Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2017 4:33 AM
387 online now:
frako, PaulK, vimesey (3 members, 384 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 808,986 Year: 13,592/21,208 Month: 3,074/3,605 Week: 416/933 Day: 5/56 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   The Divine signature in the Torah
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9541
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 76 of 139 (721547)
03-09-2014 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Eliyahu
03-09-2014 9:53 AM


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

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

Finally you provide a pointer. But Theodoric has already done that for you. He also provided a link to the paper, the published rebuttal, and a lot of other critical material.


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 73 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 9:53 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9541
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 77 of 139 (721548)
03-09-2014 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Tangle
03-09-2014 10:03 AM


They laughed at Galileo' is a silly playground argument.

Comparing yourself to Galileo is worth 40 points on John Baez's famous crackpot index.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

quote:

34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.




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 74 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2014 10:03 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 78 of 139 (721549)
03-09-2014 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Eliyahu
03-09-2014 9:05 AM


Eliyahu writes:

I'm not a mathematician ... 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.

so, i'm not a mathematician either. but my father is. his erdos number is 2 (i've personally met paul erdos, when i was very young, before he died), and i have pretty close ties to many 2's and 3's and i think a few 1's, big shots in the mathematical community.

i've also had pleasure of hearing brendan mckay, the anti-code source linked repeatedly in this thread, speak publicly on the topic at an international mathematics conference attended by many prominent mainstream mathematicians. suffice to say, he represents an authority in the field. michael drosnin does not.

though eliyahu rips does seem to be a Ph.D. mathematician, i don't think that is the case for his co-authors (witzum and rotenberg), and his work was largely discredited by, well, brendan mckay. and there hasn't been much other work on the subject, because that was that. this is not the sort of topic that mathematicians usually concern themselves with, even the applied/crypto sorts of mathematicians. at the conference i saw dr. mckay give his lecture, it was scheduled as a "fun aside", and a public lecture (the bible codes were a hot topic then), and trust me when i say, the audience found it all very funny. the smackdown was pretty thorough.

i suggest you read his site, and then his papers, if you want more on the topic. because you're looking to the wrong authorities.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 9:05 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15928
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 79 of 139 (721570)
03-09-2014 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Eliyahu
03-09-2014 9:36 AM


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.

As you're mathematically illiterate, I'm not going to take your word for whose papers are better than whose.

For the finer details see message 71.

It has fine details? Where? Do I have to read every seventh letter?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 9:36 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15928
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(5)
Message 80 of 139 (721572)
03-09-2014 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Eliyahu
03-09-2014 9:22 AM


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.

And yet somehow these alleged six papers don't appear in the program of the conference or in the published proceedings of the conference. Nor does Gans himself. So this looks like a great big lie with a topping of bullshit sauce.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 9:22 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Theodoric, posted 03-09-2014 9:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 87 by Eliyahu, posted 03-10-2014 1:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 81 of 139 (721579)
03-09-2014 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dr Adequate
03-09-2014 4:33 PM


If anything there may have been papers on the subject included in oral presentations. But from what I understand this is not at all anything like having it having it being part of the conference. Maybe someone familiar with scientific conferences can illuminate us on what an oral presentation is at a conference. I am not even sure these we actually presented it just seems from my research that there may have been oral presentations of torah codes at some of these conferences.

Could our Eliyahu be a fan of Eliyahu Rips?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2014 4:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2014 9:44 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15928
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 82 of 139 (721580)
03-09-2014 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Theodoric
03-09-2014 9:14 PM


What he said was "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." I don't see what it can mean for a paper to be published (rather than read) at a conference, unless it means that the paper appeared in the Proceedings of the conference, which they didn't.

So what does Gans mean? Does he mean, as you suggest, that he put on his own unofficial unscheduled sideshow at the time and place where the conference was being held? But then the papers were still not published at the conference.

All this makes nonsense --- double nonsense --- of his claim that:

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.

Apart from the fact that science doesn't work like that (which is why no-one has ever been awarded a Nobel Prize In Triviality And Obscurity), if the papers aren't there in the scientific literature for anyone to pick holes in, then the alleged fact that no-one has done so is neither here nor there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Theodoric, posted 03-09-2014 9:14 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15928
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 83 of 139 (721581)
03-09-2014 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Eliyahu
03-07-2014 1:57 AM


Re: This is real
Something like that is not found in any other religious text, or any non-religious text, except maybe the BS text of Adequate, but that is made especailly for that purpose, and does not serve any other purpose.

But here of course you're not actually telling the truth. Plainly the acrostics I've made do indeed have another easily identifiable use: a towering, looming, blatantly obvious purpose, since as well as their hidden "bullshit" message these posts also serve the purpose of debunking the frequent mistaken reasonings to be found widely in your posts. That as well as doing this they also give us acrostics more skilled than those you hail as showing God's ability is the icing on the cake.

Buthereofcourseyo
u'renotactuallyte
lling the truth.P
lainlytheacrostic
sI'vemadedoindeed
haveanothereasily
identifiableuse:a
towering,looming,
blatantlyobviousp
urpose,sinceaswel
lastheirhidden"bu
llshit"messagethe
sepostsalsoservet
hepurposeofdebunk
ingthefrequentmis
takenreasoningsto
befoundwidelyinyo
urposts.Thataswel
lasdoingthistheya
lsogiveusacrostic
smoreskilledthant
hoseyouhailasshow
ingGod'sabilityis
theicingonthecake


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Eliyahu, posted 03-07-2014 1:57 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15928
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 84 of 139 (721582)
03-09-2014 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Eliyahu
03-09-2014 9:05 AM


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.

N.B: For "show" read "ignore, misrepresent, cherry-pick, or just plain lie about, as expedience dictates". For "big experts in those fields" read "anyone, no matter how marginal, stupid, wrong or obsolete who said something that Eliyahu thinks he can make use of, since for the purposes of his rhetoric this automatically elevates them to the heights of their profession". For examples of this usage, see Eliyahu's other threads, passim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Eliyahu, posted 03-09-2014 9:05 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 85 of 139 (721585)
03-10-2014 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by NoNukes
03-09-2014 12:00 PM


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.

Bs'd

Wrong. Only SOME authorities say it is bullocks. Others say it is authenic.

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.

Right, and they refused a refutation of the refutation, which is now presented at the 18th International Congres for Pattern Recognition in 2006, together with 5 other peer reviewed papers on the Bible codes.

And that "refutation" in Statistical Science did not give a refutation, but it only was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result. That the result was meaningfull was something they couldn't deny.

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.

The answer has been given in a peer reviewed refutation.

Further, your characterization of the nature of the rebuttal is completely inaccurate. The flaws in WRR's work are well documented.

You have no idea what you are talking about. If there were any flaws in it, it would never have been published in a peer reviewed journal to begin with. Certainly not after six years of studying it and calling in the worlds biggest experts, because of the obvious very controversial content.
The paper is flawless.

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.

Let me tell you again how science works:

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.

So, for all intent and purposes, the Torah codes have been scientifically proven, and the debate is over.

.
.
.

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 75 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2014 12:00 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2014 12:22 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 03-10-2014 1:48 PM Eliyahu has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15928
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 86 of 139 (721586)
03-10-2014 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Eliyahu
03-10-2014 12:14 AM


Let me tell you again how science works:

Being wrong twice is no substitute for being right once.

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.

See message #80.

And that "refutation" in Statistical Science did not give a refutation, but it only was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result. That the result was meaningfull was something they couldn't deny.

But this is not true, as one can see, and I have just seen, by reading the paper.

If there were any flaws in it, it would never have been published in a peer reviewed journal to begin with.

Have you gone completely mad?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Eliyahu, posted 03-10-2014 12:14 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Eliyahu, posted 03-10-2014 1:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 87 of 139 (721592)
03-10-2014 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dr Adequate
03-09-2014 4:33 PM


And yet somehow these alleged six papers don't appear in the program of the conference or in the published proceedings of the conference. Nor does Gans himself. So this looks like a great big lie with a topping of bullshit sauce.

Bs'd

Let me guess: Because you, in all your wisdom, cannot find it, therefore it doesn't exist, and it is all bs??

ICPR 2006: Hong Kong, China

18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2006), 20-24 August 2006, Hong Kong, China. IEEE Computer Society 2006 ISBN 0-7695-2521-0

http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/...f/icpr/icpr2006-3.html

Robert M. Haralick: Basic Concepts For Testing The Torah Code Hypothesis. 104-109

Robert M. Haralick: Testing The Torah Code Hypothesis: The Experimental Protocol. 110-115

Eliyahu Rips, Art Levitt: The Twin Towers Cluster in Torah Codes. 408-411

Art Levitt: Component Analysis of Torah Code Phrases. 412-416

Nachum Bombach, Harold Gans: Patterns of Co-Linear Equidistant Letter Sequences and Verses. 1248-1250

Nachum Bombach, Harold Gans: Patterns of Co-Linear Equidistant Letter Sequences and Verses. 149-151



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2014 4:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2014 2:09 AM Eliyahu has responded

    
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 286
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 88 of 139 (721594)
03-10-2014 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
03-10-2014 12:22 AM


Let me tell you again how science works:

Being wrong twice is no substitute for being right once.

Bs'd

Whether you like it or not, that's how science works.

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.

See message #80.

See message 87

And that "refutation" in Statistical Science did not give a refutation, but it only was a ridiculous accusation of a wide spread conspiracy to cook the data in such a way that it would give a meaningfull result. That the result was meaningfull was something they couldn't deny.

But this is not true, as one can see, and I have just seen, by reading the paper.

That is true, as one can see, by just reading the the paper.

If there were any flaws in it, it would never have been published in a peer reviewed journal to begin with.

Have you gone completely mad?

Have you gone completely mad that you think flawed papers are published in peer reviewed scientific journals??



"The only reality is mind and observations."

Richard Conn Henry, professor Johns Hopkin department of physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2014 12:22 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by TrueCreation, posted 03-10-2014 1:34 AM Eliyahu has responded
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2014 1:43 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2014 1:47 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 139 (721596)
03-10-2014 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Eliyahu
03-10-2014 1:18 AM


quote:
Have you gone completely mad that you think flawed papers are published in peer reviewed scientific journals??

This happens quite often. You also previously referenced conference abstracts as if these were 'peer reviewed literature', demonstrating that you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Eliyahu, posted 03-10-2014 1:18 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Eliyahu, posted 03-10-2014 2:35 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15928
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 90 of 139 (721597)
03-10-2014 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Eliyahu
03-10-2014 1:18 AM


.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Eliyahu, posted 03-10-2014 1:18 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017