Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 2:18 PM
445 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,016 Year: 6,622/21,208 Month: 2,383/2,634 Week: 46/525 Day: 21/25 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   The Divine signature in the Torah
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 61 of 139 (721466)
03-07-2014 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Eliyahu
03-07-2014 10:11 AM


Look into the Great Rabbis Experiment and you'll see.

So you're not going to show us any evidence?

Gee, how did I guess?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Eliyahu, posted 03-07-2014 10:11 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 9:53 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 62 of 139 (721467)
03-07-2014 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Eliyahu
03-07-2014 12:56 AM


I might not understand it, but at the peer reviewed journal Statiscal Science, there they do understand it.

Thank you for that admission. So since the same journal tore this imaginary Bible code into shreds and jumped up and down on the pieces, you will now admit that it's stupid, yes?

* does not hold breath *


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Eliyahu, posted 03-07-2014 12:56 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 9:36 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 63 of 139 (721489)
03-07-2014 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Theodoric
03-07-2014 1:11 PM


Re: Ignorant or not telling truth?
Theodoric writes:

quote:
The new paper is Solving the Bible Code Puzzle, by Brendan McKay, Dror Bar-Natan, Maya Bar-Hillel, and Gil Kalai.

as a side note, i saw dr. mckay present a thoroughly amusing lecture on this topic, in 1999, at the (30th?) southeastern international conference on combinatorics, graph theory, and computing.

so, yeah, old news.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 03-07-2014 1:11 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(6)
Message 64 of 139 (721497)
03-08-2014 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Theodoric
03-07-2014 1:11 PM


Re: Ignorant or not telling truth?
So what is it ignorance or deceit?

Let's not be narrow-minded. Why can't it be both?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 03-07-2014 1:11 PM Theodoric has acknowledged this reply

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3013
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 65 of 139 (721527)
03-08-2014 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eliyahu
03-05-2014 12:52 PM


Ah yes, the old 'Torah Codes'.

Sorry, but that has been debunked. With a big enough book, you can find patterns for just about anything. It is not very impressive, and the need to clutch at trying to 'prove' shows a lack of faith.

Here is an analysis about many of the 'Torah code' proponent claims.

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html

Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eliyahu, posted 03-05-2014 12:52 PM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 9:22 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9327
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 66 of 139 (721529)
03-08-2014 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Eliyahu
03-07-2014 10:11 AM


Look into the Great Rabbis Experiment and you'll see.

An actual discussion of this matter would be about Witztum, Rips, and Rosenberg's [WRR] paper and the many papers refuting his paper. I asked you for a pointer to the paper and the attempts to refute it that you labeled ineffective. You answered my post but provided no citation.

You have since admitted that you cannot follow the statistics in WRR's paper. So what is there worth discussing with you on this topic? You have no way of knowing which of WRR or their detractors are correct because you are incapable of evaluating the arguments of either.

Those combinations were of course predicted in advance.
Look into the Great Rabbis Experiment and you'll see.

No, they were not predicted in advance. WRR alleges that the codes tell of events that happened after the text was written, but his analysis, conducted in 1994, is of events occurring well in the past.

A prediction would occur if a living rabbi learned his death date by reading a Bible code. Never happened. Instead there are supposedly a bunch of dates and a 'proximity' to something suggesting a famous rabbi's name.

And all thoroughly debunked shortly after the 1994 paper was published.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Eliyahu, posted 03-07-2014 10:11 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 9:05 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 67 of 139 (721537)
03-09-2014 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by AZPaul3
03-07-2014 9:47 AM


Dr. Fred Hoyle, one of the most outstanding, brilliant, prolific scientists in his time, went off the deep end late in his life, too.

Bs'd

You think he went of the deep end, because he didn't agree with your view points.

But not everybody who doesn't agree with you went of the deep end.

Being best does not make all your pronouncements truth, especially when the rest of your colleagues have shown you where you erred.

Having your colleagues showing you were you, according to them, erred, does not necessarily mean you erred.

New information in general is not awarded a warm welcome. We all want new information, we read newspapers, check out the news channels, everything for new information.

And when something really new pops up, then... then all hell breaks loose.

Why would that be? Excellent question. When you find out, please let me know.

About 300 years ago, Galileo by means of one of the first telescopes discovered that the earth is revolving around the sun, and not the other way around. New information. Did that bring him fame and admiration? Not really. He was put in jail until he retracted his statement about the earth revolving around the sun.

About 150 years ago women were dying by the scores because of the feared puerperal fever. A certain doctor, Semmelweis, discovered after long study that it was caused because doctors, after they did an autopsy, went on doing internal examinations in pregnant women, without first washing their hands. He discovered that washing hands after cutting up dead body's and before internal examinations in women, would save very many lives.

Did that discovery bring him fame and recognition?

Not really. His colleagues refused to believe that they were the cause if the high mortality on the maternity wards. Dr Semmelweis pushed the subject. He called doctors who refused to wash their hands murderers', which they were of course, and strongly condemned the unhygienic practices of his colleagues. In stead of thanks for his discovery which only in his own clinic saved thousands of womens lives, what happened was that he was beaten with clubs, locked up in a mental assylum, where he died a few weeks later.

Also this new information didn't get a warm reception.

The person who discovered that Jacob-Kreutzfeld syndrome, mad cow disease was caused by killer proteins, was made fun of and ridiculed.

Fortunately he could quickly come up with empiric proof for his discovery.

In 1982 the Israeli scientist Shechtman discovered quasi-cristals, which appeared to be going against the laws of nature. People didn't take that too well. Publications by him about the subject were refused by publishers, he lost his job, was kicked out of his research team, and was wandering in the scientific waste lands for almost 10 years.

In 2011 he got the Nobel price for his discovery.

Also this bringer of new information had a rough time.

Dr Velikovsky, a jack of all trades, or more accurately worded: a master of all trades, had studied medicine and psychology, and worked for some time as a psychiatrist. Besides that he also studied physics, biology, history, and law. He delved into archeology and cosmology, and came up with a lot of new theories.

He didn't exactly reap fame and admiration thanks to his new ideas.

In 1950 most historians and astronomers saw Velikovsky's predictions and conclusions as nonsense. But while most aspiring scientists are accorded the right to propose theories even when the scientific community is not convinced of their veracity, this is not what happened to Velikovsky. His book; "Worlds in Collision", became the target of a fierce attack, even before it rolled of the printing presses. The attack was led by Dr. Harlow Shapley, a famous astronomer who then served as director of the Harvard University Observatory. Velikovsky met with Shapley in the spring of 1946 and described the ramifications of his extended, exhaustive study of the ancient writings. He asked whether Shapley would agree to read his manuscript, which had been in the preparatory stages for six years, and carry out certain experiments to verify the theory. Shapley, who was highly pressured at the time, turned down Velikovsky. However, he stipulated that if the manuscript would be read and approved by a well known scholar he knew, then he would find the time to read it, and he or a colleague would carry out the experiments in question.

Dr. Horace Kallen, a well-known scholar and co-founder of the New School for Social Research in New York, read Velikovsky's work. Deeply impressed, he wrote to Shapley and urged him to carry out the experiments, saying that if the theory should prove valid, "not only astronomy but history and a good many of the anthropological and social sciences would need to be reconsidered both for their content and explanation."

Shapley, when he heard that the work cast doubt on the stability of the solar system, sufficed with the following reply: "If Velikovsky is right, the rest of us are crazy."

Not only that, a short time after the book appeared in print, a university student asked Shapley whether she could base her research paper on the book. He answered her in the negative, saying Velikovsky was a liar and a forger. As for her question whether he read the book, Shapley provided the following scientific answer: "I didn't read it and I don't plan on reading it, because he is a liar and a forger." It was as simple as that. When it came to Velikovsky, the famous American "benefit of the doubt" had for some reason disappeared. At the onset of 1950, when the Macmillan publication company announced its intentions to publish Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision", Shapley tried to prevent the book from going to press. He threatened to "sever his ties" with the company, which relied on textbook sales for a substantial part of its profits. In what seemed to be an organized boycott, a long line of letters arrive in the Macmillan offices, all written by scientists, authors, and professors who used Macmillan textbooks for their courses. The letters warned the company to abandon its plan of publishing Velikovsky's books. At that point Macmillan had already begun the printing process. Faced with a though dilemma, the company announced that it would agree to a last minute critique of the book by three well known scientists. When two out of the three approved publication, Macmillan went ahead with the printing and the book appeared on the shelves in April of that year.

Thats when the storm broke.

Many saw the logic in Velikovsky's ideas and supported his right to express them. Gordon A. Atwater, curator or the Hayden Planetarium in New York's Museum of Natural History, is quoted at the beginning of Hulton Urstler's column in Readers Digest as saying that "the theories presented by Dr. Velikovsky are unique and should be presented to the world of science in order that the underpinnings of modern science be re-examined.

Atwater was so taken by Velikovsky's ideas that he planned an exhibit in the planetarium depicting the theory of Worlds in Collision. In addition, he prepared a cover article for the weekly "This Week", enjoining readers to approach the book without prior suspicions or preconceptions.

The night before the weekly went to print, Atwater was asked to resign from his position at the museum.

A short time later, Macmillan fired James Putnam, the editor who had arranged the book contract. Pressure mounted on Macmillan to stop marketing "Worlds in Collision". Eight weeks after the book first appeared, Macmillan transferred rights to Doubleday, a company that specialized in non-academic publications. That was an unprecedented step in the history of book publishing, especially considering that at the time, "Worlds in Collision" was at the top of the New York Times bestseller list for works of non-fiction.

The initial opposition to Velikovsky's ideas was so violent that several commentators were reminded of Galileo's condemnation by the Inquisition.

He was called every possible derisive name: charlatan, trickster, forger, ignoramus, money hungry, manipulative, stupid, and who knows what else.

Several books have been written about only one subject, the treatment that Velikovsky got from the scientific establishment.

Science burning books.

All this tells us that the way that science reacts on a certain idea or discovery, is in no way an indicator for the veracity or importance of it.

You can very well be ridiculed and ignored by science, and still be right.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AZPaul3, posted 03-07-2014 9:47 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2014 8:53 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2014 10:03 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 68 of 139 (721538)
03-09-2014 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Eliyahu
03-09-2014 8:37 AM


You expect to do philosophy of science without understanding either.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 8:37 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 69 of 139 (721539)
03-09-2014 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by AZPaul3
03-07-2014 10:39 AM


Re: This is real
Then explain why something with a so obvious fallacy passes through six years of peer review by the worlds best statisticians and was then published in Statistical Science.

Here's a hint.

quote:Mr. Witztum concedes my point that because referees dont always give papers extremely careful consideration, the acceptance in a scientific journal is only a weak indication of the papers correctness. But he says that his paper was different. First he claims that it passed scrutiny by Persi Diaconis, who all agree is one of the worlds leading statisticians. In fact, while Diaconis did think the paper worthy of publication as a discussion piece accompanied by a rebuttal, he was doubtful enough about the result that he offered to write that rebuttal himself. Moreover, at the time he was under the incorrect impression that the experimenters had used a statistical test he had proposed, when in fact they had used a completely different test which improved their result (see footnote 39). Recently, Diaconis has become convinced that the paper is totally invalid.

Bs'd

Nonsens. See here what happened: http://www.torahcode.co.il/english/persi2.htm



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 03-07-2014 10:39 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 70 of 139 (721540)
03-09-2014 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by NoNukes
03-08-2014 8:44 PM


Look into the Great Rabbis Experiment and you'll see.

An actual discussion of this matter would be about Witztum, Rips, and Rosenberg's [WRR] paper and the many papers refuting his paper. I asked you for a pointer to the paper and the attempts to refute it that you labeled ineffective. You answered my post but provided no citation.

You have since admitted that you cannot follow the statistics in WRR's paper. So what is there worth discussing with you on this topic? You have no way of knowing which of WRR or their detractors are correct because you are incapable of evaluating the arguments of either.

Bs'd

I'm not a mathematician, just like I'm not a paleontologist, and not a biologist, and not a physicist, and a lot more not.

That's why I rely on authorities in those fields, and that's why I don't make up stories myself, but show what big experts in those fields say.

Those combinations were of course predicted in advance.
Look into the Great Rabbis Experiment and you'll see.

No, they were not predicted in advance. WRR alleges that the codes tell of events that happened after the text was written, but his analysis, conducted in 1994, is of events occurring well in the past.

What he predicted, was that that data would be found in the Torah.

The data was fixed in advance, according to guidelines set up by Statistical Science, who demanded a whole new experiment for publication.

A prediction would occur if a living rabbi learned his death date by reading a Bible code. Never happened. Instead there are supposedly a bunch of dates and a 'proximity' to something suggesting a famous rabbi's name.

And all thoroughly debunked shortly after the 1994 paper was published.

There was nothing "thoroughly debunked". All there was was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result. A "refutation" which itself is refuted in a peer reviewed artikel presented at the 18th International Congres for Pattern Recognition in 2006 in Hong Kong.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2014 8:44 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2014 12:00 PM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 78 by arachnophilia, posted 03-09-2014 12:27 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2014 11:29 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 71 of 139 (721541)
03-09-2014 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by ramoss
03-08-2014 7:45 PM


Ah yes, the old 'Torah Codes'.

Sorry, but that has been debunked. With a big enough book, you can find patterns for just about anything. It is not very impressive, and the need to clutch at trying to 'prove' shows a lack of faith.

Here is an analysis about many of the 'Torah code' proponent claims.

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html

Bs'd

Thank you for your brain fart on the subject.

And now the opinion of somebody who does know what he is talking about, Harold Gans:

Mr. Harold Gans

Harold Gans is a graduate of Yeshiva Gur Aryeh and received a Bachelor of Science degree Cum Laude with honors in mathematics from Brooklyn College. He received a Master of Arts degree in mathematics from the Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University, where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow.

For 28 years, Mr. Gans was a Senior Cryptologic Mathematician with the National Security Agency, United States Department of Defense until his retirement in 1996. While there, he received the prestigious Meritorious Civilian Service Award for research, and was certified as a professional cryptanalyst.

Mr. Gans was elected a distinguished member of the Crypto-Mathematics Institute for his many contributions and publications in that field, and has taught mathematics, crypto-mathematics and computer science at the college level.

More info about him HERE

In THIS interview he says the following:

Question: But weren't the Torah codes disproven in the scientific world?

Answer: The controversy began shortly after Mr. Witztum and Dr. Rips published a paper on their Great Rabbis Experiment in the journal Statistical Science in 1994. It reached a point where the same journal published a paper written by an Australian computer scientist who purportedly refuted the Torah codes and claimed the 1994 paper was a hoax.

Statistical Science refused to allow Rips and Witztum to print a defense of their paper something which is unheard of in professional science literature, where the standard rule is that if a refutation of a scientific paper is admitted for publication, the author of the original paper is always given a chance to respond first.

In fact, Witztum and Rips were told that they would be given a chance to respond, and then the journal backed down and would not allow it.

In 2006, at the 18th International Pattern Recognition Conference, which took place in Hong Kong, there were six papers published in support of the Torah codes. All of these papers were subject to peer review, which means that fellow scientists reviewed the papers and could note any flaw in the research or logic that they might find. Were they to find an uncorrectable flaw, the paper would be rejected.

One of the papers that I co-authored proved that the original paper describing the Great Rabbis Experiment was not a hoax, and that the experiment with the rabbis and the cities of their birth and death was valid. That paper referenced the critic's 1999 Statistical Science paper, so that the reviewers could easily refer to it.
According to scientific rules, in order for critics to disprove the Torah codes, they would have to find fatal flaws in each of the six papers presenting a different approach and a different code. This happened five years ago, and to date not a single flaw was found in any of these papers. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over.

Unfortunately, most people don't know the critics have been disproven. When scientists come up to me and try to dispute the validity of the codes, I ask: Can you find a fatal flaw? They pause, and say: No.

Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ramoss, posted 03-08-2014 7:45 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2014 4:33 PM Eliyahu has responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 72 of 139 (721542)
03-09-2014 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
03-07-2014 2:19 PM


Thank you for that admission. So since the same journal tore this imaginary Bible code into shreds and jumped up and down on the pieces, you will now admit that it's stupid, yes?

Bs'd

No, because more peer reviewed articles have been released on the subject, ripping the supposed "refutation" to shreds, and jumping up and down on the pieces, while at the same time thoroughly establishing the Bible codes.

For the finer details see message 71.



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2014 2:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2014 4:10 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 73 of 139 (721543)
03-09-2014 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Adequate
03-07-2014 2:14 PM


Look into the Great Rabbis Experiment and you'll see.

So you're not going to show us any evidence?

Gee, how did I guess?

Bs'd

Here is the whole paper, that's all the evidence you need:

http://www.realbiblecodes.com/experiments/WRR.pdf



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-07-2014 2:14 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2014 12:07 PM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4408
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 74 of 139 (721544)
03-09-2014 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Eliyahu
03-09-2014 8:37 AM


Eliyahu writes:

All this tells us that the way that science reacts on a certain idea or discovery, is in no way an indicator for the veracity or importance of it.

Yet again you write - or more likely copy and paste - an entire sermon to make a blindingly simple and obvious point. Then you quotemine like crazy to try to make it stick.

Don't you get it? You're not preaching to the ignorant here, you're showing yourself to be dishonest by making one-sided, biased and exagerated claims.

New discoveries are just as often welcomed as not, some are welcomed then proven wrong, some unwelcome and also proven wrong - or right. So what?

It's simply irrelevant to the discovery how anybody feels about it - all that matters is that it's thoroughly tested and found true or false eventually.

'They laughed at Galileo' is a silly playground argument.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 8:37 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2014 12:14 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9327
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 75 of 139 (721546)
03-09-2014 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Eliyahu
03-09-2014 9:05 AM


That's why I rely on authorities in those fields, and that's why I don't make up stories myself, but show what big experts in those fields say.

Well the authorities say that WRR's paper is bullocks and my point is that you have no ability to critique that. So talking with you is pointless.

There was nothing "thoroughly debunked". All there was was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result..

As has been discussed several times, a refutation was published in 1999 in the same journal in which the original article appeared.

And calling the debunking 'ridiculous' is not an answer. It is your mere assertion, and we know you are not capable of carrying on a discussion about it.

Further, your characterization of the nature of the rebuttal is completely inaccurate. The flaws in WRR's work are well documented. Essentially no one but a few 'true believers' have adopted the position that the codes have any merit.

In essence, what we have here is a disagreement among experts with you unable to take any meaningful part in a discussion about who is right.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 9:05 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Eliyahu, posted 03-10-2014 12:14 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017