|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Colors proof of Divine origin of Bible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
If the unit of time is different so is the frequency. And that doesn't matter at all - there could be a linear correlation if the frequency was in cycles per century. The points here are 1) nothing close to a linear correlation has been shown between word-numbers and frequencies and 2) the Hebrews 2500 years ago knew NOTHING about light having frequency or wavelength, or even dual nature as waves and particles. Hell, they didn't even have VHS tapes for their televisions, which they also didn't have!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Yes. You're looking at wavelengths in nanometers while Shore's figures are for wave frequencies in terahertz.
Ah. That’ll teach me to assume that the graphics included in a blog are the correct ones. Thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
. . . Shore's figures are for wave frequencies in terahertz.
This also touches on that if the word values didn’t fall in terahertz there would be the chance that they’d fall in nanometers, and if not in nanometers, in HSB values, if not HSB, then RGB, if not RGB, Pantone, if not Pantone, Toyo, etc. If the colors used in the Bible didn’t fall in line, then some other set of words. Maybe sky equals blue, or Sun yellow, or blood red. If one looked hard enough I’d bet one might even find a set of words in Psalms that would form the Mangnificat (of course there being many versions just helps make this even easier).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Thanks for the link.
Shore article
So this works only you toss out two of the six days out at start? I also don’t see the justification for linking day one to the formation of galaxies.
"I took the six points and correlated each Biblical day - '1 day,' '2 day' - with the scientifically established time period. For example, science has established that galaxies started to be formed about 11.8 billion years ago, the sun and the moon, 4.5 billion years ago, etc. I plotted the cosmological age on the vertical axis and the Biblical timeline (day - one through six) on the horizontal axis. I found them to be arranged in a straight line," Shore says. "Is that possible that the two sets of data, the biblical and the scientific, represent the same 'timeline,' just expressed in different time scales?" he asks. "Statistical analysis shows that the probability that would happen by chance alone is less than 0.0021%," he continues. "If you take out day 2 and day 5 - there's scientific debate about when life as we know it came into existence, or when exactly large scale structures had appeared in the early universe - you can plot just four points. The probability of those four points aligning themselves on a straight line, the way they did, by chance alone is still less than 0.0165%." Then, too, Shore was stunned to find that he wasn't the first Shore to write a book on Genesis. "My father's grandfather, Baruch Schorr, was a famous cantor in Lemberg, called Lvov today," he says. "He wrote two books, one about Ecclesiastes and another about Genesis that he named Bechor Schorr. I only learned about Baruch's book of Genesis - which was published in Lemberg in 1873 - long after my book about Genesis, with Prof. Radday, was published."
Imagine the coincidence if Shore goes onto writing a book on Ecclesiastes! Perhaps Ecclesiastes has the same value as Baruch, or Schorr, or Shore, or grandpa, or grandson, or Cantor, or builder.... [/sarcasm]
"That's just one more coincidence," Shore adds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
His stuff about cosmology is too vague to analyze. But if it's up to his usual standard ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4409 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
The earlier discussion about CYMK and RGB was interesting.
When you look at color pigments, a yellow pigment absorbs blue wavelengths and reflects red and green, cyan absorbs red and reflects green and blue, and magenta absorbs green and reflects blue and red. When you look at white light diffracted by a diffraction grating you see a spectrum. The colors are arranged according to wavelength with red at the longest wavelengths and blue at the shortest and green in the middle. So, red, green and blue are the primary colors of the spectrum. Red is only made from red light and green from green light and blue from blue light, but where the primary colors overlap with their neighbor you get the secondary colors which are made of 2 colors. Yellow falls between red and green and cyan is between green and blue, but what about magenta? It turns out that magenta falls beyond blue because it is made from blue in the first order spectrum and red in the second order spectrum. It turns out the spectrum from a diffraction grating is repeating with each higher order spectrum over-lapping the one before it. I found this out accidentally years ago when I worked in a spectrographic lab where we burned various materials in an electric arc and recorded the spectrum from the arc on glass film plates. One night when I was alone in the lab I put some Kodachrome in the camera and shot some samples and recorded some very cool color spectrums. Something I have always wondered: was the color named after the orange or was the fruit named after the color? Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are all mixed up. -- S.Valley What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
From The Word Detective
quote: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I've assembled the arguments against Shore into a SkepticWiki article.
Haim Shore's Gematria. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Great article. Typo here
or example, in his formula for words relating to time he takes a year to be 35 days I guess this thread has run its course. I was really hoping Livingstone Morford would post and defend his claim. I guess it shows how willing many fundies are to make extraordinary claims, but run away when actual evidence is presented to counter those claims. I guess the real funny part is even Morfords fellow fundies find a huge problem with this.
quote:Source Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
and 2) the Hebrews 2500 years ago knew NOTHING about light having frequency or wavelength, or even dual nature as waves and particles. But that's why the theological implications are unavoidable!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Thanks to Theodoric and Catholic Scientist for pointing out typos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
I figured it out today what about the magenta as green had been gnawing at me. Green and magenta have a relationship, they’re each other’s complementary color. I’m not saying it makes either his data or conclusions correct, it doesn’t. Now in an argument only supported by woo, one could suggest that if you stare at a good solid green long enough, then at a white surface, the white will appear tinted . . . to magenta.
Edited by Trae, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
one could suggest that if you stare at a good solid green long enough, then at a white surface, the white will appear tinted . . . to magenta. It's a MIRACLE!!!11! [/snark]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Good grief, man, do you sleep? The Discussion of Shore's Methods section was esp. fine.
Second paragraph of article: "Perhaps because his status". Edited by Omnivorous, : Italicization run amok. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given. I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past. -J. Mellencamp Real things always push back.-William James
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024