at least some cases, some of the ID discussants at ARN would actually understand what you were talking about even if they disagreed -- mostly I'm talking about the few 'ID-lite' types, e.g. Mike Gene, who advocate positions significantly weaker than those advocated by the mainstream ID movement. I do agree, however, that based on my limited observations recently, the overall level of discussion had gone down considerably. Lots of frivolous / just plain wacky posters. Perhaps instead of their topical discussion folders, they could divide things up like this, and require people to post accordingly in each section (I could suggest specific posters but that would be undiplomatic) - incoherant ramblings, weird punctuation - YECs, biblical literalists, prophecy - rages against materialism and other -isms - common descent deniers (have to have several sub-groups, e.g.: -species -genera -families -orders -classes -phyla -kingdoms -domains ) - mainstream ID (several categories here too) - ID-lite - vague notions of guidance - people of random Lamarkian persuation Later, nic

03-16-2002, 07:24 PM	#34
DNAunion Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: USA Posts: 1,072	DNAunion: I am glad to see that some people who posted at ARN - from "both sides" of the debate - have expressed their belief that ARN is not closing down because the "Creationists were getting their butts kicked", but because the participants had started - and then continued - not following the rules. In my opinion (based on experience), the moderators at ARN have bent over backwards to NOT be biased in favor the Creationists/IDists. Let's put blame where blame is due: on the posters, not on the moderators or administrators.

03-16-2002, 11:01 PM	#38
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	I don't usually post in E/C, and I know I'm going to regret asking this, but what on earth are "Biblical Equations?"

03-16-2002, 11:11 PM	#40
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	I was right. I'm sorry I asked. This assumes, of course, that Scientia posted that in response to my question. If this assumption is incorrect, then I'm not sorry I asked, I'm just sorry I wasted five minutes of my life reading that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.