|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Divine signature in the Torah | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
Buthereofcourseyou'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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Whether you like it or not, that's how science works. Can you name one single scientific result that has become established simply by going unnoticed?
See message 87 Thank you, that may well be what I'm looking for.
That is true, as one can see, by just reading the the paper. If you have read the paper, and continue to recite this falsehood, then you are a deliberate liar.
Have you gone completely mad that you think flawed papers are published in peer reviewed scientific journals?? That would be madness? Very well --- according to you, was the paper by McKay et al, which was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, indeed the same peer-reviewed scientific journal (a) flawed (b) not flawed?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"What you have now said," rejoined the father, "would require to be modified a little. Pay attention now, while I explain our method, and you will observe the progress of a new opinion, from its birth to its maturity. First, the grave doctor who invented it exhibits it to the world, casting it abroad like seed, that it may take root. In this state it is very feeble; it requires time gradually to ripen. This accounts for Diana, who has introduced a great many of these opinions, saying: 'I advance this opinion; but as it is new, I give it time to come to maturity- relinquo tempori maturandum.' Thus in a few years it becomes insensibly consolidated; and, after a considerable time, it is sanctioned by the tacit approbation of the Church, according to the grand maxim of Father Bauny, 'that if an opinion has been advanced by some casuist, and has not been impugned by the Church, it is a sign that she approves of it.' And, in fact, on this principle he authenticates one of his own principles in his sixth treatise, p. 312." "Indeed, father! " cried I, "why, on this principle the Church would approve of all the abuses which she tolerates, and all the errors in all the books which she does not censure!" --- Pascal, Provincial Letters Plus a change ... Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Eliyahu Rips, Art Levitt: The Twin Towers Cluster in Torah Codes. 408-411 I've got to admit, this is impressive.
Oh, wait. That's the Hebrew translation of War And Peace.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Can you enlighten us on the statistical relevence of that particular code? Can you enlighten us as to what that gibberish is supposed to mean? While you're thinking that one over, can you find us a similarly impressive 9/11 "prediction" in the Torah?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is the scientific viewpoint: No. Let me ask you again. Can you think of a single scientific truth which has become established by being ignored? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Bs'd The only problem with that statement is, that it is the rantings of a layman, who cannot bring the slightest proof for his blabber. The fact of the matter is, that the religion hating scientific community has had now 8 years to refute these papers, and they came up with exactly nothting. There are plenty mathematicians out there with a lot of time on their hands who, just like you, hate religion and the Bible codes, who could have written a rebuttal in the past eight years, and made a name for themselves as the one who debunked the Bible codes. That just didn't happen, for the simple reason that there is no rebuttal, and they didn't want to make a fool of themselves. Does this nonsense even convince you? You think, seriously, that mathematicians would "make a name for themselves" by stooping to re-debunk an already-debunked bit of trivial crackpottery? I have to wonder about the mental world that you live in. Can you think of one scientist or mathematician, just one, whose reputation rests on publicly humiliating a harmless crank?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Except that that rebuttal is rebutted. No.
See here how it works in science: No. --- You need some new lies. Or the truth, that has some merits.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Bring arguments, don't be just a naysayer. We --- and I in particular --- did bring arguments, which you ignored in favor of reciting the same old crap. Either you found the arguments unanswerable, or your program has got stuck in a loop. Either way, it is not necessary to supply any new arguments unless you can produce some new crap. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Didn't you see him explaining how every table vanishes from existence once you leave the room? I didn't, but that sounds like the sort of thing I would enjoy.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024